The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/16/1977 Meeting .e e .e EXECUTIVE SESSION EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 16, 1977 Present: Mayor Keller; Council members Haws, Hamel, Williams, Bradley, Lieuallen, Smith, and Oble; City Manager; Assistant City Manager; Stan Long, Gary Chenkin, Ed Smith, Joyce Benjamin, Walt Hanek, and Ann Baker In accordance with ORS 192.660, subsection (2)(d) and a unanimous vote of the Council, Mayor Keller opened the meeting. Manager said there were two items for Council consideration: (1) authorization of condemnation for land acquisition in the Bethel/Danebo area for park development; ~nd (2) Shade Oaks water litigation suit. I. Land Acquisition in Bethel/Danebo Area Mr. Ed Smith, Parks and Recreation Department, said the property was 12 acres listed as Priority III in the Bethel refinement plan, located off Royal past Candlelight, and the Department was seeking condemnation authority to acquire the property. The reason for recommending condemnation was that the present property owners, who are unwilling to sell, were requesting that procedure. The money was appropriated and is available from the 1972 bond issue designated for that area. Mayor Keller asked for a clarification of "condemnation", as he felt the word had a very negative connotation. He wondered, also, if a precedent would be set, and Other property owners would assume the City would follow condemnation procedures to allow tax advantages for them. Mr. Smith said that in almost every case the City faces for acquisition, there could be a tax advantage for the property owners in condemnation proceedings, and indicated there were many cases pending to come before Council. He said the tax issue will be much more complicated on many of these cases. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the City has to follow the request of property owners to con- demn property. Mr. Smith said these particular owners did not say so in so many words, and this was simply an assessment on the part of the Parks Department that they would be more willing to sell under condemnation procedures. Mr. Long, City Attorney's office, indicated he, and most attorneys, would advise property owners to hold out for condemnation procedures by the City in selling property to them, as the sellers then perhaps could profit from tax benefits or at least hold out for higher prices. Mayor Keller again reiterated a concern over the use of "condemnation" and that he would prefer to avoid making the City look like a "bad guy". Mr. Martain said it depends on what terms were used; that in the past, Council had authorized staff to "acquire property". Mr. Long said the terms, "exercise power of eminant domain" would avoid condemnation and the negative connotations of that term. Mr. Bradley expressed concern over the precedent set by the City, and was opposed to allowing condemnation if the purpose was to allow property owners to benefit from tax advantages. He felt it was morally wrong, and could be considered collusion on the part of the Council. Mr. Lieuallen said that was illegal, that there are laws prohibiting a City from engaging in activities which would benefit a person. 13/ .~~.~ --~~." e Mr. Haws asked what other property in the area was selling for. Mr. Hanek, Parks Acquisition Specialist, said the appraisers looked for comparable land values, which ranged from $6,500 to $8,000; an adjustment had been made on this particular piece of property with regards to access to the property and the time limit involved, but that the price is within the range of comparable property in the area. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the City would incur a tax. liability if the property were converted to another use than farm use, as it now stands. Mr. Long replied that there are statutes allowing withholding proceeds of the sale to pay taxes, and indicated that the negotiation sets procedures and processes. Mr. Obie asked how soon the property would be developed, to which Mr. Smith replied approximately five years, as the Peterson Park in that area had priority development. Managed indicated action should be taken at Committee of the Whole February 16. asking Council to authorize Manager and staff to exercise right of eminant domain in acquisition of the property. II. Shade Oaks Water Litigation e Mr. Long gave a background presentation for the benefit of new Council members. He explained that in 1975 people in the Shade Oaks Homeowners Association and the Willamette Water Company applied to the Boundary Commission to extend water services to the area for domestic water. The area is located outside the projected urban service boundary of the City, and EWEB sells surplus water to the Willamette Water Company. The Boundary Commission's approval of this contract amounted to directing city water through EWEB to an area outside the city urban service area. The agreement between Willamette Water Company and EWEB did not represent an agreement by the City to supply water for that area. The Boundary Commission's order was conditional upon EWEB agreeing to modify the contract so it could physically serve the area. Mr. Long indicated that Willamette Water Company can sell water wherever it wants to, and could sell from another supplier if it wanted to, or was able to. The case before the Boundary Commission dealt with a presentation by the Shade Oaks people, stating they did not have adequate water for household use, fire protection, etc. The Boundary Commission acted on the basis they simply had no water. The City testified this was contrary to City policy. When the request was granted by the Boundary Commission, three issues were at stake: (I) the integrity of the urban services area concept; (2) the county has no regulations or general or refinement plan in that area; (3) there was no proof of adequate water supply prior to the development. Mr. Long said the concerns included the effect this might have on "sprawl .a.spects" implicated in the decision, and that the Boundary Commission had not looked at or adhered to city laws or metropolitan planning policies. Therefore a Writ of Review challenging the validity of the decision was filed by the City. The Circuit Court reversed the decision for a technical reason in which Mr. Long argued that adequate legal reasons for the Boundary Commission's decision did not exist. The Boundary Commission argued that it did not have to have legal reasons. The Judge said there was no way he could determine how the Boundary Commission con- sidered or'~ached its decision. e. Executive Session 2/16/77 -2 132 e e - On October 7, 1976, there was a second hearing before the Boundary Commission, in which the City was not given a chance to make a full presentation. Mr. Long then filed a second Writ of Review. Mr. Long state that Shade Oaks was prepared to agree to some conditions in settling the litigation. He said the City was in a position now to settle the case on terms more favorable than probably would occur by allowing the court to settle the issue. Mr. Haws asked if the case goes to court and the City loses, would the City be forced to supply water to this area. Mr. Long replied yes. Mr. Haws expressed opposition to extending water outside of the urban service district. He said if those people chose to live in that area, then they should have to solve their own problems. But he also indicated that if it would be in the City's best interest to supply water to this one area, he would be willing to change his position in this one particular situation. Mr. Long replied that it would be in the City's best interest and would advise Council to approve settlement out of court, with conditions imposed on the Shade Oaks area. Mr. Bradley expressed his concern that the County had gotten the City into this position and wondered if there was something that could be done to have better cooperation between the City and County to avoid such a situation occurring in the future. Manager said action at the Committee of the Whole February 16 should be a request for Council approval for staff to be authorized to enter into a settlement agree- ment out of court with Shade Oaks. Meeting was adjourned. C3L)~ CharI es T. Henry City Manager Executive Session 2/16/77 -3 133