Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-10-26 MinutesZ7 MINUTES OF A.MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, October 26, 1993,. at 4:30 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen. Len Edens, Joe Box, Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller, Kit Williams; Conrad Odom., and Woody Bassett; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk Sherry Thomas;, City Treasurer Glyndon Bunton; Administrative Services Director Ben Mayes; Planning Management Director Alett•Little; Public Works Director Kevin Crosson; members of staff, press, and audience. ABSENT: Alderman Fred Vorsanger CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the special meeting to order with seven aldermen present. SETTLEMENT OFFER-PEARSON/CARNEY SUIT Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a settlement offer that has been made by Mr. Pearson and Mr. Carney in the condemnation lawsuit where the City took their land located at the corner of Dickson and West to be used as a parking lot for the Walton Arts Center. City Attorney Rose stated trial is scheduled for Thursday, October 28. The case involves a little less than 1 acre of land. The land was appraised by Troy Bellote for $60,000. This is the amount the City deposited with the court at the time of taking possession of the land. Mr. Carney has said this is not enough money for the land. He received an appraisal of $107,500 done by Stephen Cosby. Rose stated the general rule is that the value of the property sold after condemnation is not relevant and is not an acceptable value. Also, the property owner cannot get added value if the property/is enhanced by the project for which it was taken. The plaintiffs,are going to argue there was a difference between the Arts Center and the Arts Center Parking project, so their property can be enhanced in value by the Arts Center. There is a Stuttgart judge, Judge,; Russell Rogers, to hear this case. Rose stated the majority of the law is in the City's favor. City Attorney Rose stated the $107,000 figure is in the same ballpark as the City's appraisal. If their appraisal had come in around $200,000 he would have had no trouble recommending not to accept the offer. The plaintiffs have offered to settle for $100,000, but he really does not feel he can recommend this to the Council. Alderman Daniel asked if the plaintiffs have been paid the $60,000. October 26, 1993 Rose stated they have received that money, and this is the normal procedure for condemnation proceedings. This was the estimate of just compensation. This suit has been pending since September 1989. Rose stated for $100,000, Pearson and Carney are willing to settle the suit and give the City a quit claim deed, eliminating any adverse possession claims and taking into consideration an alley easement. Chuck Chadwick, representing Pearson and Carney, stated the $107,500 appraisal is based on the price of the land at the time of taking. The parking lot was not taken as part of the original condemnation for the Arts Center. The City came back and later condemned land for the parking lots. The enhanced value of the land is $189,000. He does not feel this issue has been determined. Regarding the quit claim deed, there is one area of land the City did not condemn because it was an alleyway. There are no records about how the City obtain that land. There could be an adverse possession question because the length of the land is 85 feet, and the length of the building that has been on the land for the past many, many years was 100 feet long. So, there could be an adverse possession question on the 15 feet. However, the quit claim deed will take care of this potential problem. Alderman Williams stated he felt it was clear throughout the whole project that this was one project. Mr. Chadwick stated Mr. Pearson and Mr. Carney did not appear in 1993 and state they wanted an outrageous price for their land. As early as 1982, they had the land listed at $165,000. Alderman Edens stated listing values really mean nothing. Comparisons can only be made with actual sales of like property. Mr. Chadwick stated he realized that; however, he feels the $165,000 shows Mr. Pearson and Mr. Carney's feelings of the value of the property at that time. Chadwick went on to say that the plaintiffs would also be entitled to some interest on the money awarded above the $60,000 figure already paid by the City. The court will have to decide what interest rate and if the interest should be compounded. LaGayle McCarty, Assistant City Attorney, stated this was one of the first cases she was assigned when she started work for the City. She wrote letters, filed interrogatories, etc., but she could not get a response from Mr. Chadwick. She filed motions to compel the plaintiffs to answer her motions, etc. City Attorney Rose stated he was trying to make the Council aware that he is very aware of what happened with the Vernon Wilson case, and this is in no way what is happening with this case. The City Attorney's office has done everything possible to get this case to trial. ?.October 26, 1993 Alderman -Bassett asked why this case, was -not to be tried in front of a jury. Rose stated that was the plaintiffs' choice. Alderman Odom stated he truly feels $100,000 is a whole lot of compromise on the City's part. Alderman Miller stated the land was condemned, and the City put $60,000 with the court. He asked how long the money was with the court before the plaintiffs got it. - Mr. Chadwick stated the plaintiffstook the they also stated at that same time that they September 20, 1989, the petition was filed. the order of possession was executed, and on order was entered for the clerk of the court to the plaintiffs. money immediately, but wanted more money. On On September 21, 1989, September 25, 1989, an to pay out the $60,000 Alderman Daniel stated she was in favor of letting this go to judge. Alderman Odom stated. -he was not in he did not want to compromise and the favor of going to the judge, but pay an additional $40,000. Alderman Box asked if this was negotiable. Mr. Chadwick stated this is scheduled to go to trial in 2 days. His clients have tried to come up with a figure they can be satisfied with. He stated if the Council wants to make a counter offer, he will deliver it to his clients. Odom, seconded by Daniel, made a motion to offer an additional $20,000, making a total paid for the land of $80,000, for the Pearson -Carney land. upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with Alderman Miller voting no. LOT SPLIT' SETTLEMENT. OFFER V Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution accepting a settlement offer in David Lyle Hollman v. City of Fayetteville.`, Alett Little stated this case is also scheduled for trial on Thursday, October 28, and asked if the Council wanted to consider this item at this special meeting rather than waiting until their November 2 meeting. - City Attorney Rose stated this case was scheduled before Judge Kim Smith on -Thursday, but he feels Judge Smith would entertain an continuance, if the Council would rather it be handled that way. October 26, 1993 Little stated one of the early petitions back in August was in favor of allowing the lot to be split and sold. She stated the Planning Commission has never approved the lot split. At their September 13 meeting, they did vote to recommend accepting Mr. Hollman's offer to settle. However, after this decision was made, the Planning Office and Planning Commissioners began to get calls in opposition to the lot split. At the Planning Commission's October 25 meeting, they voted to not recommend the settlement offer to the Council. Mayor Hanna stated the Planning Commission voted not to accept the settlement offer. If the Council votes not to accept the offer, will the case go to trial on Thursday. Rose stated that was correct. Alderman Odom stated he wishes the neighbors could have come to an agreement. Mr. Hollman will still have two houses, so he does not see the harm in splitting the lot. Little stated the major issue was with splitting Lot 1. The Planning Commission stated by doing this, it would create lot sizes that were not compatible with those of the area. Alderman Daniel asked if the lot size would be against the covenants of the subdivision. Little stated no. original developer, been done. However, permission has to be given by the Mr. Rose, to split the lots. This has not yet Alderman Odom asked if the Council had to vote to reject the offer or just do nothing. City Attorney Rose stated he would prefer a vote. Odom, seconded by Edens, made a motion to reject the lot split settlement offer. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0-2, with Miller and Williams abstaining. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m.