CANADIAN COUNTY • CJ-2020-146

Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC. v. City of Yukon

Filed: Feb 21, 2020

Type: CJ

What's This Case About?

Let’s get one thing straight: the City of Yukon didn’t just try to take a billboard down. They tried to slice it out of existence like a piece of salami—thin, sneaky cuts, one after another, hoping no one would notice until the whole thing was gone. And when the owner, Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC—the kind of company that makes money every time a driver glances up at an ad on I-40—realized what was happening, they didn’t scream. They sued. Because in the world of municipal infrastructure projects, the real crime isn’t demolition. It’s not paying for it.

So who are we talking about here? On one side, you’ve got the City of Yukon, Oklahoma—a growing suburb west of Oklahoma City that’s been busy upgrading its infrastructure, particularly at the intersection of I-40 and Frisco Road. They’re the kind of city that sends polite letters, hires right-of-way agents, and slaps “public necessity” on just about anything they want. On the other side is Lamar Central Outdoor, a subsidiary of one of the largest outdoor advertising companies in the country. These folks don’t own the land—no, no—they lease it, just like you might rent a billboard space to promote your taco truck. But that lease? It’s their property interest. So is the billboard itself. So is the city-issued permit to have it there. Together, these are what the law calls “private property interests,” and under the Fifth Amendment, you can’t just take them without paying. Not even if you’re the government.

Now, here’s how this all went down. Back in August 2018, the actual landowner—OPITZ, Inc.—donated a chunk of their property to the city for this very interchange project. Fine. Noble, even. But here’s the catch: Lamar’s billboard was sitting right in the middle of that donated land. And the city knew it. In October 2018, they sent a letter to Lamar (well, to their predecessor in interest, Chancellor Media Whiteco) offering $35,000 to relocate the sign. Not to buy it. Not to condemn it. Just to move it. And they attached a “Property Rights Brochure,” which sounds like something you’d get at a DMV, but in this case, it was a government pamphlet explaining that, hey, by the way, we might have to take your stuff, but don’t worry—we’ll pay you. Probably.

Fast-forward to May 2019. The city’s attorney sends another letter—this time to Lamar Advertising of Oklahoma City—basically saying, “Yep, that billboard? Gotta go. We’ll work with you on relocation costs.” Friendly. Cooperative. Almost neighborly. But then, in July 2019, the gloves come off. The Yukon City Council passes Resolution 2019-14, declaring that, due to “public necessity,” they need to take a permanent easement over that same piece of land—for drainage, utilities, and all the unglamorous guts of a modern highway interchange. They file a condemnation action—City of Yukon v. Lamar TLC Properties, Inc.—to legally seize the property. Standard procedure, right? Except… they didn’t actually include Lamar’s billboard, lease, or permit in what they were condemning. They went after the land, but ignored the very thing making it valuable: the ad space.

And then—plot twist—they abandon the condemnation. On December 16, 2019, just weeks after a panel of commissioners had determined the just compensation for the property interests (a legal step that usually means the city is about to pay up), the city files an amended petition—not to pay, but to argue that Lamar’s lease was null and void. Poof. Gone. Invalid. As if the billboard was never really theirs to begin with.

That’s when Lamar said, “Hold up.” We’re not just some tenant who got in the way of progress. We have a lease. We have a permit. We have a structure. And most importantly, we have rights. So they filed this lawsuit—inverse condemnation—which, in plain English, means: “You took our property without formally condemning it, so now we’re suing you to get paid.” It’s like if someone stole your car, refused to admit they did it, and then you had to sue them just to get the keys back.

The legal claim here hinges on something called “salami tactics”—a phrase so deliciously dramatic it sounds like a James Bond villain’s plan. But in law, it refers to when a government entity takes property in slices—first the land, then the access, then the lease, then the permit—so gradually that no single act looks like a full “taking,” but the end result is the same: the owner gets nothing, and the government gets everything. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected this in Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States (1973), ruling that if the government is clearly committed to a project and your property is in its path, they owe you compensation—even if they don’t follow the formal steps. And in Oklahoma, courts have said that a lease with renewal rights? That’s a compensable property interest. A billboard permit? Also protected. So if the city knew about these interests—which they did, from day one—then walking away from payment isn’t just shady. It’s unconstitutional.

Now, what does Lamar want? They’re asking for “just compensation,” which sounds noble, but really means: “Pay us what our billboard is worth, including lost future income, relocation costs, and the value of our lease.” They haven’t specified a dollar amount in the petition, which is common at this stage—let the court figure it out. But $35,000 was the city’s initial offer just to move the sign. Realistically? The total value could be much higher—especially if the billboard was in a high-traffic area on I-40, where ad space can generate tens of thousands per year. So while we don’t know the exact number, let’s just say this isn’t about pocket change. This is about a business being erased from a revenue stream because the city wanted the land and the silence.

And here’s the kicker: the city never paid the compensation that the court-appointed commissioners already determined. They let the process go all the way to the valuation stage—then ghosted. That’s like going on a date, agreeing to split the check, letting your friend calculate it, and then sneaking out the bathroom window when the bill arrives.

Our take? The most absurd part isn’t that the city wanted to build an interchange. That’s fine. Progress happens. The absurdity is in the chutzpah—the sheer bureaucratic audacity of condemning the land, ignoring the tenant, then trying to void the lease after the fact like it was a typo. It’s like tearing down a coffee shop because you want to build a parking lot, then telling the barista, “Oh, by the way, your lease? Never valid. Also, you don’t get severance.” And doing it all with a brochure that says, “We respect your rights!” in tiny print on page six.

We’re not rooting for billboards. We’re not even rooting for big advertising companies. But we are rooting for the principle that if you’re going to take something—especially when you’ve known about it for years, written letters about it, and let a legal process unfold to the point of valuation—then you don’t get to walk away because you changed your mind. In a world where governments have near-unlimited power to seize private property, the least they can do is pay up like everyone else. Otherwise, “just compensation” isn’t a legal requirement. It’s just a pamphlet they hand out before the wrecking ball swings.

And honestly? If the city wanted that billboard gone, they should’ve just bought an ad. Might’ve been cheaper. And definitely less awkward.

Case Overview

Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

William H. Hickman

HICKMAN LAW GROUP, PLLC

Relief Sought

Plaintiffs

Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC. business
Rep: William H. Hickman, OBA # 18395

Defendants

City of Yukon government

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Inverse Condemnation	Plaintiff seeks just compensation for the taking of its private property interests by Defendant.

Petition Text

3,927 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF CANADIAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA LAMAR CENTRAL OUTDOOR, LLC. v. CITY OF YUKON, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, Defendant. Case No. CJ 2020 1400 Judge JACK D. MCCURDY III PETITION FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Lamar Central Outdoor, L.L.C. ("Lamar" or "Plaintiff") and for its Petition for Inverse Condemnation against Defendant, the City of Yukon ("Defendant" or the "City"), states and alleges: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff, Lamar Central Outdoor, LLC, is an Oklahoma Limited Liability Company authorized to conduct business in the state of Oklahoma with private property interests at issue in the subject action located in Canadian County, Oklahoma. 2. Defendant, City of Yukon is a municipal corporation organized and in existence under and by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma, and its authorized charter. 3. Plaintiff is the owner of a Lease Agreement authorizing it to use property for the purpose of erecting and maintaining an outdoor advertising sign, which is located in Canadian County, Oklahoma (the "Lease"). 4. Plaintiff is the owner of a Sign Permit issued by the City of Yukon for a for an off-premise billboard (the “Permit”). 5. Plaintiff is the owner of a billboard sign located at the permitted site that is the subject of the Lease (the “Structure”) (collectively the Lease, Permit and Structure are the “Private Property Interests”). 6. The Private Property Interests are located in Canadian County, Oklahoma. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. On or about October 4, 2018, Defendant contacted Chancellor Media Whiteco, the predecessor in interest to Plaintiff of the Private Property Interests, to provide an offer to relocate the improvements for the purposes of the “City of Yukon/ODOT I-40 and Frisco Road Interchange J/P 30715(04)” (the “Project”). See Letter with Property Rights Brochure, 10/4/18, Exhibit “A.” 8. The correspondence from the City also contained a Property Rights Brochure advising Plaintiff of its rights with regard to the condemnation powers of the Defendant. See Exhibit “A.” 9. On May 24, 2019, legal counsel for the City contacted Lamar Advertising of Oklahoma City regarding the development of new interchange located at I-40 and Frisco Road located in Yukon, Canadian County, Oklahoma. See Letter from Ramey & Miller, 5/24/19, Exhibit “B.” 10. On July 2, 2019, the City Council for the City of Yukon determined and declared that public necessity required the taking, appropriating, acquiring and condemning a permanent easement for public street drainage and utility purpose, and temporary easements for drainage construction and driveway construction and uses incidental thereto over, across, under and to service real property located in Canadian County (which is further referred to herein as the “Subject Property” or “Propety”). See Parcel 6 – Permanent Right-of-Way, Exhibit “C.” 11. The City Council for the City of Yukon, Oklahoma approved and adopted a Resolution on July 2, 2019 declaring and determining the necessity of acquiring the permanent easement over, across, under, and to the subject property and for the public street drainage utilities, and drainage construction and driveway construction uses incidental thereto. See Resolution 2019-14, Exhibit “D.” 12. On July 3, 2019, Defendant filed its condemnation Petition in the case styled City of Yukon v. Lamar TLC Properties, Inc., Case No. CJ-2019-427, Canadian County, Oklahoma (the “Condemnation Action”) to acquire the Private Property Interests. 13. On October 16, 2019, the City filed the Oath of Office of Commissioners in the Condemnation Action. 14. On December 4, 2019, the Commissioners filed their Report of Commissioners concerning the just compensation for the Private Property Interests in the Condemnation Action. As of this date, Defendant has failed and refused to remit the compensation set forth in the Report of Commissioners to the Court. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant refuses to pay just compensation for the taking of Lamar’s Private Property Interests. 16. On the December 16, 2019, Defendant filed its Amended Petition in the Condemnation Action abandoning the condemnation and seeking to have the lease agreement declared null and void. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION INVERSE CONDEMNATION 17. Lamar hereby incorporates and adopts the allegations in paragraphs 1-16. 18. Lamar has Private Property Interests associated with the Property, including the Lease, the Structure, and the Permits. 19. Lamar is entitled to just compensation for the taking of the Private Property Interests. 20. Defendant, a condemning authority, condemned the Private Property Interests of Lamar. 21. Defendant knew prior to its agreement to acquire the Property and the acquisition of the Property of the existence of Lamar's Private Property Interests. 22. Defendant intentionally refused to condemn Lamar's Private Property Interests upon their acquisition of the Property, or with the Condemnation Action. 23. Defendant’s actions constitute a taking of Lamar’s Private Property Interests for which just compensation must be paid. 24. Defendant has taken Lamar’s right to extend the Lease for which just compensation must be paid. 25. Defendant’s actions have substantially interfered with Lamar’s use and enjoyment of the Property and the Private Property Interests related thereto. 26. Defendant’s overt actions in the acquisition of the Property were solely in furtherance of the Project, and have resulted in Defendant exercising dominion and control over the Property. 27. Lamar has suffered harm as a result of Defendant’s actions as it has not been compensated for its Private Property Interests taken by Defendant. 28. Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Almota Farmers Elevator and Warehouse Company v. United States, 409 U.S. 470 (1973), the practice of condemning authority entities using “salami tactics” was rejected by the Court. The Almota Court held: The Government must pay, just compensation for those interests ‘probably within the scope of the project from the time the Government was committed to it.’ 29. Additionally, a lessee’s right to renew its lease is a compensable interest. See City of Oklahoma City v. Garnett, 296 P.2d 766, 769 (Okla. 1956); and, a lease agreement is a property interest protected by the Oklahoma Constitution for which just compensation - i.e., fair market value, has to be paid for its taking. See Okla. Capital Improvement Authority v. U.S. Beef Corp., 2002 OK CIV APP 81, 52 P.3d 1052, 1054. 30. Defendant knew of Lamar’s Private Property Interests at the time the Project was being contemplated, at the time the Condemnation Action was filed, and at the time the Amended Petition was filed. Because term remained on the Lease at such times, Defendant has inversly condemned the Private Property Interests of Lamar. WHEREFORE, Lamar prays the Court determine Defendant has taken Lamar’s Private Property Interests and direct Defendant to pay just compensation to Lamar in an amount to be determined at trial, for its attorney fees and costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, William H. Hickman, OBA # 18395 HICKMAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 330 West Gray Street, Suite 170 Norman, Oklahoma 73069 Phone 405.605.2375 Fax 405.605.2374 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF LAMAR CENTRAL OUTDOOR, LLC Tenant: Chancellor Media Whiteco Property Owner: OPITZ, Inc. Project: City of Yukon/ODOT I-40 and Frisco Road Interchange J/P 30715(04) On August 27, 2018, the owner of the property you are now occupying as a tenant donated right-of-way to the City of Yukon for the above referenced project. The project will require that the City pay you to relocate the improvements which you own. (An Outdoor Advertising Sign) The agent presenting this offer has explained the project and its effects upon you and is making an offer to relocate your improvements in the name of the City of Yukon. The offer is as follows: To Relocate your improvements, the offer is $35,000.00. Of the above amount $0.00 is for damages. The above offer is the amount the City has determined to be the estimated cost to relocate your property. The right-of-way agent making the offer is not authorized to change any of the above amounts. We encourage you to read the attached "Property Rights Brochure" which fully explains our land acquisition process. If it is necessary for you to move any of your personal property, you will be given at least 90 days from the date shown below in which to clear the right-of-way. After payment to relocate your property is made, you will be given a 30-day notice specifying the date you will be required to vacate the property and remove your improvements. Your consideration of our offer will be appreciated. Sincerely, Jim Crosby, City Manager City of Yukon 405-350-3939 Leslie Brakefield Project Manager / Right of Way Agent [email protected] Verbal and Written Notice Given: By: Leslie Brakefield Date: 10/4/18 Your right-of-way agent can be contacted at: 405-326-8017 PROPERTY RIGHTS BROCHURE The Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma insure that private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation. It is with these provisions in mind that the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) (City) (County) pursues the acquisition of right-of-way. This brochure will provide you, the property owner, with general information as to this process. Your right-of-way agent will provide you with more additional specific information as it relates to you and your property. APPRAISAL Before the initiation of negotiations for the purchase of real property, an amount is established by (ODOT) (City) (County) which is reasonably believed to be just compensation for the value of the part taken and the damages to the remaining property, if any. In cases involving the purchase of real property by (ODOT) (City) (County) with a fair market value of $10,000.00 or less, no approved appraisal report will be required. Generally however, real property is first appraised by a State licensed or certified appraiser, and the property owners or their designated representatives are given an opportunity to accompany the appraiser during the physical inspection of the property. The completed appraisal report is next reviewed by a separate review appraiser to ensure accuracy, completion, and the proper use and full compliance with recognized appraisal principles and standards. Finally, an authorized amount is established by (ODOT) (City) (County) based upon the appraisal review for presentation to the owners or their authorized agents. NEGOTIATION The right-of-way agent has given you a written offer letter of the amount established as just compensation for the property to be acquired with the amount for damages (if any) separately set out. The option to waive the appraisal process and donate your property to the State of Oklahoma (City) (County) is available to you if you so desire. The right-of-way agent has shown you the available plans for this project and has also explained to you the amount of property which will be required and what effect the acquisition will have on your remaining property, if any. Please keep in mind the right-of-way agent is not authorized to alter the amount established as just compensation. No current abstract of your property will be requested or required from you; however, the right-of-way agent will periodically request that you confirm the current surface ownership regarding individual owners of record, liens, mortgages and tenants (if any). You are encouraged to advise the right-of-way agent when any actual or pending surface title changes occur. actually taken, as well as any damages, if any, by way of reduction in value to the remaining portion of the tract which is not taken. Any special and direct benefits to the part of the property not taken may be offset only against any injury (damage) to the property not taken. The commissioners will then file a written "Report of Commissioners" with the Court Clerk setting forth their findings. Subsequent to the filing of the Report of Commissioners, the State (City) (County) will deposit the amount awarded by the commissioners with the Court Clerk. State law provides that upon such deposit the State (City) (County) acquires the right to take possession of the