1988-01-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes January 26, 1988 Bagley stated Oswalt is asking the city to pay a differentia'] pay- ment based upon house he actually purchased and is residing in; the regulations alludes to that a differential payment can be de- termined either based on comparable housing available at the time of the displacement or the dwelling actually purchased and occu- pied by the displacee (this is what Oswalt is contending the dif- ferential payment should be based on, the difference between the acquisition price and the $91,000 structure). We contend that comparable housing was available at the time of displacement, as testified to by Montague in the court trial, and that is what we utilized in the final claim in making our determination as to what the differential payment should be. Benke stated our basis is that the differential was of a similar value and function; and Oswalt is asserting a replacement house of higher value and, therefore, he should have his differential. LeFevere stated the regulations provide you pay the difference be- tween the acquired dwelling and either a replacement dwelling or a comparable dwelling at the time of acquisition, whichever is less. LeFevere explained that Bagley prepared two reports and the second one differed from the first one with respect to the price differ- ential in two ways: (1) value of the acquired dwelling because between the time of the first recommendation and the second, there was a court settlement on the issue of the replacement value (that is the change that was referred to as a few thousand dollars). LeFevere stated the bigger change was in the replacement dwelling; in Bagley's initial approval, he used the replacement dwelling value as provided by Oswalt; in the second report, the price dif- ferential was considerably reduced because the replacement dwel- ling value was based on the testimony of the trial (the lesser was based on the testimony as reported to us in Bagley's report). Brandt expressed concern about the interest question; understands LeFevere found no precedent and no provision for interest which also suggests that the facts of this case have a unprecedented and unanticipated period of time. Brandt felt there should be more thought given to whether or not that makes interest appropriate in this case; if so, what dollar amounts would be appropriate or ap- plicable to consider in awarding interest; and suggested someone may need to get more information on that. LeFevere stated at one time he made a projection using his best estimate of when Oswalt was making a claim that interest began to run and, using the interest rate determined to be applicable in the condemnation proceedings, he came up with $32,000; however, that was based on the earlier determination by Locke and it would be somewhat more based on Sinda's determination which would be based on Oswalt's claim of entitlement to interest. Page 17