CC_Minutes_2009_0615 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, June 15, 2009 Page 26 Roe moved, Johnson seconded, the Settlement Agreement in Lieu of Condemna- tion between the City of Roseville and Roseville Acquisitions, LLC, as presented, for acquisition of portions of the property located at 2690 Cleveland Avenue and 1947 County Road C for Phase I of the Twin Lakes Infrastructure Project, in the total amount of $2,107,700. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion, opining that this acquisition would allow right-of--way property to move forward; and that it was a reasonable settlement as detailed in the Settlement Agreement. Councilmember Ihlan spoke against the motion; opining that it was not a good deal from the City's perspective, but it was a good deal from the seller's perspec- tive. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the City could choose to use an open, transparent Eminent Domain process, rather than making a private deal at more than the appraised value of the property with nothing in exchange for that settle- ment. Councilmember Ihlan noted that, in the revised Settlement Agreement, the City would pay for demolition of several buildings on the road right-of--way, due to the inaction and failure to enforce the City's property maintenance code, even though that enforcement was zealously enforced against residential properties. Councilmember Ihlan further noted that because of those uncorrected mainte- nance violations on the property; and the City ended up paying for road right-of- way and demolition of worthless buildings; and that there was no effort in the Set- tlement Agreement to rectify those outstanding maintenance violations; and that the City was agreeing to take the property "as is" with the seller making no repre- sentation on environmental matters of intended uses; and the taxpayers becoming liable for those environmental issues. Councilmember Ihlan noted her concern that there was nothing in the Agreement holding the property owner or other re- sponsible property owners to pay for those costs; and that this Agreement didn't protect the City's interests, and that it was foolish for the City to agree to this, when they could choose the option of condemnation, or insist that the seller share in the environmental and demolition costs. Mayor Klausing, expressing all due respect to Councilmember Ihlan, clarified that while Eminent Domain may be an option, and given consideration to demolition and environment issues, as per the advice of the City Attorney, the City would still be responsible for demolition based on their need to construct the roadway. Mayor Klausing questioned the rationale in insisting that the property owner make improvements to the building, thus making it more valuable, and more ex- pensive for the citizens to acquire. Mayor Klausing opined that this provided an opportunity to move forward with this option. Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion.