City Council Agenda and Packet 2015 09 01

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 16 of 18 stated the issues of whether Albertsons has a right to challenge the UR Plan will not be resolved this evening. City Attorney Light entered the following into the record: The plan does not require or initiate condemnation proceedings. Prior to the consideration of Resolution No. 60, Series 2014, making the blight finding, the City provided public notice, including publication and mailings to the property owners and tenants. Notice was provided twice; which is more than required by the statute. He pointed out in the condition survey and the resolution of approval; there were four conditions of blight found within the property. The Urban Renewal law provides if there is no objection by the property owners or tenants or owners of businesses concerned within the proposed urban renewal area, to the inclusion of the property within a blighted area and a plan, the plan can be adopted when only one factor exists. He noted the property owners provided consent letters to the property being included in a blighted area. Council member Leh suggested a motion to continue the public hearing to the September 1st, 2015 City Council meeting. Council member Lipton apologized for being late. He agreed with Council member Leh's suggestion to continue the public hearing. In light of Albertsons attorney's contention the City may be subject to some form of litigation by adopting the urban renewal plan, he requested legal advice on the risks prior to the next meeting. Council member Keany was not opposed to continuing this matter. If continued he requested the Council conduct an executive session before the next Council meeting and include the City Attorney and Special Counsel. Council member Loo stated Council member Stolzmann's questions and comments were good, and requested they be addressed before the next meeting. Mayor Muckle stated his intention was to take public comment this evening and continue the public hearing to the next meeting. He agreed an executive session would be time well spent. He supported a motion for continuance and executive session. Council member Stolzmann supported a win /win /win solution of private property owners winning together and also the members of the public not having a blighted building. She encouraged private property owners to get together and discuss this matter. Council member Leh voiced his appreciation to the representatives from Albertsons and McDonalds and for this evenings' discussion. He did not feel the Council was in a position to concede the adoption of the plan creates a condemnation tool. Urban renewal puts a plan in place to revitalize the area. He had no doubt the actions taken were appropriate. He felt as public officials, they have a duty to explore different alternatives and make sure they have the right information. He felt gathering public comment and additional information is worth keeping the public hearing open and would not prejudice the process. He supported an executive session. 33