Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

ownership, and the City was not sure who owned the property. One of the claimants maybe a willing seller; the other was not. It did not appear either parcel would change use in the near term. Mayor Piercy believed the legislature was intent on completing its work by mid-June, and asked when the item would be rescheduled. Mr. Medlin said staff had not discussed that. He thought it was the council’s decision. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Bettman asked what legislative action was contemplated. City Attorney Glenn Klein indicated there was a committee looking at a possible rewrite of Ballot Measure 37. If the legislature referred such a measure, the measure would be revised in a way that reduced the types of claims that could be filed, which would possibly have an effect on the property with a potential Ballot Measure 37 claim. Ms. Bettman asked what would happen if the legislature failed to take action. Mr. Klein said the dispute with the property owner would remain as it was today. Ms. Bettman asked if there was a disadvantage to adopting the ordinance to make the City’s position clear while awaiting the resolution of the issues identified. Mr. Medlin said that it placed a different tone on the negotiations. There might also be Ballot Measure 39 issues. Mr. Klein said that because the property would be acquired for public use, he did not think there would be a problem with Ballot Measure 39. He agreed with Mr. Medlin the tone of negotiations could be affected. Ms. Bettman asked where the money intended for the acquisition was, if it was collecting interest, and if so, how much was it and where did it go. Mr. Medlin said the amount in question was originally larger and nearer to $1 million, but the costs of working on the acquisition were charged against the capital account for the acquisition, currently leaving only about $900,000. Ms. Bettman suggested that was an argument in favor of moving expeditiously. Mr. Poling hoped that until the legal issues were resolved with regard to both parcels, the City continued to negotiate in good faith and not use the hammer of eminent domain unless it became absolutely necessary. He asked why the work session was scheduled, as he felt a memorandum updating the council would have been sufficient. He did not see the council being able to take action. City Manager Taylor said former Councilor Gary Papé had been interested in the topic and advocated for the work session. He agreed that the discussion was premature. He thought the delay would give the City the opportunity to have a better working relationship with the owners after the outstanding disputes about the one property were resolved. Ms. Taylor asked about the current use of the land. Mr. Medlin said one was zoned for Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and the other was rural residential (RR). Ms. Taylor asked if the residents of Santa Clara wanted the City to acquire the property in question. Mr. Medlin said the active residents with whom the City had worked were in support of the acquisition. Ms. Taylor thought the land in question quite distant from most of the people living in the area. Mr. Medlin conceded the parcel was on the edge of the urban growth boundary but there was considerable residential development on three sides of it, as well as County residents living to the east. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Klein why eminent domain for parks was different than for other properties. Mr. Klein said Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 226 stated that when a government wanted to condemn land for parks, it must pass an ordinance; in other cases, the government may pass an ordinance or resolution with the legal description of the property. The City Charter also required a public hearing and 10 working days’ MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 5 Work Session