property. If you so desire, you may make application to the Court for disbursement of the commissioners' award to you (or at least that portion of the award to which you are entitled). The withdrawal of the commissioners' award in no way affects your right to pursue further legal actions, as detailed below. If either party believes that there has been an error or omission in the Report of Commissioners, or if you wish to challenge the State's (City) (County) legal power to take your property, a written "exception" to the Report of Commissioners must be filed within thirty (30) days after the filing of the Report of Commissioners. The written exception must be filed with the Court Clerk. The Court may then confirm or reject the exception. If the Court confirms the exception, it may order a new appraisement. In that event, the State (City) (County) will have a continuing right of possession acquired via the first Report of Commissioners, unless and until the Court rules that the State (City) (County) does not have the power to condemn your property. If either party desires to challenge only the amount awarded by the commissioners, it must do so by filing a Demand for Jury Trial within sixty (60) days after the filing of the Report of Commissioners. The written Demand for Jury Trial must be filed with the Court Clerk. In the event of a jury trial and a jury verdict which exceeds the amount awarded by the court-appointed commissioners, the State (City) (County) would then have to deposit with the Court Clerk an amount equal to the difference between the jury verdict and the commissioners' award. Similarly, should the jury verdict be for an amount less than the commissioners' award, the property owner(s) would in that event be required to return that portion of the commissioners' award which exceeds the amount of the jury verdict. Should the amount of the jury's verdict exceed the amount of the commissioners' award by ten percent (10%) or more, then the State (City) (County) must reimburse the property owner(s) for their reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, actually incurred in connection with the condemnation proceedings. Either party may appeal the action taken by the District Court to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. It is the sincere desire and hope of the Department of Transportation (City) (County) to be fair and to successfully negotiate with each property owner. It is also the policy of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (City) (County) to assure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, age or national origin, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (City) (County) received Federal financial assistance. If you believe that you or others have been discriminated against, you have the right to file a Title VI complaint. Please contact the Oklahoma Department of Transportation’s Title VI Coordinator at (405) 521-2072 or email at [email protected]. The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) ensures that no persons or groups of persons shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex age, national origin, disability/handicap, or income status, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any and all programs, services, or activities administered by ODOT, its recipients, sub-recipients, and contracts. LAW FIRM OF RAMEY & MILLER FIVE SOUTH FIFTH P.O. BOX 850187 YUKON, OK 73085 Telephone (405) 354-2526 & (405) 354-1974 Fax 405-354-2004 FENTON R. RAMEY, P.C. [email protected] GARY E. MILLER, PLLC [email protected] May 24, 2019 Lamar Advertising of Oklahoma City 5205 N. Santa Fe Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73118, OK 73071 Gentlemen: Please be advised that there currently is underway a development of a new interchange located at I-40 and Frisco Road located in Yukon, Canadian County, OK. I am advised by Trent Lindmark that you are now the owner of an outdoor billboard sign based on a lease agreement between Lindmark and Rick Opitz dated March 3, 2005. The sign in located in a place that is to be used as part of the interchange and will need to be moved to free up property for the interchange. The City of Yukon would be happy to work with you to determine a reasonable cost to remove the sign from its present location. Thanking you in advance for your help and cooperation, [Signature] GARY E. MILLER City Attorney GEM/bas Exhibit "A" Parcel 6 -- Permanent Right-of-Way A strip, piece or parcel of land lying in the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section Nineteen (19), Township Twelve North (T12N), Range Five West (R5W) of the Indian Meridian, Canadian County, Oklahoma, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest Corner of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of said section, thence North along the West line of said section a distance of 1,335.48 feet, thence East and perpendicular to said West line of said section a distance of 199.27 feet to a point on the North present right-of-way line for Vandament Avenue, said point being the point or place of beginning, thence N 30°45'27.60" E a distance of 27.54 feet, thence N 89°51'27.67" E a distance of 312.04 feet, thence S 28°38'05.99" E a distance of 207.56 feet, thence S 00°03'03.60" W a distance of 45.53 feet, thence along a curve to the left with a radius of 650.00 feet and a chord bearing of S 16°37'26.38" E for a distance of 373.03 feet, thence S 33°17'56.35" E for a distance of 96.48 feet, thence along a curve to the left with a radius of 1,850.00 feet and a chord bearing of S 35°38'39.65" E for a distance of 151.41 feet, thence S 34°24'26.74" E for a distance of 96.71 feet, thence N 60°38'44.21" W for a distance of 325.07 feet, thence N 43°45'45.86" W for a distance of 65.88 feet, thence along a curve to the right with a radius of 482.96 feet and a chord bearing of N 35°17'26.62" W for a distance of 296.16 feet, thence N 17°26'08.21" W a distance of 185.88 feet, thence along a curve to the left with a radius of 390.00 feet and a chord bearing of N 38°19'18.84" W for a distance of 278.08 feet to the point or place of beginning. Containing 186,308.02 sq. ft. or 4.28 acres, more or less. Access is denied to the property owner(s), their heirs, successors or assigns to the I-40 ramps