CC Minutes - 09/27/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner said he hoped the current station was preserved and restored in time for the sesquicentennial celebration. He asked if there was a possibility that additional money would be available for such restoration. Ms. Andersen said that Amtrak is very concerned that grant funds can be used to implement projects in a timely manner as it must report to Congress on the effective use of its funds. She said if the City was in a position to move aggressively on the project, it improved the City's chances of acquiring additional funds. Mr. Meisner wondered if the resolution restricted the City to the area outlined on the wall charts. Ms. Andersen said that at this point the area described was broad enough to leave open the possibility of including the old baggage annex east of the station. Mr. Meisner reported on a tour he took of the buildings and made a public appeal for photos of the original lobby and other interior areas. Mr. Kelly said he wanted to be sure the property owners understood that the condemnation proceeding was a formality. Ms. Andersen clarified that council action on this issue would serve to authorize use of condemnatory procedure to acquire needed property; however, a court proceeding would be a last resort taken by the City should it fail to reach a negotiated settlement with the property owner. Addressing a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Larsen confirmed that all the property in question was owned by one party and in the course of negotiations that party has agreed to continue to maintain the two railroad buildings east of the station in their original configuration and appearance. Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting. Mr. Kelly asked which four parcels were subject to eminent domain; and, if the purpose for including the eastern most parcels was access, why was that not stated in the resolution? Ms. Andersen explained that it was not the City's desire to purchase all the properties and the intent of the resolution was to identify those parcels that staff anticipated would be impacted by the City's acquisition needs. She added that the issue of access was still under negotiation. Mr. Kelly wondered why the resolution could not specifically state the portions under consideration as access to be "determined by the design." Mr. Larsen said the identification was usually done by tax lot numbers regardless of the size of the portion of interest to the City. Ms. Andersen said it would be possible to reference access as the primary function for those particular lots. Mr. Rayor said he believed identifying parcel 4 alone would be sufficient to secure funding, and that as negotiations and preliminary designs develop, staff could prepare an additional ordinance for the other parcels. He had concerns with identifying all six properties in the condemnation proceeding. Ms. Andersen acknowledged that this was an unusual case, noting that usually the project would be designed by this time in the process. She said the North End Scoping Group discussion included access to the train station and the intention here was not to acquire extraordinary amounts of land but rather to work with the property owner on how best to meet the mutual needs. Mr. Rayor said he would then have to agree with Mr. Kelly on identifying the parcels where the interest was limited to access. Hugh Prichard, representing the property owner, explained that the party was comfortable with the ordinance as drafted. Mr. Meisner said that the resolution authorized the institution of condemnation but he assumed that if the necessity arose, staff would provide a report before anything was filed. He emphasized that this was not a building project but rather a functional one. Mr. Meisner said he was very concerned about not acquiring the old baggage shed because there did not seem to be enough ticket window area now, adding he wanted to avoid having to expand the building later. MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 27, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m.