SS9301-AG 921110 (2) PLEASE INCLUDE THESE ITEMS IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SECTION OF
THE November 10 . 92 COUNCIL MEETING AS INDICATED
(month) (day) (yr)
BELOW:
EXECUTIVE SESSION'
A. Article 6257-17. Section 2 (e), and Senate Concurrent Resolution Number 83,
discussion with City Attorney concerning matter involving privileged
communications between attorney and client.
1. Potential litiRation of Roy Brock 'Orol~ert¥. (See attached memo)
3.
4.
(Please indicate if there are backup documents to be placed behind item)
B. Article 6252-17. Section 2 (f). discussion with respect to the purchase, exchange,
lease, or value of real property.
1.
2.
3.
4.
(Please indicate if there are backup documents to be placed behind item)
C. Article 6252-17. Section 2 (g) discussion concerning personnel.
1.
2.
3.
4.
(Please indicate if there are backup documents to be placed behind i~em)
EXECSES.FRM
t
Potential Litigation of Roy Brock Property
After bids were received on the Grapevine Creek Sewer Project, it became apparent that it would
be feasible for the City to microtunnel along the rear of the two lots owned by Mr. Roy Brock.
The cost to microtunnel is about the same as the cost to open cut. However, there is less chance
of miscellanous cost associated with the microtunnelling. Some of the concerns of Mr. Brock
were that by open cutting we would be potentially damaging his existing fence/wall and we
would be disturbing the natural soil on his property thereby potentially damaging the future
foundation of a structure. Therefore, I contacted Mr. Brock to inform him that the City would
be microtunneling across the rear of his property. This contact was made in the hopes that this
would open up some channels of communication so the City could obtain the easements from Mr.
Brock short of condemnation.
Attached to this is a memo to Alan detailing that conversation. In essence, Mr. Brock was
pleased that the City would not be open cutting. However, he did state that there has been lost
revenue from this property and that he has been out substantial cost in carrying the loans on this
property for over a year. I informed Mr. Brock that the only offer on the table was the one that
City Council had authorized staff to pursue in the range of $17,000 to $20,000. Mr. Brock was
still of the opinion that the offer needs to be in the $30,000 to $40,000 range. This case has not
gone to condemnation because we no longer have a need for the temporary construction easement
across the rear of Mr. Brock's property. Therefore, staff will again be seeking direction from City
Council on how to pursue with the acquisition of these easements.
TO: Alan D. Ratliff, City Manager CITY MANAGEIR
FROM: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., City Engineer
SUBJECT: Grapevine Creek Sanitary Sewer Project/Roy Brock Property
DATE: October 20, 1992
On October 14, 1992, I spoke with Roy Brock concerning the Grapevine Creek Sanitary Sewer
Project. I informed Mr. Brock, that based on the bid opening, it appeared that the section of the
sanitary sewer across the rear of his lots would be micro-tunneled. I also informed Mr. Brock that
it was feasible that he would be able to encroach upon the easement for the construction of an
accessory building, or some other structure on the property. Also, Mr. Brock was informed that
a temporary construction easement would no longer be necessary because the sewer line would
not be installed via an open cut.
This information was relayed to Mr. Brock in an attempt to obtain the necessary utility easement
without using the process of eminent domain. Even though Mr. Brock was pleased that the City
would be micro-tunneling this section of the sewer line, he still held firm on the fact that he
should be compensated for the lose of the use of his property since August of 1991. The dollar
amount that he stated would be necessary to obtain the easement, even under the conditions listed
above, is still in the $30,000 to $40,000 range. I informed Mr. Brock that the only offer still
on the table was the offer authorized by City Council in the range of $17,000 to $20,000 for the
easement, and even that offer was suspect now because we no longer needed the temporary
construction easement.
This information was relayed to Larry Jackson. It was his opinion that because the needs of the
City have changed, i.e. the temporary construction easement was no longer needed, that the
pleadings and the condemnation case needed to be changed to reflect the new needs of the City.
Therefore, Larry Jackson has informed me that the condemnation case set up for Thursday,
October 22, 1992 will be delayed again, so that the pleadings of the City can be revised.
If you should have any questions concerning this issue, I'd be happy to discuss it with you.
KMG/bd
cc: Steve Goram, Director of Public Works
adrgrapl