Tag Archives: Eminent Domain

Partial Taking, Cost-to-Cure, and Relocation When Using Eminent Domain

Partial-Taking,-Cost-to-CurHave you heard about the most recent eminent domain case in Nashville? The City of Nashville plans to take a portion of Greyhound’s bus terminal property for their Division Street Extension project with the use of eminent domain.

The City has offered to purchase the portion of property for $870,400. The area of the taking is a parking lot, which appears to include approximately 22 parking stalls with typical landscaping, sidewalks, and lighting. No structures are included in the taking. An article about the project can be found here.  The City’s project can be reviewed at: http://www.nashville.gov/Public-Works/Capital-Projects/Division-Street-Extension.aspx

This property taking offers good examples of the need to analyze each component of the eminent domain taking, both combined and individually. The criteria used in this example is based on the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act (URA).

Those components include:

  • The value of property taken
  • The damages to the remaining property
  • A cure for the damages
  • Relocation of the business occupant and landlord

Property Value
The property value will be determined by the real property appraiser who will likely consider the three methods of valuation. These include:

  • Comparison of recent sales
  • Replacement value (value of land plus cost to build improvements, including depreciation)
  • Value based on income (income as if the property were leased to a tenant)

Damages
The real property appraiser will also evaluate the damages, if any, that are caused to the remaining portion of the real property. Damages apply only to the real property and not to the business occupying the property. This may include the loss in the property’s value because of having inadequate parking after the taking. The owner is entitled to the value for damages, or, the cost to cure those damages, whichever is less. The amount would be included within the real property purchase offer.

Cost-to-Cure
A cost-to-cure consultant will analyze the damages and prepare possible designs and costs to solve, or cure, the damages to the remaining property.

In this particular case, let’s say the only cure is to construct an elevated parking structure on the remaining property to replace the lost parking. Let’s say it costs $500,000 to construct. The City’s offer to purchase would have to include $500K for damages or cost to cure in their purchase offer for the owner to build the structure without dipping into their own pockets. If that amount were not included in the offer, the property owner would have to argue for that amount with the use of the cost-to-cure documentation and the real property appraiser’s calculation of damages.

Relocation
The property owner (landlord) and the business occupant will be entitled to relocation benefits that may apply for moving personal property and reconfiguring their operations caused by the property taking as long as those items were not paid by the City as part of the cost to cure or elsewhere in the real property purchase.

Let’s say that Greyhound can no longer operate at this location with the loss of parking. This would entitle Greyhound to relocation benefits for moving to a replacement site. If the property is appraised as a non-special use property, relocation benefits would likely cover the costs to move, reinstall, substitute, or abandon personal property such as:

  • Seating, counters, computer systems, phone systems, paging systems, scheduling systems, and other items classified as personal property.

If the real property was appraised as a special use property—in other words, it’s a bus depot and cannot reasonably include another use—many of those items listed as personal property above may be valued with the real property because those items would normally be included in the purchase and sale of a bus depot. As a result, they would then not be eligible for relocation benefits. Instead, they would be valued as part of the real property, which means they may add value to the real property, but will include a depreciated value, or they may add no value with no actual payment for them. This is not a good scenario for the business when this or similar functioning personal property is needed at a replacement property.

For best results, the identification of personal property should be prepared through collaboration among the real property appraiser, a qualified relocation consultant, the tenant, and the property owner. Without this collaboration, chances are strong that someone, including the public agency, will lose and someone will be unjustly compensated.

Now let’s explore a notion and say that because of the nature of this business, it’s determined to be a utility facility. Included in the URA’s definition of a utility facility is any transportation system. The URA goes on to say that a utility facility may be privately, publicly, or cooperatively held. In my opinion, a bus depot should qualify as a transportation system and therefore should qualify as a utility facility within the regulations.

Utility facilities are eligible for relocation benefits in a significantly different manner than a business. According to the URA, relocating a utility facility includes, in part, the displacing public agency acquiring the necessary right of way on a new location, moving, and constructing the replacement facility that has the functional equivalency of the existing facility.

If this Utility Facility notion proves to be correct, Greyhound would be entitled to a new bus depot and property with no out of pocket costs.

Conclusion
In order to get the acquisition and relocation right, the condemning public agency, the property owner, and the tenant, must have qualified people to analyze the issues and facts, and prepare the necessary reports and documentation.

Because these situations are similar to any other buyer/seller scenarios, there is typically a team of specialists representing the public agency and another team representing the property owner and/or tenant. The people within each team need to work together to understand the facts and sort them into the proper categories as briefly described above.

Having the analysis performed by eminent domain experts is the best way for your team to prevail in an acquisition or relocation dispute.