beginning at a point 1,360.21 feet North along the West line of said section, thence East and perpendicular to said West line of said section a distance of 525.37 feet, thence S 28°38'05.99" E a distance of 207.56 feet. RESOLUTION 2019-14 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE NECESSITY IN ACQUIRING CERTAIN PERMANENT EASEMENTS LOCATED IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 12 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF INDIAN MERIDIAN, OKLAHOMA CITY, CANADIAN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, AUTHORIZING, INSTRUCTING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACQUIRE SAID A PERMANENT EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC STREET, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES AND USES INCIDENTAL THEREOF, FOR THE CITY OF YUKON PROJECT COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE I-40 AND FRISCO ROAD INTERCHANGE, BY PURCHASE AND SETTLEMENT OF DAMAGES WITH THE LANDOWNER, AUTHORIZING, INSTRUCTING AND DIRECTING THE MUNICIPAL COUNSELOR TO CONDEMN SAID PROPERTY FOR SAID PURPOSES IF SAID PERMANENT EASEMENTS CANNOT BE PURCHASED AND THE DAMAGES SETTLED BY AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDOWNER; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, on the 2nd day of July, 2019, it is deemed necessary and advisable by the City of Yukon, Oklahoma to acquire certain temporary and permanent easements located in Canadian County, Oklahoma, for the I-40 Frisco Road Interchange Project and uses incidental thereof, for the use and benefit of the City of Yukon; and WHEREAS, said parcels of permanent easement is described as follows, to-wit: PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF; WHEREAS, said permanent easements are not owned by the City of Yukon and it is deemed necessary for the City to acquire said described permanent easements for the purpose of said project and uses incidental thereto; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council for the City of Yukon, Oklahoma to pursue its powers of eminent domain, to take immediate steps to acquire the above described temporary and permanent easements for the purpose of constructing and maintaining public streets and uses incidental thereto; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City of Yukon be, and he is hereby instructed, authorized and directed to immediately negotiate with the owner of the above described real properties and purchase said temporary and permanent easements for the purpose of said project, and uses incidental thereto, and settle the damages, if any, the owners will sustain by reason of the appropriation and the taking thereof for the public purposes aforesaid; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED in the event the City Manager is unable to secure the above described temporary and permanent easements, or any part thereof, the Municipal Attorney for the City of Yukon be, and he is hereby authorized, instructed and directed to institute condemnation proceedings against the owners of said property and condemn said above described permanent and temporary easement under the power of eminent domain for said purpose and to take such further legal steps or proceedings as may, in his judgment, appear to be proper to acquire said permanent easements for said purpose and the immediate possession thereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED as it is immediately necessary for the preservation of the peace, health and safety of the City of Yukon, and inhabitants thereof, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this Resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage, as provided by law. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Yukon, Oklahoma, and signed by the Mayor of the City of Yukon, Oklahoma, on this 2nd day of July, 2019. Michael McEachern, Mayor ATTEST: Doug Shivers, City Clerk APPROVED as to form and legality this 2nd day of July, 2019. Municipal Counselor Exhibit A Parcel 6 - Permanent Right-of-Way A strip, piece or parcel of land lying in the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of Section Nineteen (19), Township Twelve North (T12N), Range Five West (R5W) of the Indian Meridian, Canadian County, Oklahoma, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest Corner of the Southwest Quarter (SW ¼) of said section, thence North along the West line of said section a distance of 1,335.48 feet, thence East and perpendicular to said West line of said section a distance of 199.27 feet to a point on the North present right-of-way line for Vandament Avenue, said point being the point or place of beginning, thence N 30°45'27.60" E a distance of 27.54 feet, thence N 89°51'27.67" E a distance of 312.04 feet, thence S 28°38'05.99" E a distance of 207.56 feet, thence S 00°03'03.60" W a distance of 45.53 feet, thence along a curve to the left with a radius of 650.00 feet and a chord bearing of S 16°37'26.38" E for a distance of 373.03 feet, thence S 33°17'56.35" E for a distance of 96.48 feet, thence along a curve to the left with a radius of 1,850.00 feet and a chord bearing of S 35°38'39.65" E for a distance of 151.41 feet, thence S 34°24'26.74" E for a distance of 96.71 feet, thence N 60°38'44.21" W for a distance of 325.07 feet, thence N 43°45'45.86" W for a distance of 65.88 feet, thence along a curve to the right with a radius of 482.96 feet and a chord bearing of N 35°17'26.62" W for a distance of 296.16 feet, thence N 17°26'08.21" W a distance of 185.88 feet, thence along a curve to the left with a radius of 390.00 feet and a chord bearing of N 38°19'18.84" W for a distance of 278.08 feet to the point or place of beginning. Containing 186,308.02 sq. ft. or 4.28 acres, more or less. Access is denied to the property owner(s), their heirs, successors or assigns to the I-40 ramps beginning at a point 1,360.21 feet North along the West line of said section, thence East and perpendicular to said West line of said section a distance of 525.37 feet, thence S 28°38'05.99" E a distance of 207.56 feet.

Disclaimer: This content is sourced from publicly available court records. Crazy Civil Court is an entertainment platform and does not provide legal advice. We are not lawyers. All information is presented as-is from public filings.