Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Condemnation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tulsa seeks condemnation resolution for land needed to widen 81st Street at Highway 75
Summary
City staff requested a condemnation resolution to acquire fee simple and utility easements from Transformation Group Holdings for a frontage and easement needed to widen 81st Street beneath a new Highway 75 bridge; staff said offers were made but negotiations have not concluded and federal timing pressures require moving forward.
City staff asked the Public Works Committee to approve a condemnation resolution to acquire fee simple and utility easements from Transformation Group Holdings Corporation for parcels at 8114 and 8115 South Unit Drive West, needed for the 81st Street widening project beneath a new Highway 75 bridge.
The presenter explained the condemnation process is used when the city cannot otherwise reach agreement on price or when title issues require judicial review. The project is federally funded and the city must meet Uniform Relocation Act and project timelines; staff said ODOT’s bridge and utility relocation schedule requires the city to secure the property or easements so construction can proceed.
Staff described their outreach and offers. The city’s initial offer for the parcels totaled $498,750 for the right of way and easement components; staff said additional costs such as a replacement sign were later estimated at about $45,000. The presenter said the owner retained legal counsel and had undertaken their own appraisal; negotiations had not produced agreement by the time of the meeting.
The presenter described the condemnation process: if the council approves a resolution, city legal files with the district court and a judge appoints three commissioners to determine fair market value (including intangibles the city appraisal may not capture). The city would deposit the commissioners’ valuation into court to allow the project to proceed while either party seeks further review. Staff emphasized the city’s desire for a transparent, non‑adversarial process and said staff would continue outreach to the property owner.
Councilor Archie said he had discussed the project with Transformation Group Holdings and urged continued collaboration; city staff acknowledged limitations once a property owner is represented by counsel but said they would make available project plans to help the owner assess impacts. The transcript records committee discussion but not a recorded vote on the condemnation resolution.
No formal commissioners’ determination or settlement amount is recorded in the transcript.