Eminent Domain and What That Means for Your Taxes

Eminent Domain and TaxesAs the tax season begins, it’s a good time to remind you and your clients that relocation payments from federal funded projects that use eminent domain to acquire private property are not considered income, and acquisition payments are treated as a capital gain, which can be deferred by a 1033 exchange.

The Federal Uniform Relocation and Acquisition Act (URA) states that relocation payments are not considered income on a federally funded project. My clients and their tax preparers frequently report weak support regarding this URA statement. Because this frequently causes inconsistent treatment of payments by tax preparers, I’ve been prompted to research the issue, not as a tax person but as a relocation consultant, in order to find support for the tax preparer when dealing with relocation payments, and to assist my clients with relocation planning decisions.

My article, Eminent Domain Acquisition Payments, Relocation Payments, and Taxes, outlines the results of my research in more detail here. See here. Involuntary Conversions.

Once it is understood how to handle the relocation payments, sometimes the next hurdle is to identify relocation payments or separate relocation payments from acquisition payments. This dilemma can occur when a dispute resolution process or trial is used to settle a case where fixtures are included, or when a case is a combination of acquisition and relocation issues. These processes often lump things together making it difficult to identify whether the resulting payment was part of relocation or acquisition. They can also inadvertently limit ongoing relocation benefits.

If you are in the process of preparing for a dispute resolution or trial, I can assist you by preparing language to include in a settlement agreement, preparing clarifying check-sheets, and providing other materials to help identify relocation payments. I can also assist you with preserving rights to ongoing relocation benefits.

Buyer Beware: Permanent Fixtures v. Personal Property and Why it Matters

Buyer-Beware-Permanent-FixtThe analysis and classification of property plays a critical role in the success of your eminent domain case. An analysis must be performed to define between personal property (including trade fixtures), permanent fixtures, and other forms of property. The real property offer that a displacing public agency makes depends on this analysis, but it’s dangerous to assume that their analysis is, by its nature, automatically accurate. Misclassification can cost a displaced business millions of dollars in out of pocket expenses. A close examination of the analysis should be performed to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of the classifications that have been made.

I recently worked with a business that would have been $4.5m out of pocket had they accepted the offer from the displacing agency. It came down to the issue of permanent fixtures vs. trade fixtures (personal property). The displacing agency made an offer of $4m for items that the agency classified as permanent fixtures. In order for the displaced business to reestablish its operations, the business would, in fact, have had to buy these “fixtures” back from the agency at salvage value, estimated by the agency at $500k. By my estimation, the relocation costs would have cost $8m in reinstallation at the new location. The result would have been $4.5m out of pocket, all because of the acceptance of the property analysis.

Defining Fixtures:

Permanent fixtures are typically equipment that cannot be moved and therefore becomes part of the real property. They will be purchased as real property, and are not eligible for relocation benefits.

Trade fixtures are typically items used in the business trade, which can be easily detached, thereby, converting to personal property when detached, which then are eligible for relocation benefits. The definitions and criteria used for classifying permanent fixtures and trade fixtures will be discussed at another time in the future.

Understanding the Advantages and Disadvantages of Classifying Items as Fixtures

Example 1: Case Study – COMPANY X & AGENCY Z

I was asked to evaluate Agency Z’s real property acquisition offer, which included a personal property and fixture analysis for COMPANY X. There were three areas of concern:

#1: Permanent Fixture v. Personal Property

#2: Installation Classified as Fixture v. Reinstallation of Personal Property

#3: Infrastructure Classified as a Fixture v. Reinstallation of Personal Property

#1: Permanent Fixture v. Personal Property – AGENCY Z classified many items as permanent fixtures, which are typically classified as personal property. It was in COMPANY X’s interest to re-classify some or all items as personal property.

Value: AGENCY Z valued approximately $4.2m of the items as permanent fixtures, which could, or should, have been classified as personal property.

Adverse effects of a permanent fixture classification:

Permanent fixtures are not eligible for relocation benefits; therefore if COMPANY X desired to relocate an item classified as a permanent fixture, the costs for moving, reconnecting, and/or modifying, were not reimbursable and would have been COMPANY X’s responsibility.

The permanent fixture classification of items is not good when:

  • The item will be needed at the replacement property
  • Code upgrades are needed for the item’s reinstallation
  • Significant infrastructure is needed for the item’s reinstallation such as, plumbing, footings, venting, power, etc.

Positive effects of a permanent fixture classification:

Fixtures can be abandoned and paid out for the amount of the fixtures Value in Use, which can potentially be greater than abandoning the same item if it were classified as personal property.

When abandoning an item as personal property, the amount received is the lesser of; the Value in Use, or, the estimated cost to move and reinstall.

When abandoning an item classified as a fixture, the amount received is the appraised “Value in Use”, or also called “Value in Place”.

In other words, reimbursements for abandoning an item as a fixture will always be equal to, or better than, abandoning the same item when it is classified as personal property.

Fixtures are good when:

  • The fixture is not needed at the replacement property
  • The business is closing
  • The item’s Value in Use is greater than the cost to buy it at salvage value plus its reinstallation cost (not common)

Changing items classified as permanent fixtures to a classification of personal property:

In the case of COMPANY X, these items included machinery and equipment, which was installed for the business of treating customer products. These items were not installed for operating the real property, as would a permanent fixture.

#2: Installation Classified as Fixture v. Reinstallation of Personal Property – AGENCY Z classified the installation as a fixture for items they classified as personal property. Typically, the installation of personal property items is not classified as a fixture or personal property. Installation is simply part of relocating and reinstalling the personal property.

Value: AGENCY Z had valued approximately $1m installation of personal property as a fixture.

Negative effects: (same as above)

Positive effects: (same as above)

#3: Infrastructure Classified as a Fixture v. Reinstallation of Personal Property – AGENCY Z had classified the infrastructure items as fixtures, such as: plumbing and electrical.

Value: Electrical $195k; Plumbing $739k

Negative effects of infrastructure as a fixture:

Most replacement buildings would not have had the level of infrastructure needed to support COMPANY X’s equipment needs for plumbing and electrical. If the plumbing and electrical had costs exceeding AGENCY Z’s fixture value, COMPANY X would have have had to pay the extras out of their own pocket.

Positive effects of infrastructure as a fixture:

If COMPANY X happened to locate a replacement building that included most of their needed plumbing and electrical (which was doubtful), then AGENCY Z’s infrastrucure value and payment may have put money in COMPANY X’s pocket.

If COMPANY X chose to go out of busines, then having the infrastructure catagorized as a fixture would have been good for COMPANY X.

Example 2: Heat Treating Furnace

A very specific example of the pitfalls of accepting an offer from the displacing agency can be illustrated with this heat treating furnace as one particular item owned by this business. In this case, the agency offered to purchase this item as a permanent fixture at $66k and made it eligible for purchase by the owner from the agency for $8.5k.

However, permanent fixtures, as this furnace was classified by the agency, are not eligible to receive reimbursements for moving and reinstalling. The cost to move and reinstall a furnace like this is estimated at $140k, as shown in the Relocation Cost Analysis spreadsheet below.

For the business to have opened shop at another location using the agency’s valuation the business would have had to purchase this furnace for $8.5k and then spend $140k to move and reinstall it.  They would have received $66k from the agency but would have been out of pocket $82.5k.

Reclassifying a furnace like this from a permanent fixture to personal property allowed relocation benefits to pay for the full relocation costs of $140k with no out of pocket expenses for the business.

Buyer Beware Permanent Fixtures v Personal Property and Why it Matters

As these examples illustrate, it’s critical to understand the advantages and disadvantages of classifying items as fixtures. It’s potentially extremely expensive and detrimental to a displaced business to assume that an analysis is automatically correct. If you are at risk of having your property taken by eminent domain, scrutinize the analysis of fixtures v. personal property to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of the classifications that have been made in your case. If you have any questions regarding the question of fixtures, personal property, relocation, or other areas of eminent domain, get in touch and I’d be happy to discuss the matter with you.

Partial Property Taking: Understanding the Impacts

1When a public entity takes partial property through eminent domain, it’s important to understand the impacts and issues to the remaining property. All too often, the public entity’s proposed cure is flawed, frequently eliminating all but a very small portion of the property’s key needs. The property owner must equip him or herself with experts who understand the pitfalls of partial property taking and will look out for their best interest.

In the case of partial property taking, it’s vital to:

  • Understand the property as it exists before the property taking
  • Understand the property taking
  • Understand the zoning and building codes for the area
  • Understand the State’s proposed cure to the remaining property
  • Identify any missing elements of the agency’s proposed cure
  • Prepare a preliminary design and estimated cost to cure the remaining property, if there are shortcomings in the agency’s proposed cure

As a consultant focused on business and property owners impacted by public agencies taking private property through eminent domain, I have an in-depth understanding of these matters. I apply my extensive experience to help identify the property impacts, provide a reasonable design to solve the impacts, and prepare reasonable costs to construct the necessary changes to the property.

My background includes ownership of a business that performed equipment design/build and installation work, as well as ownership in a general contracting firm that constructed commercial projects,including ownership of a steel fabrication and installation business.

Now, I apply that background to my over 15 years as a consultant working with relocating businesses along with preparing preliminary designs and cost estimates to make remaining properties functional after a partial property taking. This work includes the use of guidelines based on the Federal Uniform Relocation and Acquisition Act.

