Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Papd said he had talked to General Services Administration (GSA) staff in the last week and he did not <br />want to increase or decrease the agency's obligations by being too specific in Section 2. He thought it <br />important to include the potential of condemnation in the resolution. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to amend section 2 by removing "market" <br /> before the word "value," inserting the phrase "as provided by law" after the word <br /> "value," and deleting the remainder of the sentence. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly observed that he had been about to commend staff for the wording of Section 2. He thought that the <br />section provided context for the negotiation. If the amendment was passed, he would not support the <br />resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not support the amendment. He thought it important to communicate to the public that the <br />City did not intend to take the AutoCraft property and pay the owner nothing. He said that the section was <br />merely a statement of what the law provides. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor agreed with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Johnson said that the resolution as written recognized what <br />was required by law. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart agreed the council needed to address community perceptions about the AutoCraft situation. There <br />were some in the community who thought that the City intended to take the property without compensation. <br />He asked if relocation took into account revenue lost from the time the business was being relocated. Mr. <br />Johnson did not know. Mr. Farmer said in his experience, the federal relocation process usually resulted in <br />more compensation to the businesses than it would have realized in revenues. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart emphasized the importance of locating the federal courthouse in Eugene and the need to be fair to <br />AutoCraft and its employees. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the resolution as drafted as it did not provide for more than what the law allowed. She <br />noted her previous vote against the last resolution on the topic as she felt there had been inadequate <br />exploration of all options. She strongly supported the location of the courthouse downtown; while she was <br />unsure the Chiquita site was the best site, she believed it could work. Ms. Bettman supported the resolution. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Mr. Johnson indicated he was satisfied with the text of the <br />resolution. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said the City was in competition with Springfield for the courthouse, and Springfield would like to <br />see AutoCraft succeed in its effort to retain its current site because that would mean the courthouse would go <br />to Springfield. He said the council should ensure that the company was treated fairly and appropriately, but <br />the reference to relocation benefits sufficient to enable AutoCraft to operate from another location was <br />problematic because the company was arguing it could not operate from any other location in the community. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart was confident the City could treat AntoCraft fairly. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 31, 2001 Page 12 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />