Laserfiche WebLink
Them being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Mr. Tarver, to continue this item to the next <br />meeting pending receipt of more information from other cities. <br />The vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Mohr, Pico, Scribner, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />There was a break at 8:45 p.m. <br /> <br />The meeting was reconvened at 8:51 p.m. <br /> <br />I~¢m 7f <br />Resolution of Necessity for Rminent Domain ProCeedings (Vineyard Avenue Realignment) <br />(SR 94:327) <br /> <br />Michael Roush presented the staff report. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated that she thought State law sets the procedure to determine how much <br />the City pays. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush stated that the can be differences of opinion among appraisers about what <br />the property is worth. If differences cannot be worked out, then the matter goes before a judge <br />and jury to determine the value. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if other options for alignment had been considered when the Council <br />previously discussed straightening the road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lure indicated there had been six alternatives presented to the Council. The <br />alignment before Council tonight is in conformance with Alternative #1, which was chosen by <br />the Council. It is the best for the site with the least effect on property owners, taking into <br />account the cap over the former land fill area. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if the road could be moved farther north to remove the conffict with <br />Mr. Octman. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lum stated that his understanding is that Mr. Octman did not have a problem with <br />the alignment, his only concern was with the compensation. Mr. Lum explained alignment <br />variations and his belief that the Oetman property could not be avoided entirely. <br /> <br />09/20/94 <br /> -9- <br /> <br /> <br />