1988-01-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Meeting Minutes January 26, 1988 I do so on the basis of newly discovered evidence; and indicated the applicant does not have the right to keep caming back with the same application. BeIlke asked if these are the only remalnlng issues being disputed by Oswalt; LeFevere didn't know but believes there are still some remaining disputes in the condemnation action; this relocation claim (not sure of the amount, something like an additional $200,000) is being claimed as relocation benefits and in the last submittal Gunn provided he stated that Oswalt had additional out- standing claims amounting to $275,000 in damages suffered, in part, with respect to the relocation claim. I With regard to the $15,000 cap, Gunn stated the price differential payment is based on the difference between the taken house and a new comparable dwelling; initially Bagley used the house that Oswalt actually purchased ($91,000) and he believes that is how it should be done. Tonight Gunn understood Bagley changed his mind because he was now using a new comparable dwelling that Montague testified to at court trial. Gunn believes that is not legally proper; the comparable dwellings testified to in a condemnation trial are compal"able sales (after the fact of a sale taking place, how much a property sold for). On the relocation side, an entire- ly different set of comparables is used and, in fact, cannot use properties that have been sold, you have to use listing prices of properties available on the market. LeFevere didn't know wtlat the dates of the sales were on the those comparables; but he believes part of the appraiser's testimony was on a replacement dwelling rather than comparable sales. The sub- stance of that testimony was, for the same amount of money as ,Baglfty uses in his second determination, the cost to build a new dwelling whether one was actually on the market or not. LeFevere stated (1) regulations don't contemplate this situation and (2) it doesn't seem reasonable for someone to sit on their rights, and not make a relocation claim for many years then use a replacement dwelling value which reflected an appreciation in pro- perty values. Benke suggested a motion to direct staff to prepare a motion to sustain or modify the City Manager's decision or continue and re- quest information from Bannigan. I LeFevere stated if the information received from Bannigan relates only to attorney's fees and costs of litigation, council could act on the remainder of the issue tonight or give staff direction, then council would have a draft of the findings to be ready for council consideration at the next council meeting. LeFevere suggested, because the city council may be considering new evidence, it may be advisable to continue this hearing so the applicant can see what we get from Bannigan and have an opportu- nity to respond. Page 19