I use the knowledge gained from this background and apply it to assist my clients who are sometimes private property owners, businesses owners, and frequently public agencies. For those clients, I search for problems created by property takings, develop solutions to those problems, develop the costs for those solutions, and provide those costs and designs to the client and/or representatives of the condemning agency.

My work has included several hundred properties, many of which have been complex takings. Here is an example of a recent case. In my role, I reviewed the impacts and issues to the Company X property in the same light and diligence as with all of my typical private and public agency clients.2

Case Study – Company X – Partial Property Taking

Property as it Exists
The property, as it existed, included two shop buildings of 3,600 square feet each, and two tow yards. Each of the buildings and tow yards had ample access for maneuvering towed and dysfunctional vehicles into and out of each area. The attached drawing, Layout Before Property Taking, shows the maneuvering capabilities for each of the key areas and the uses of the property. Also, noted on the drawing are (5) key elements of the property that relate to the current use, as well as, any likely intended users of these buildings and property, such as an automotive repair shop.

The key elements to this property were as follows:

  • Customer parking adjacent to the office
  • Easy tow vehicle access into the buildings
  • Easy tow vehicle access into the storage yards
  • Convenient parking near shop and office areas
  • Convenient shipping and receiving
  • Convenient parking for work on large vehicles

Property Taking
The property taking was along the northern portion of the entire property. The property line prior to the taking was located sixty-five feet north of the north face of the existing building that was used as an auto body shop. Thirty feet of property was being taken, which placed the new property line thirty feet to the south, which is thirty-five feet north of the building. The driveway entrance was also moved thirty feet south.

Improvements within the area of the property taking included a ten-foot landscape buffer, a paved area used for vehicle maneuvering and parking, a pole sign, and a car canopy.

RC Zoning and Parking Design Requirements
An exhaustive search of the codes was not performed, but key items were found and described here. The RC zoning allowed auto body shops as a permitted use. There were approximately thirty-six permitted uses listed of which only a few uses would have been practical at this location. This zoning had requirements for eight-foot wide sidewalks placed in all walk areas including through parking and driveways. Also required were covers over sidewalks at building faces. Wrecked motor vehicle compounds were no longer a permitted use, of which there were two on this property that were allowed due to grandfathering.

Parking in the RC zoning was not allowed on the street side of the building and parking had to meet ADA, stormwater, and landscaping requirements. The quantity of parking stalls calculated to ¾ of a stall per 600 square feet of building square footage. This equated to nine stalls for the 7,200 square feet when combining the two buildings on the site. A designated loading area of ten feet by forty feet was also required.

State’s Proposed Cure
The State’s proposed cure of $67,000 included relocating the existing Tow Yard #1 to the east of the existing Tow Yard #2 to make room on the west side of the building for replacement parking. The state included costs to provide asphalt pavement for the parking, and crushed rock and fencing for the relocated tow yard. The State did not include any design for this work, only a highlighted aerial photo indicating the shape or footprint of the proposed areas (see attached drawing, State’s Proposed Cure).

The State also included a drawing, State’s Tow Vehicle Maneuvering, which indicated that a tow truck could maneuver a vehicle into the body shop for repairs. This was an important item for the existing auto body shop, as it would have also been for an automotive repair shop, which was also a permitted use.

State’s Missing Elements
The State did not consider all of the issues related to installing new parking and relocating the tow yard. The attached drawing, State Proposed Cure Expanded for Codes, was based on the State’s proposed cure, but with the added missing elements that were necessary to meet current codes, which were required when adding the State’s new elements such as parking or crushed rock for the tow yard. The drawing also pointed out other missing elements needed for this property to properly function under the State’s proposed cure.

Relocating the parking or the tow yard required the addition of impervious surfaces such as asphalt or crushed rock. Adding impervious surfaces or simply adding new parking required code upgrades such as landscaping, sidewalks, a dedicated loading area, the proper number of parking stalls, and handicapped stalls with ADA access between the parking and the building entrances. Including these required items, as shown on the drawing, required more space than the State showed on their drawing. Including the required sidewalks and landscaping on the street side of the building reduced the existing driveway and parking to a width of fourteen feet, leaving only enough width for a one-way driveway, which left the building nearly useless for its intended use, and most permitted uses. The State’s proposed cure eliminated all but a very small portion of the property’s key needs.

