HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - March 29, 2006 SM (3)LODI CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2006
A. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL
The Special Joint City Council meeting with the Redevelopment Agency of March 29, 2006, was
called to order by Chairperson Hitchcock at 6:35 p.m.
Present: Members — Beckman, Hansen, Johnson, Mounce, and Chairperson Hitchcock
Absent: Members — None
Also Present: City Manager King, City Attorney Schwabauer, and City Clerk Blackston
B. REGULAR CALENDAR
B-1 "Joint Meeting of the Lodi City Council and Redevelopment Agency to discuss and provide
direction to staff regarding introduction of ordinances to limit Lodi's use of eminent domain
(through the City of Lodi or the Redevelopment Agency) to acquisition property that will be
put to a municipal use"
City Attorney Schwabauer recalled that Council had directed him to bring a draft ordinance
forward to address the situation that arose by the Supreme Court's decision in the case of
Kelo versus the City of New London. The Supreme Court ruled that the constitution does
not prohibit the State from taking property for a development use that would be for the
benefit of a business owner who would also operate for the benefit of the community which
accrues from the redevelopment itself and from the rebirth of the area. Senator McClintock
initiated State Constitutional Amendment 15 (SCA 15). When it was introduced, it provided
that eminent domain could not be used to acquire property and turn it over to a private
party. It said that if property were ever sold to a private party after being acquired by
eminent domain, it would have to be turned over to the original purchaser at the lesser of
the acquisition price or its current market value. It also prohibited turning over of the
property to a private nonprofit corporation. SCA 15 has been amended and now requires
the property to be turned over to the original property owner at is current fair market value.
It now allows property to be condemned and rented or leased to a 501 c3. Mr. Schwabauer
proposed a change to include a minimum time requirement by which the governmental
entity has to operate and, if it exceeds that amount, then the passage of time can allow the
governmental entity to change its mind about what it might do. Mr. Schwabauer explained
that Council has been presented with two ordinances, one controlling City Council's action
and one controlling Redevelopment Agency action. He advised Council that it would need
to include in is motion whether or not to have language that would restore SCA 15 to its
original reading that would allow the property to go back to its current or acquired value and
the timeframe within which the reacquisition right would lapse.
Council Member Beckman felt that a ten-year period would be a good timeframe, if at some
point the original owner is going to have the option of repurchasing it, because the property
is no longer being used for a public purpose. He preferred that they be able to repurchase it
at the cost the government paid them for it.
Council Member Mounce felt that it should be a 20 -year period and Ehe agreed with
Mr. Beckman that the repurchase price should be what the government paid for the
property.
Council Member Hansen voiced support for the proposed ordinances.
Mayor Pro Tempore Johnson expressed his opinion that there are times when eminent
domain condemnation for private purposes can make sense and be advantageous to all
concerned. He believed that when a municipality proceeds wth condemnation it usually
pays well over the asking price for the property. Mr. Johnson was opposed to the proposed
ordinances, as he did not want Council's "hands tied" by putting a law in place that
constrains it from taking what may be the best course of action.
Continued March 29, 2006
Mayor Hitchcock agreed with Mr. Johnson's statements. She felt that there may be a
possibility in the future (especially because of the City's aging infrastructure) where eminent
domain should be used. She contended that to give up the tool that eminent domain
provides would be a disservice to the community. She noted that there are certain
situations where property owners prefer eminent domain because it results in tax savings
for them.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
00 Eunice Friederich stated that in larger cities there have been abuses of redevelopment
and the use of eminent domain, and she noted that Lodi is growing. She believed that
most people were afraid of government and do not have adequate financial resources to
engage in legal battles with cities.
00 Barbara Flockhart pointed out that money derived from redevelopment must be paid
back with interest. Some cities are finding it difficult to pay back, even the interest
alone, on the money they borrowed. She was opposed to the use of eminent domain.
MOTION:
Council Member Beckman made a motion, Mounce second, to introduce the following
ordinances, with language amendments to both as shown below:
"(b) If any property taken through eminent domain after the effective date of this Ordinance
ceases to be used for the stated public use, within ten years of its original acquisition, the
former owner of the property or a beneficiary or an heir, if a beneficiary or heir has been
designated for this purpose, shall have the right to reacquire the property at the original
purchase price or fair market value of the property, whichever is lesser, before the
property may be otherwise sold or transferred."
0o Ordinance No. 1775 entitled, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lodi
Amending Title 15 — Buildings and Construction — of the Lodi Municipal Code by Adding
Chapter 15.72 Relating to Eminent Domain'; and
0o Ordinance No. 1776 entitled, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Lodi
Amending Title 2 — Personnel and Administration — of the Lodi Municipal Code by
Adding Chapter 2.52.020 Relating to Eminent Domain."
DISCUSSION:
Mayor Hitchcock warned that if the City invested a lot of money in properties the
reacquisition language as proposed would strip the City of its investments.
VOTE:
The above motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members — Beckman, Hansen, and Mounce
Noes: Council Members — Johnson and Mayor Hitchcock
Absent: Council Members — None
C. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Redevelopment Agency, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:14 p.m.
ATTEST:
Susan J. Blackston
City Clerk / Secretary
Redevelopment Agency
W