12/08/2020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Page 2 December 2, 2020 acquired the property in 2004 and paid approximately $39,500.00/ acre for the land. The proposed County acquisition comprises 5.28 acres of frontage along 66' Avenue and 65h Street to be utilized for the road widening and related improvements. Parcel 105 also includes an additional 2.58 acres of land at the northwest corner of the property to be utilized as a Stormwater Management Facility. The proposed acquisition results in a total taking of 7.86 acres leaving a remainder parcel of 11.73 acres. The County's updated appraisal for the lands taken is in the amount of $211,500.00. The appraisal concludes an opinion of value of $25,000.00 per acre plus additional compensation for improvements (primarily fencing) on the property. The appraiser found no severance damages to the remainder property. After extensive negotiations and subject to Board of County Commission approval, the parties have agreed to entry of an Order of Taking whereby the County would deposit in the Court Registry the sum of $314,264.00. In addition, the County would agree that if the matter proceeds to trial, even though the County may present testimony of a lower value, the property owners would receive no less than $314,264.00 in full compensation. I recommend that the County enter into an Agreed Order of Taking in this matter for several reasons. The Sadhwani parcel is the last parcel that the County needs to acquire in order to proceed with the 66h Avenue or mainline segment of the project. The acquisition will allow the project to move forward without delay and will assure DOT funding. While the suggested deposit is in an amount significantly higher than the County's appraisal, the County has been entering into settlements involving other parcels in the project in a comparable per acre dollar amount. Also, the fact that the Sadhwanis paid approximately $40,000.00/ acre for the land in 2004 makes it unlikely that a jury will award less for the land taken 16 years later. Further, while the property owners have not yet produced an appraisal, their contention is that the property will suffer significant severance damages caused by the taking due to the change of shape and configuration of the remainder property, drainage issues caused by the taking, changes in the elevation and grade of the new roadways as compared to the remainder property and diminished access. Additionally, there are several technical or procedural issues that could create potential defenses to the entry of an Order of Taking. Florida case law repeatedly states that eminent domain is one of the "harshest proceedings in the law" and all doubts must be resolved in favor of the property owner. In the subject case, the County originally adopted only one eminent domain Resolution for the fee taking. The required pre -suit offer was based on an appraisal that included only the fee taking. It was then discovered that there would be a significant change of grade at the remainder Sadhwani on the 65t' Street side of the project. A second Resolution was then adopted to acquire a temporary construction easement in the 65th Street area. However, the County's pre -suit offer was based on the fee take only and included no compensation for potential severance damages. After suit was filed, the construction plans were revised to eliminate the need for the temporary construction easement and the temporary construction easement acquisition has been deleted from the lawsuit. This factual background presents several potential procedural defenses to the proposed acquisition. A denial of the requested Order of Taking would 134