The tow vehicle maneuvering, as shown on the State’s drawing, failed to meet the State’s intentions, and the needs of the property in two areas. The first problem was that the State did not include the ten-foot landscape buffer in their drawing, which would eliminate the ability to maneuver this vehicle as they had shown. The second problem was that the State’s drawing showed a need for at least a sixteen-foot wide building entrance door to maneuver a vehicle into the building. At the time, the building currently had twelve-foot wide doors; adding any wider doors would have required structural changes to the building, which would have triggered major code upgrades to the entire building. Those code upgrades would likely have caused the building to be demolished and rebuilt new, for economic purposes.

3The State’s suggestion of relocating the tow yard had three fatal flaws:

  1. The first flaw was that the tow yards were grandfathered in and were no longer a permitted use within the RC Zoning, therefore, relocating the tow yard would not have been allowed. Necessary permits would not have been issued, which would have resulted in the loss of one tow yard.
  2. Secondly, creating a solid surface, such as crushed rock suggested by the State, would have triggered other code upgrades to the site including landscaping and likely sidewalks. Either of those items would again have narrowed the driveway that connected to the proposed relocated tow yard, as well as, connecting to the remaining Tow Yard #2, and would have resulted in no access to either tow yards.
  3. Additionally, this driveway narrowing eliminated the ability for truck traffic to pass by the existing septic system, again preventing access to the tow yards.

Adding the code-required elements to the State’s design for curing the remaining property left the design unworkable for making the remaining property functional after the property taking. Tow truck access to the building would have been eliminated, one tow yard would have been eliminated, the other tow yard would not have been accessible, and critical locations for customer parking would have been completely lost.

Attempts to correct or solve these shortcomings of the State’s design proved unattainable because of the remaining narrow driveway, which could not be expanded. Therefore, an alternative design was prepared and discussed in more detail below.

Alternative Design
Alternative to the State’s design and shown on the attached drawing, Alternative Proposed Cure, depicts a design that replaced the minimum needed functions of the remaining property after the property taking. This design took into consideration the RC zoning and the needs and functions for many of the permitted uses listed for the RC zoning.

This design included the removal of the existing Shop #1 and replacement with a new building located to the east. A circular driveway was included of a standard width to allow reasonable traffic flow for all vehicles and combinations of vehicles. Parking was placed in proper locations and in proper quantities. The remaining site was brought up to current codes as required with sidewalks, ADA access, landscaping, and stormwater systems. (This was a preliminary or basic design, in that an exhaustive review for the best design or a design meeting all required codes had not yet been performed.)

The cost for this project was estimated at $1,118,186. The estimate included work and costs from the beginning to the end of the project including, design, permitting, construction, and taxes.  The costs were prepared from preliminary quotes from various local contractors and vendors, as well as with the use of in-house costs from similar projects.

Conclusion
The State’s design was not complete enough to show how it would cure the needed elements for the remaining property after the property taking.
Expanding that design to include the code required items showed that the State’s design did not cure the elements needed for the remaining property to remain functional in its after condition.

The proposed alternative design took into consideration the necessary elements for meeting current codes and included the minimum needed elements for the remaining property to properly function. Based on this alternative design and estimated costs, the cost to cure the remainder property was estimated at $1,118,186.

I created the alternative design and its estimated costs. It was my expert opinion – now justified – of what would be necessary to cure the functions of the remainder property after the property taking.

If you have any questions regarding partial property taking and would like an opinion regarding understanding the impacts, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.

15 Things Guaranteed To Accelerate your Eminent Domain Practice

15 Things Guaranteed To Accelerate your Eminent Domain PracticeBuilding your eminent domain practice and accelerating your firm’s growth is within reach. There are ways to add value and benefit to your clients by augmenting the services that you currently have on offer, helping you and your practice to stand out from the crowd. Including a variety of specialized services will build your business reputation, set you apart from the competition, and quickly accelerate your business. Here are 15 examples that can add value to your practice and start pushing your business forward today:

1. Liaise with an expert who can follow relocation guidelines based on the Uniform Act with intimate knowledge.

2. Avoid client disappointment by adding a seasoned relocation consultation to your client offering. Their expertise will work to guide the process so that your clients are able to avoid much of the potentially extensive out of pocket, non-reimbursable money they would otherwise need to spend to relocate their business because of a public project taking their property.

3. Steer the direction of your clients’ case from an early stage to produce better results to the business/property owner that you’re working with.

4. Perform a thorough analysis to differentiate between personal property and real property. Because federal relocation guidelines don’t automatically guide businesses to the best relocation results, each business relocation should have an analysis performed to make the distinction between personal and real property.

5. Determine the proper amounts and best methods for receiving relocation payments from the public agency while following the relocation guidelines.

6. Make cost-to-cure services a part of your client offering.

7. Add preliminary planning services to your service offering. For those businesses that will be displaced by a project, preplanning can result in thousands and sometimes millions of dollars in cost reimbursements for your clients that often otherwise go unrecognized and unclaimed.

8. Provide services that can be extended to your clients right away to break out of the usual holding pattern. Preplanning services provide you with something to offer the client right away, while other attorneys have to wait to get the ball rolling. This offering will increase the chances of securing the client’s business.

9. Improve efficiency preparing appeals, planning relocation logistics, and orchestrating and coordinating the actual move toward maximum efficiency and minimum client downtime.

10. Increase the amount of time for evaluating and making critical decisions. This can be accomplished through preplanning.

11. Extend replacement property evaluation or feasibility services to your clients to outline the best of the potential replacement properties.

12. Guide your clients through the process of determining relocation benefits that will and will not assist them with making a potential replacement property functional for the business.

13. Pre-plan relocations to establish time for preparation of plans that will minimize downtime with the use of relocation benefits.

14. Save your client out of pocket expenses because of a rushed move, lack of choices, and excessive key employee time spent on the relocation. Proper preplanning sets the stage for the actual relocation, saving your clients thousands of dollars, helping to build your trusted relationship.

15. Put your client’s best foot forward while working with the public agency representatives. Teaming with a preplanning specialist will demonstrate to the public agency your high level of organization and knowledge. With the right preplanning, you can avoid the misinformation that usually causes the process to derail and veer off in a direction that can be costly to your client’s business.

The 15 important items on this list can all be achieved by liaising with a relocation consultant. Including an expert on your team who specializes in the services outlined here can be of extreme benefit to your clients, and certainly to you and the way that you structure your practice. Offering preplanning services to prospective clients creates a more complete package than what other attorneys, appraisers, and other eminent domain professionals offer.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have on this matter or other eminent domain and condemnation matters you may want to discuss as they relate to relocation and cost-to-cure. Please contact me either by phone by email. I look forward to hearing from you.

photo credit Twobee via Free Digital Photos

How Eminent Domain Appraisers Can Benefit from “Cost-to-Cure” Services

How Eminent Domain Appraisers Can Benefit from “Cost-to-Cure” ServicesWhen it comes time to defend your appraisal, are you sure that it will stand up to opposing council? Whether it’s your appraisal or your opinion on the replacement costs for buildings and other improvements for cost-to-cure designs and cost estimates, the opposing council will be ready to poke holes in your case.

As an appraiser, sometimes you are working on an eminent domain case where part of a parcel of property is condemned and the use of the remaining property is impacted. In such cases, a consultant can support your work with customized, reasonably calculated cost-to-cure estimates and designs that follow agency guidelines and eminent domain law.

When the new right-of-way severs a structure or improvements, the consultant will develop a design for removing the portions of the improvements affected by the right-of-way, while renovating the remaining portions to cure the damages caused by the property taking.

An experienced cost-to-cure consultant can assist appraisers and other interested parties by enhancing their appraisals for complex structures, improvements, and cost-to-cure values. The cost-to-cure consultant with the added benefit of relocation expertise on eminent domain projects can help in a number of ways by providing a single source and point of contact with expert knowledge in eminent domain issues including cost-to-cure, replacement costs, separation of relocation costs from cost-to-cure and replacement costs, preliminary design, and commercial construction.

Cost-to-Cure Services are Time and Cost Effective

Benefits of Cost-to-Cure estimates and designs for appraisers include:

  • Quick understanding of the assignment and project issues.
  • Efficient turn around of costs and reports.
  • The ability to speak on most of the issues with knowledge of when to hand additional detailed explanations to other experts.
  • Knowledgeable identification of additional experts that may be necessary for the project.
  • Coordination of those experts for the project for their scope of work and reports.
  • Distinguishing between cost-to-cure issues and relocation issues saves time and offers a comprehensive package to the client that includes cost-to-cure needs and relocation needs.
  • Perform analysis of plans and costs developed by the opposing side to determine their effectiveness and reasonableness.

I support appraisers in Eminent Domain cases with timely and affordable cost reports and designs that are, typically, self-supporting.

If challenged, I stand ready to further support and clarify the cost reports in mediation, deposition, or even trial when necessary.  My status as a recognized specialist in this niche comes from an extensive history of creative solutions, credibility and clarity. The documents that I prepare for appraisers are based on defensible fact and stated in detailed but understandable language and also include design drawings that are approachable for the layman.

When you have a difficult or questionable Eminent Domain matter to appraise, please feel free to give me for a free telephone consultation.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Eminent Domain Fact Delivery has Impact on Judge’s Decision

Eminent Domain Fact Delivery has Impact on Judge's DecisionI recently read this article, Caltrans’ Highway 101 Overpass Condemnation Case Ends in a Slip Decision by Brand Kuhn. This is an eminent domain lawsuit that I have been following for several years.

