Laserfiche WebLink
Council Meeting Minutes Page 13' <br />January 26, 1988 <br />tion that no adequate replacement housing was available on the <br />market at the time of the displacement. <br />LeFevere continued that the amounts allowed and paid so far have <br />totalled $15,000. With regard to litigation expenses, it is true <br />the regulations provide for a payment of attorney's fees; Gunn did <br />not point. out, however, that-the state law also requires a payment <br />of attorney's fees in inverse condemnations; and they provide for <br />payment of those. attorney's fees which are available under the <br />Federal Uniform Relocation Regulations. LeFevere stated a deci- - <br />sion has been made by the District Court as to the amount of en- <br />titlement of attorney's fees for the inverse condemnation action. <br />LeFevere believes- attorney's fees have been paid and it has been <br />properly adjudicated by the District Court in Ramsey County. Re- <br />garding the interest, LeFevere stated he has been unable to find <br />entitlement in the regulations for the payment of interest, nor <br />has he been able to find any precedence for payment of interest on <br />relocation benefits. <br />Benke summarized that LeFevere feels the city has already paid the <br />amount of money it is obligated to pay under the terms of both <br />state and federal regulations. LeFevere stated he was not aware <br />of any legal precedent that establishes that the applicant is <br />entitled to any more, and found nothing in the regulations that <br />entitles the applicant to any more than has already been paid. <br />Benke stated the action needed to be considered tonight is a <br />simple decision to confirm or overrule the City Manager's <br />decision; LeFevere confirmed and stated the procedural resolution <br />adopted by the City Council in 1986 requires the City Council to <br />notify the applicant of its decision, in writing stating the rea- <br />sons for the City Council's decision. .Whatever decision is made, <br />it would be by direction to staff to prepare a resolution-effect- <br />uating the decision so that it could be approved or modified by <br />the City Council at the next council meeting and then be served on <br />the applicant. <br />In response to Benke's request, LeFevere reviewed Gunn's comments <br />regarding extraordinary' delays. LeFevere stated, not attributing <br />fault to anyone, when a city acquires property certain relocation <br />counselling, benefits, and payments are to be made in a very short <br />period of time (in some cases they are made prior to the displace- <br />ment). The regulations contemplate a process for a normal condem- <br />nation; in this case it was some years after the displacement that <br />the City Council was judged by the court to have displaced- a <br />person by taking the home. Whatever the fault or cause of the <br />delay, it has resulted in a claim for interest, for which the reg- <br />ulations do not provide (ordinarily it wouldn't even be an issue <br />because payments would-have been made within a short period of <br />time). Because this is an unusual situation, we have some extra- <br />ordinary claims that are being made because of the-long period of <br />time over which this dispute has gone.. <br />Beyond that, LeFevere commented that, in the materials submitted <br />by Oswalt, there are quite a number of complaints about. things the <br />