6/18/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Court. That amount was based upon an appraisal performed for the County. Legwen did not agree that that represented just compensation for the property taken. Subsequently the Kings Highway project was redesigned to provide for a 4 -lane section with turn lanes and a bridge at 5th Street, S.W. This redesign required additional land be taken from Legwen's property, i.e., an additional 40 feet along his Kings Highway frontage and 50 feet along his 5th Street, S W. frontage. The net affect of the taking was to reduce Mr. Legwen's original 5 -acre parcel to slightly under 3.84 acres. The second parcel was appraised in Apnl of 2001 at $41,600.00. In an attempt to avoid litigation, the Board authonzed an offer to Legwen 30% higher than the appraised value or $54 080.00. That offer was rejected and it was necessary to file a second case in eminent domain to obtain the additional property for the 4 - lane widening project and the 5th Street, S.W. bridge. Title to the second acquisition from the Legwen property vested in the County on June 3, 2002 upon the deposit of the appraised value for the second portion of the property of $47,900.00 (updated from April, 2001 to April, 2002). Mr. Legwen's appraiser and attorney value the property taken plus severance damages to existing structures and improvements on the site at slightly over $100,000.00. Both appraisers valued the land within $1,000.00 per acre of each other, but the principal difference was with respect to severance damages to the other improvements on Legwen's property. Our appraiser's opinion was that Legwen should be compensated for only one building lost. Legwen's appraiser's opinion is that four other structures remaining within the boundaries of his now smaller piece of property are substantially impacted because their orientation is to Kings Highway and they now must move all parking, entrances, and perhaps even reconstruct some of the buildings to make them have the same utility as before the -taking. We are left in the situation where the County has either deposited or authorized the payment of slightly under $85,000.00 and Legwen has been advised by his experts that the property taken is worth slightly over $100,000.00. In other words, the parties are approximately $15,000.00 apart. Upon discussing this with Public Works Director James Davis, he suggested splitting the difference. I communicated this proposal to Legwen's attorney John Brennan, who has advised me that that is an acceptable settlement to Mr. Legwen. Thus, a settlement has been proposed at $92,500 00 for the entire take of both parcels. In my opinion a trial of these two consolidated cases would take three to four days. Extensive appraisal testimony would be required, speaking to the value of the first take in 1997 as well as the second take in 2002. We would be required to pay for a new appraisal by Legwen's appraiser as well as the cost of expert testimony of our appraiser and his appraiser at depositions and at trial I would expect those costs to far exceed the additional money required to settle the case for $92,500.00. That does not include my time at trial, potential attorney's fees exposure to the other side from a trial, and several days in court for Mr. Davis and Ms. Thompson, the County engineers. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the settlement of the two consolidated cases against Glenn Legwen for the sum of $92 500.00. Attorney's fees and costs would be set by the court pursuant to statute. June 18, 2002 32