Laserfiche WebLink
improvements proposed by Shopek and $25,000 for the cost of removing the pole barn, <br /> which she believed to have minimal value. She also added a credit of $26,000, based on <br /> the estimated value of a previous assessment for work performed on Sheehy's property in <br /> 1998, for a total pre- improvement value of $946,000. Herman valued the property post <br /> improvement at $1,110,000. She concluded that the project conferred a special benefit of <br /> $164,000. <br /> The city and Sheehy both presented testimony by water - resources experts. <br /> Nicholas Tomczik, a permit coordinator with the RCWD, testified for the city that some <br /> of Sheehy's property remains in the 100 -year floodplain and that the RCWD board does <br /> not always follow staff recommendations about matters such as removing easements. <br /> Sheehy presented the testimony of Carl Almer, a former water - resources engineer at <br /> RCWD, who testified that the designated floodplain elevation had changed in 1999 and <br /> that in 2005, when he worked at RCWD and reviewed a wetland delineation for the city's <br /> purchase of related property, no portion of Sheehy's property was designated as wetland. <br /> He testified that, at that time, RCWD had no knowledge of an existing wetland easement, <br /> that he would have recommended release of such an easement, and that the RCWD board <br /> followed his recommendations "[a]lmost without exception." <br /> The district court found that Herman's appraisal provided the most accurate and <br /> fair representation of the property's market value after the project, and, with some <br /> adjustment, before the project. The district court found that the per - square -foot value of <br /> the 2006 condemnation award, on which Schwab based his opinion in this matter, did not <br /> provide an accurate and fair representation of the property's pre - project market value <br /> 5 <br /> 18 <br />