1988-01-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Meeting Minutes January 26, 1988 I city was supposed to do under the relocation regulations, inclu- ding counselling, assisting the displaced person in finding a new residence prior to the time of the displacement, etc. LeFevere stated he was not sure how the regulations are supposed to work in a case when the city was not aware until some years later that they have incurred a legal obligation to provide relocation bene- fits. In any case, what is before the council tonight is a question of to which benefits Oswalt is entitled under the regulations (they do not provide for any damages for a failure or an alleged failure to provide counselling, for instance); not sure if those claims are brought here in an effort to establish an entitlement to some compensation beyond what is provided in the regulations, or whether the claim is intended to demonstrate that the regulations are somehow satisfied with respect to the claim. The regulations do not provide for any type of damages to be paid for failure on the part of the city to provide relocation counselling. I Gunn stated the regulations do provide for 'housing of last resort' which permits payments in excess of $15,000 in situations where the city is unable to find comparable replacement dwellings that would not exceed $15,000. In this case, not only didn't the city not find a comparable replacement dwelling, they did not even try to, they kicked Oswalt out of his house and said, in effect, 'you are on your own;' there was no assistance provided, no effort made whatsoever to find Oswalt a comparable replacement dwelling the city was required to provide. Gunn continued that Oswalt had no choice but to purchase a home on his own, which is what he did, and the city's relocation expert has agreed that it is a compar- able replacement dwelling. Oswalt is entitled to relocation bene- fits based on the cost of that comparable replacement dwelling. Secondly, with regard to the question of attorney's fees, Gunn stated, however, that he understands the state statute is discre- tionary with the trial judge and is different from the federal re- location regulation which provides the payment of reasonable at- torney's fees shall be made to a landowner based on a successful inverse condemnation action. The relocation is separate from the condemnation and there are separate requirements imposed on the city under each of those statutory and regulatory regulations. Benke believes Gunn's comments and thoughts are somewhat inconsis- tent that the requirement that wasn't known to the exist and was, in fact, subsequently a matter of long dispute, it seems kind of hard to suggest that a decision five years later should be cause for 'beating somebody about the head and shoulders' because they did not do something five years ago. I if the city had willfully some other service required provide for damages reme- LeFevere further pointed out that even decided not to provide counselling or by the regulations, regulations do not died for failure to do so. Page 14