Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-.--) <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />March 26, 1996 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />Williams requests that the option of allowing the owners to remain during the grading <br />process be explored during negotiation.<;. Locke said the City intends to negotiate an <br />agreement which is in the best interest of the City and the owners. <br /> <br />Dorothy Plocienik, 577 Old Hwy 8, and her husband, Frank, have lived at this property <br />for 43 years. Prank is 78 years old and Dorothy is 71 years old; and both have much <br />anxiety about the condemnation process. She questioned why the City needs to use <br />eminent domain to construct a building when there is no interested tenant at this time. <br />If condemnation proceedings begin, the Plocieniks request the City pay for an appraiser <br />of their choice. Staff will provide information to the Plocieniks regarding their rights <br />during these proceedings. Benke said the City prefers not to go into condemnation, and <br />noted that the process protects the owner's right by enlisting an impartial party to <br />determine the outcome. Benke hopes the City can reach a mutual agreement with the <br />Plocieniks. <br /> <br />Williams asked if condemnation can be deferred 60 days in order to negotiate with the <br />owners and determine tenancy concerns. Locke said the City would pay for appraisals, <br />and relocation expenses will be discussed. Timing is the main concern, and eminent <br />domain provides the City with the ability to have certainty of the possession time line. <br />Delaying action could risk the City in being unable to live up to the agreement terms. <br />Eminent domain requires 90 days before action is taken by the court. Williams feels <br />that given the length of tenancy and the owner's ages, he prefers a 30-60 day deferral be <br />applied before eminent domain is exercised. He requests that staff begin negotiations <br />with the owners as soon as possible. <br /> <br />Benke is somewhat sensitive to the construction deadlines, but feels an agreement should <br />be made without eminent domain. City Attorney Charlie LePevere said Council could <br />delay action until April 23 when more information is known. One option would be for <br />Council to adopt the resolution tonight, but direct that no legal action be taken until <br />authorized. Benke would prefer not to approve the resolution contingent on the April 23 <br />outcome. Locke acknowledged that the relocation process can be difficult. Benke feels <br />that by April 23, staff will have a much better idea on how the negotiation process is <br />going. Benke prefers to table the action until April 23, and direct staff to continue <br />negotiations with the property owners. <br /> <br />Motion by Williams, seconded by Larson, to TABLE THE RESOLUTION <br />AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF TIF #2S BY EMINENT DOMAIN UNTIL <br />APRIL 23,1996; AND DIRECT STAFF TO NEGOTIATE WITH ALL <br />AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY AND <br />REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL ON APRIL 23, 1996, ON THAT PROCESS AND <br />PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION AT THAT TIME. <br /> <br />4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Locke presented the authorization to prepare a redevelopment agreement for Brighton <br />Corporate Park II. <br /> <br />The City was approached by four developers for the development of Brighton Corporate <br />Park II, located at the corner of 5th Ave. and 2nd St. The Economic Development <br />Commission (EDe), and staff heard presentation.<; from Opus, lEG, and Donatelle <br />Plastics regarding construction of an office/showroom/warehouse concept. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Eminent Domain - TIP <br />#25 <br />Report 96-07 I <br /> <br />Selection of Developer <br />for Brighton Corporate <br />Park II <br />Report 96-072 <br />