CC Minutes - 05/14/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman about what would be accomplished in the 30-day delay requested by Mr. Maynard, Mr. Klein believed it would merely delay adoption of the ordinance for 30 days. Councilor Bettman repeated her question to Mr. Maynard. Mr. Maynard responded that Ms. Ruth has offered to purchase the property. Mr. Junkin had counseled Ms. Ruth that the ten years expired January 17, 2000, because the council took action on an ordinance related to the purchase of the property on that date ten years earlier. Ms. Ruth believed she had the right to purchase the property, and wanted the 30 days' extension because she wanted to work out the details of the purchase. He said that Ms. Ruth was sincere in her wish to purchase the property. Also, he disagreed with Mr. Klein that the issues were as clear-cut as the City Attorney's Office believed. Mr. Maynard maintained that what the City was attempting to do was tantamount to a substitute condemnation. Councilor Papd clarified the details of the property settlement that took place ten years previous with City staff. He confirmed the City paid fair market value for the property. Councilor Nathanson summarized the situation, saying the intent of the acquisition was not just to build a roadway, but to add the property to the renewal district to realize a larger vision of development along the riverfront. City Manager Johnson confirmed Councilor Nathanson's statement. Mayor Torrey asked Mr. Klein to confirm that, if the council passed the motion, the property owner would lose none of her legal rights, and if the City was challenged by the property owner, there would be the opportunity to secure compensation in the form of attorney's fees. Mr. Klein was unable to confirm those statements. Mayor Torrey asked about the source of the purchase price cited by the property owners' representatives. Mr. Klein said the State statutes gave the property owners the right to repurchase the property for the original purchase price plus seven percent annually since the City acquired the property. Councilor Rayor noted that in the absence of an emergency clause, the ordinance would not take effect for 30 days, giving Ms. Ruth the time she requested. City Manager Johnson concurred, but pointed out that the council had not expressed interest in selling the property to Ms. Ruth. Responding to a question from Councilor Bettman, Mr. Klein clarified that the ten-year provision was not in the agreement itself, but in the ordinance the council passed authorizing the condemnation. He further clarified that the settlement agreement related to the purchase of property under threat of condemnation generally indicated what the property would be used for and within what period of time. The date was ten years from the date the City actually acquired the property. The ordinance states ten years from the date of ordinance adoption, but the property was acquired two years later than that. The State statute suggests the ten-year period began on the date the property was acquired; the settlement agreement was silent on that point. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said that the condemnation ordinance always included the intended purpose for the property, but the level of specificity depended on why the property was being acquired. Councilor Nathanson hoped that specific building and site design conditions would be developed for the parcel in question. She asked if that was underway. City Manager Johnson said that staff was not far enough along in the discussions about the federal courthouse and related development plans to say yes. Councilor Nathanson said that with building and site design conditions imposed, with a new federal courthouse, and with the redevelopment of remainder of site, the City was accomplishing the goals of the district. She stated for the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 11 Regular Meeting