Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

public notice of the hearing. Ms. Taylor asked how long eminent domain took to accomplish. Mr. Klein said the State law included a quick take process that took less time than the 12 to 18 months the legal process required. Ms. Taylor asked if the owners of the land could do something with the land in the meantime. Mr. Klein said yes. However, unless they were to self-finance, it would be difficult for the property owners to secure bank financing for development in the light of a condemnation trial. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Klein reviewed the elements of Ballot Measure 39. Mr. Zelenka observed that the measure made it much easier for those being condemned to receive attorney fees. Mr. Zelenka asked if the acquisition would require an urban growth boundary (UGB) expansion for the park to be developed. Mr. Medlin said that for the City to use the property for parks purposes, it would need to seek a conditional use permit for a change of use from Lane County or bring the property inside the UGB. In other words, the property could become a City park without expanding the UGB. Mr. Klein noted there were City parks outside the UGB but they were not community centers. If the park contained a community center providing urban service levels and requiring an urban level of services, it would probably have to come inside the UGB. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Medlin said staff had not discussed either a UGB expansion or the conditional use process with Lane County. Mayor Piercy thought such discussions would be useful. Mr. Clark asked if there were uses on the property that could delay the City’s acquisition process. Mr. Klein did not think so. He said the property owner could attempt to create a use that increased the value of the property and made it more expensive for the City to acquire. If that occurred, and the City condemned the property, the fair market value of the development must be paid; however, that would not preclude condemnation. Mr. Clark recalled a discussion about an easement across the four parcels that go around the school and were between the Faver and McClay parcels. He asked if that was still part of the City’s long-term planning if both end parcels were acquired. Mr. Medlin thought if the City acquired both parcels it would have an interest in acquiring the southerly portion of those parcels in between. He did not think the City would seek an easement, but would instead seek to acquire the southerly portion of these parcels. Mr. Clark said that former councilor Papé had been interested in filling a promise he had made to residents of Ward 5 to see the park built, but he did not feel the same motivation of time and was not interested in tying staff’s hand or paying lawyers to fight battles that were more contentious than necessary. He wanted to hear a progress report regarding the acquisition by summer 2007. Ms. Bettman determined from Mr. Medlin that the middle school was an active school operated by School District 4J. She further determined from Mr. Medlin it would probably take at least five years to develop a community park. Ms. Bettman asked how long it would take to determine ownership of the parcel with disputed ownership. Mr. Medlin did not know. The parties involved were attempting to settle the dispute out of court. The City had tried to stay out of the conflict but let both parties know of its interest in buying the property. Ms. Bettman asked about the potential Ballot Measure 37 claim. Mr. Medlin was unsure of the basis of the claim. The City’s assessment was based on the current zoning and the property owner refused to sell it at the appraised price. He hoped for a better resolution from the legislature so the City could work with the MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 9, 2007 Page 6 Work Session