In cases of eminent domain, I can’t stress enough the importance of how the case is presented. The way that the facts are delivered makes a significant impact on the judge’s decision.

As an analogy, eminent domain trials are a lot like the reality competition shows that are so popular on television these days, like The Amazing Race and Dancing With the Stars. Two very talented competing teams go up against one another and apply their knowledge, skills, and resources to put on their best performance. After 20 days of performing – in this case the performance is the trial – the judge or jury scores the two teams based on the performances that they gave.

The scores are the result of how well the story was told while meeting specific criteria and facts in an eminent domain case. Protecting the client’s interests – requires the most compelling case possible; to produce the best results, the value of engaging expert eminent domain representatives to be part of your team to present cannot be underestimated.

Take a moment to read Brad’s article if you have any questions on this matter or other eminent domain and condemnation matters you want to discuss, please let me know.

What Business Relocation Consulting can do to Assist Eminent Domain Attorneys

What Business Relocation Consulting can do to Assist Eminent Domain AttorneysAs an eminent domain attorney for owners, you offer important services to your clients. You work to protect the interests of private property and business owners through a process that is complicated and confusing for those who are inexperienced and vulnerable in a relocation situation. Your services help to ensure fair compensation for your clients.

What if there was a way to add additional value and benefit to your clients, and to improve your overall service offerings? A business relocation consultant, when brought in early for preplanning a business location, can steer things in a direction that will produce better results to the business/property owner that you’re working with. Including a business relocation consultant as part of your team can result in considerable advantage to your clients.

Because federal relocation guidelines don’t automatically guide businesses to the best relocation results, each business relocation, must have some level of analysis performed to distinguish between personal property and real property. It’s also essential to determine the proper amounts and best methods for receiving relocation payments from the public agency while following the relocation guidelines. By adding expert relocation consultation to your client offering, your practice can avoid the disappointment of clients who find out how much out of pocket, non-reimbursable money they spent to relocate their business because of a public project taking their property.

You will benefit from offering preplanning services to prospective clients because you will be offering a more complete package than any other attorney. Preplanning services provide you with something to offer the client right away, while other attorneys are in a holding pattern. This offering will increase the chances of securing the client’s business.

Preparing appeals, planning relocation logistics, and orchestrating and coordinating the actual move itself toward maximum efficiency and minimum client downtime are examples of how business relocation consultation can add value to your attorney services and your clients.

Business relocation consultation and preliminary planning services for those businesses that will be displaced by the project can result in thousands and sometimes millions of dollars in cost reimbursements for your clients that often otherwise go unrecognized and unclaimed. Preplanning a business relocation while following relocation guidelines based on the Uniform Act can greatly improve the outcome of the relocation. Taking appropriate action can result in improved relocation reimbursements received from the displacing public agency, frequently in amounts of twice or more. In many cases when the business becomes eligible for relocation benefits, the relocation consultation services are eligible for reimbursement within the relocation guidelines.

These services are quite unique within the eminent domain industry. By augmenting your professional services to include the expertise of my business relocation consultancy, you can set your practice apart from that of other eminent domain attorneys. If you wish to discuss this further or should you have any questions, or comments, please contact me.

photo credit Stock Images via Free Digital Photos

Eminent Domain, Condemnation, and Uniform Relocation Act Benefits Seminar

I’ll be speaking on the Uniform Relocation Act Benefits at the Second Annual Eminent Domain and Condemnation seminar in Honolulu on August 21, 2013.  You can take home new information from a lineup of talented faculty sharing their latest valuable updates, tips, and information.

Find out more and register at http://www.theseminargroup.net/seminar.lasso?seminar=13.EMDhi#

I hope to see you there.

 

Martyn regularly speaks around the U.S. on eminent domain issues including relocation, cost-to-cure, and replacement costs at gatherings of property/business owners, law firms, and continuing legal education seminars.

Just Compensation and Relocation Payments for Fixtures and Personal Property within Eminent Domain and the Uniform Act (URA)

There have been many disappointed businesses owners when finding how much out of pocket, non-reimbursable money they spent to relocate their business due to a public project taking their property. The federal relocation guidelines don’t automatically guide the business to the best relocation results. To achieve the best results, each business relocation small and large, must have some level of analysis performed to distinguish between personal property and real property, as well as, to determine the proper amounts and best methods for receiving relocation payments from the public agency while following the relocation guidelines.

To emphasize this, recently while planning a business relocation, our personal property analysis determined that a refrigeration unit was improperly classified by the public agency’s appraiser as a non-moveable fixture. The appraiser also determined that it added no value to the property so it contributed no funds to the just compensation, so it had zero value. Furthermore, because the unit was classified as real property, there were no relocation benefits available for it.

