Laserfiche WebLink
in this case, would result from the loss of fencing, as the area would no longer have the same <br />protections as the initial parcel in terms of privacy, fencing, security, and landscaping. <br />Therefore, the owner is entitled to severance damages and to the Cost to Cure funds that would <br />be necessary to put the property back in the same shape prior to the taking. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan referenced the appraiser's Acquisition Value Summary, under the <br />section "Severance Damages" (page 160 of the backup), to affirm the appraiser's assessment that <br />there were no severance damages attributable to the acquisition, and thus, there should be no <br />Cost to Cure. <br />Attorney Collins disagreed with the appraiser's assessment, and Commissioners and staff <br />continued debate on the necessity to include in this Contract, the Cost to Cure. <br />Michael Abt, 6780 85th Street, defended the Cost to Cure. He described the value of <br />several of the parcels, and explained the need for the left -turn lane. He alluded to the costs, time, <br />money, and labor for moving everything he has spent years establishing, and reported that he had <br />received one quote for $40,000 to move the fence, minus the gates, land clearing, and fill. He <br />acknowledged the seemingly high costs for the flagpole and light post, but pointed out that he <br />could not control the engineering fees. <br />Commissioner O'Bryan declared that there were other costs in the Appraisal with which <br />he did not agree, and he would be more willing to consider the "open end" elements, if the <br />County secured quotes to move the fence to the new property, at which time Mr. Abt could either <br />accept or deny the County's offer. <br />MOTION WAS AMENDED by Commissioner O'Bryan <br />to Table this item until staff returns with a more <br />acceptable contract. Motion DIED for lack of a Second. <br />23 <br />June 2, 2009 <br />