06/10/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Stan Long;:- assistant city attorney, said salient points were that the City had a contractual obligation to 'co-operate with the Renewal Agency, that the franchise -.. under which PNB placed the conduit was in the nature of a revocable type license, and based on research and previous arguments it was the opinion of the City Attorney's office that compensation was not required - if it was to be required, the appropriate place to determine that was in the courts. He added 'that if the City decided payment was required from ERA it would seem right for. ERA to be reimbursed, and that would entail some risk'since the Council did not have. authori ty to payout public funds unless it was a clearly- established obligation. There was no vested right under the franchise or State Law, he said, and if that was in error the proper place of determination would be in the courts. He suggested that if the matter went to litigation, ERA would be in possession in a short time thr.ough condemnation anyway. And if there was delay, .pu!,chas ers of ERA property would have some claims, which would add to the prob~ems. Manager noted the same question raised previously in the vacation of other alleys in the downtown project area, the lengthy discussion at that time with regard to whether it was of benefit to the public or the redeveloper. Council at that time decided it was a public purpose. He _reminded the Council that the Renewal Agency was the city and not a small group of men engaged for their own benefit or profit. Also, the PNB ratepayers are the same public. He noted the contract between the city and ERA calling for vacation of alleys in accordance with the renewal plan for the downtown area as redevelopment o'ccurred. And he said itE;.eEl!ll~d, :.p.ari;iGularly important in indicating his feeling to note that the City Attorney and ERA's- attorney had given advice which should be followed because he' could see no reason why the vacation should not proceed and the question of compensation settled later. If arrangements could be worked out to build around the conduit as suggested, that could also be worked out after the building design for that block was further along. He recommended proceeding with the alley vacations. Council Bill No. 574 - Vacating alleys between 6th ann 7th, Willamette and Olive, and between 7th and 8th for one-half block west from Willamette was read- by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enact- ment be cons idered at this time. ... .~~~~ .J--- -,:: ~- --~ ~ ~ -.' .: ~ - ~. .,~_. ; "~'- Councilman Williams could see no.~fault with the argument that the vacation could proceed at the same time settling in the courts the matter of compensation. However, he wondered why immediate vacation was requested if the design-for buildings on that block was not far enough along at this point to determine whether" the conduit could be accommodated in place. Manager noted delay which had already occurred because of rescheduled Council meetings in May. He said the hotel project on that block was tied in with the transit terminal and parking district projects on which commit- ments were made. Also, replacement conduit should be ordered as quickly as possible because of apparent problems in obtaining proper materials to do the job. Dave Hunt, ERA director, added that it had been three months since the vacation petition was actually filed and two months since it was recommended by the Planning Commission. Discussions with PNB had been held over a long period of time, with regard to vacating downtown alleys, he said,-and they have indicated they would not start to relocate this conduit until the alleys were vacated. He said even a two-week delay would put the project into bad weather. Also, talks with the developer with regard to locating on this block occurred about a year after the last Council discussion on a similar vacation, so even though ERA could talk about a design to accomodate the conduit they would not offer a site with an easement running through the middle. Mr. Hunt said they would be happy to discuss with the developer possibilities for retaining the conduit in place, but it would be the rdeveloper's decision because a cleared site-had been offered with no easements and a substantial contract was involved. Mr. Hunt didn't believe a two-week delay would provide enough time to develop design criteria:oto~determinewhether the conduit could remain. In answer to Councilman McDonald, -Mr. Hamel said he believed a delay would glve the opportunity to determine whether.the conduit could be moved: to a lower depth in the same location. Also, that delay would expedite an ultimate decision because it would avoid litigation. Mr. McDonald could see no reason $6r~n9t delaying a couple of weeks to allow an opportunity to resolve the issue. Councilman Hershner saw the question as one of compensation, saying there was no question about whether the alleys would be vacated, and that it seemed the attorneys were pretty much at odds as to whether compensation could legally be a~lowed. He was curious whether PNB would request compensation in the event the conduit could be placed at a lower depth in the same location. Mr. Hamel felt that would be difficult to determine: He believed there was room for compromise depending upon the ex~ense involved. '~3 6/1.0/74 - 2 Go ( 0 379 ) . .' . /- ~. . (0585 ) .' , v .; (0617) J