We analyzed the refrigeration unit and were able to successfully demonstrate to the public agency that the unit was actually a moveable trade fixture, therefore considered personal property and entitled to relocation benefits. Further analysis demonstrated the cost to substitute the unit with a new unit was slightly less than the estimated $1 million to move and reinstall the existing unit.

This analysis resulted in the business receiving a new refrigeration unit at the replacement property with no out of pocket costs for the business, and very importantly, no downtime for the business, which would have occurred had they relocated the existing unit.

There are four possible methods of receiving compensation for a piece of equipment or personal property depending on its classification and the needs for the item, they are:

As Real Property
1. Payment within just compensation when the item is classified as real property because it’s a non-movable fixture

As Personal Property within the relocation benefits when the item is classified as a movable fixture or personal property, which includes choices of payments as follows:
2. As abandoned personal property
3. As relocated personal property
4. As substituted personal property

A basic comparison of how acquisition and relocation proceeds related to fixtures and personal property are described and calculated as follows:

As Real Property (non-movable fixture):

Let’s say an air compressor was determined to be a non-movable fixture, therefore it is real property, and it has an appraised value of $5,000. (Often, the value can be zero when the item does not contribute to the value of the property)

Non-movable fixtures are purchased as real property by condemning agencies. Within the real property acquisition payment the property owner would receive the $5,000 for the air compressor in our example. Payments for real property are subject to capital gains tax, although the tax can be deferred with a 1033 exchange. Currently the capital gains tax rate for most businesses is at 15%. If the tax is not deferred and the compressor has been fully depreciated, the property owner would be subject to capital gains tax of $750, for a net of $4,250. (This should be reviewed by your tax advisor.)

Side notes:
• Non-movable fixture payments typically are paid to the real property owner, not the tenant, which may have purchased and installed the fixture.
• Fixtures on occasion will include foundations, electrical and plumbing infrastructure. Receiving additional compensation for these items as non-movable fixtures will eliminate the ability to receive cost reimbursements for these items when reinstalling the personal property that the foundations or infrastructure serve.

As Personal Property and/or Movable Fixture:

Let’s say the same air compressor described above was determined to be a movable trade fixture, therefore personal property. The business has three choices in dealing with the air compressor:

• Abandon
• Relocate/Move
• Substitute

Abandon
When the item of personal property is not needed at their replacement location, or the business does not relocate, the business may want to receive a payment for abandonment of the personal property.

The federal relocation guidelines’ payment formula for abandoning personal property is the lessor of the value-in-use or the estimated cost to relocate the item.

If the cost to relocate the air compressor is estimated at $10,000 then the lessor value is the value-in-use of $5,000. The business would then receive the $5,000 as part of their relocation benefits which is non-taxable.

Relocate/Move
When the personal property item is needed at the replacement location, then an analysis should include the costs for relocating the item including disconnecting, moving, foundations, reconnecting, and modification if necessary. The actual cost to relocate the compressor will be paid to the business, which in this case is $10,000. This payment is non-taxable.

Substitute
When the function of the personal property is needed at the replacement location, there may be a desire to analyze the substitution costs for the item.

The federal relocation guidelines’ payment formula for substituting personal property is the lessor of the estimated cost to move/relocate the item or the actual cost to substitute the item.

Let’s say the relocation cost of $10,000 includes costs to disconnect and modify the compressor to fit the location which will not be incurred when substituting the unit, and we find we can buy and install a new compressor that will fit the new location without modification for $9,000. The owner can then receive a substitution payment of $9,000 and enjoy the benefits of a new compressor at the replacement location. This payment is non-taxable.

Conclusion
This information will clarify the dollars at stake and emphasize the need to analyze the best method to receive payments for an asset. Based on our example of the air compressor are the following results:

  • Non-Movable Fixture – Payment resulting in $4,250, or $0 if the item does not contribute value
    • This payment will likely be paid to the real property owner.
    • If the compressor is needed at the replacement location the business will have to spend $5,999 to replace it
  • Abandonment of Personal Property  – Payment of $5,000 (non-taxable)
    • The business receives value for an item no longer needed.
  • Relocation/moving  – Payment of $10,000 (non-taxable)
    • The compressor continues to function as it did at the acquired property with no out of pocket expenses for the business.
  • Substitution – Payment of $9,000 (non-taxable)
    • The function of the compressor is replaced with a new compressor with no out of pocket expenses for the business.

Each business relocation and its payments are different because of the different types of personal property the business has and the future plans of the business, requiring separate analysis for each business.

This explanation should clarify an often overlooked and important monetary issue that will occur during relocation of the business and the acquisition of the property.

If you wish to discuss this further or should you have any questions, or comments, please contact me…..

Martyn Daniel