1988-01-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Meeting Minutes January 26, 1988 I his own and he purchased a comparable replacement dwelling and under the regulations he is entitled to the benefits. Benke asked Bagley to explain the change in his original $21,000 sum. Bagley stated in the claim submitted to the city, the replacement housing payment that was originally recommended under an oral claim made by Oswalt to Bagley and subsequently submitted to the city was based on no tangible docum2ntation at that time; the value on the acquired site was not established and so, consequent- ly, we used what had taken place; Oswalt felt his dwelling was worth a certain number of dollars and he purchased a replacement site for $91,000 so, utilizing the two figures, that is how he proceeded with the oral claim was. Subsequent to the initiation of that claim, Bagley received infor- mation from the courts and a value was established as to the taking of his property, which is why there was a change alluded to in the submission of that claim to the city which Sinda utilized in making his determination as to what the differential payment should have been. I Bagley contir.ued that the purpose of the Uniform Act is to be sure that "people do not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of a program designed for the benefit of the public as a whole." This is not a normal circumstance; the city can't go back five years and provide services you did not know you were to provide at the time the displacement took place so we attempted to rebuild the situation; and he feels we have met the requirements of the regulations and provided the necessary payments in accordance with the Act. Benke asked Bagley if the new house purchased was within the defi- nition of comparable housing; how the determinations is made; and how can we be assured there weren't other comparable houses of much more economical value. Bagley stated comparable housing is referred to housing that is equal to or better, and is functionally equivalent to the dwelling the individual was displaced. Oswalt's appraiser, Mr. Montague, at the time of the hearing in the court testified comparable hous- ing was available at that time and indicated what the value of that comparable housing was at the time of the taking. Bagley stated that then is the dollar amount used in his claim as he felt it was reasonable and justifiable. I Benke stated it appears one of the basis of the claim for addi- tional money is that the house he purchased cost more than the original house and the differential exceeds $15,000; and under- stands Oswalt is asking fOI' the amount above $15,000 because he had paid $91,000 for the replacement house and his concern is that if we were to be so inclined, how do we know that price was not exorbitant and that there weren't other comparable homes available at a lesser value. Page 16