2012-05-23 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the amount of the assessment exceeded the benefit to the property. At a bench trial, the city presented the testimony of its appraiser, William Schwab, who had also conducted the appraisal for the 2006 condemnation proceeding. In his 2006 condemnation appraisal, Schwab noted that 65% of the property was located in a flood zone. Here, Schwab testified that he arrived at the before - project value for the special assessment by dividing the $200,000 condemnation award by the square footage of the amount taken, and then applying that $2.77 - per - square -foot value to the property remaining after the condemnation, which resulted in a value of $550,000. With respect to the post - project value of the property, Schwab noted that the property would no longer be subject to flooding and would therefore not be restricted by a Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) flooding easement. He testified that the removal of the easement provided a benefit to Sheehy, but that if the project were not necessary to remove the easement, that portion of the project would not have provided a benefit. Schwab also assigned a value of $145,000 to an existing pole barn on the property. Schwab's post - project appraisal valued the property after the project at $6.30 per square foot, for a total value of $950,000. He therefore opined that the special assessment resulted in a benefit to the property of $400,000, which he then reduced to the assessed figure of $379,000. Sheehy presented evidence from its appraiser, Ellen Herman. To support Herman's appraisal, Sheehy sought to introduce evidence from an additional expert, Jeffrey Shopek. Shopek, a civil engineer, had developed an engineering plan that would provide sewer and water to the property in a different fashion from the city's project. 3 16