2012-05-23 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

action did not provide an accurate and fair representation of the pre- improvement market value of the remainder of the property. The district court cited Schwab's testimony that about 65% of the property was located within a flood zone, which affected his opinion of the property's highest and best use. But the district court found that the floodplain designation on Sheehy's property had actually been reduced in 1999, removing nearly all of the property from the floodplain. The city argues that the district court misinterpreted Schwab's appraisal, citing his testimony that he assumed for valuation purposes that Sheehy's property was all located on high ground. But Schwab testified that "[a]t the time [he] did the appraisal for the Sheehy property, [he] believed it was in the floodplain." This statement is consistent with Schwab's 2006 condemnation appraisal, which examined the whole of Sheehy's property, stated that the property's highest and best use was for cold storage, and recommended that, under a current flood restriction, the property could be used for storage of materials that could be readily removed in case of a flood warning. The city also maintains, based on the testimony of Tomczik, an RCWD permit coordinator, that any evidence of increased property value due to removal of the ponding and flowage easement would be speculative because Sheehy would need to seek approval of a formal development plan before the easement could be removed. But the district court credited the testimony of Almer, the water resource engineer and former RCWD employee, who testified that there was no engineering reason not to recommend release of the easement given that the floodplain designation had changed and that the RCWD board followed his recommendations nearly 100% of the time. This court defers to the 14 27