425-398-5708
Appraisers, Attorneys, Businesses, Contact Martyn, Eminent Domain, Property Owners

An Overview of Capped Actual Cost Items for Business Owners Affected by Eminent Domain

Leave a comment

In my last blog post entitled, “Would You Choose Lump Sum or Actual Cost Relocation Reimbursement? I discussed two reimbursement options available to business owners who must relocated due to eminent domain; lump sum and actual cost.

If a business owner chooses to be reimbursed using actual cost as the basis for the claims, some expenses are capped.

Capped Expenses: Reestablishment (maximum $25,000):

Note that the $25,000 cap mentioned above is the minimum set by the Federal Relocation Guidelines. Some states have higher amounts, some are at $50k or higher, and a few are unlimited. Link to a state-by-state relocation listing here.

1. Repairs or improvement to the replacement property as required by law or code

2. Modification to the replacement property to enable the business to operate

3. Construction and installation of new signage to advertise the business

4. Redecoration or replacement of soiled or worn surfaces such as carpeting, paint, paneling

5. Advertisement of the replacement location

6. Increased cost of operations for two years

7. Other items considered essential to the reestablishment of the business

Since an eminent domain and business relocation consultant’s services are an eligible cost when opting for the actual cost for a planned relocation, the capped items listed above are where a consultant’s expertise is important.

For example, #2 – capped within the $25,000 (depending on your state or location) is ‘modification to the replacement property to enable the business to operate’.  A consultant with construction experience can suggest modifications which are contained within that reimbursement amount.

On the other hand, a business owner may simply look at a replacement property (if he even has the time to search for properties) and believe that hefty modifications leading to out-of-pocket expenses is the only solution to enable the business to operate.

Can you see why an eminent domain and business relocation consultant’s services are absolutely necessary to the seamless transition in an eminent domain move?

In my next blog post, I will compare actual cost estimates for relocation for small businesses versus acceptance of the lump sum.

Do you have any questions about the capped amount in your state?

Appraisers, Attorneys, Businesses, Contact Martyn, Eminent Domain, relocation

Would You Choose Lump Sum or Actual Cost Relocation Reimbursement?

Leave a comment

Under Relocation Guidelines featured on my site by state, business owners who must relocate due to eminent domain can choose to receive benefits from the government agency one of two ways.

1) Lump Sum Payment – up to $40,000 based on income

2) Actual Cost Relocation – based on actual eligible costs, some of which are capped.

Lump Sum Payment

Business owners can receive a lump sum or a fixed payment of up to $40,000 and call it a day.  The business owner will move themselves and no other claims can be submitted to the agency for reimbursement.

So if it costs the business owner $300,000 to relocate machinery, office equipment, parts, furniture for example, along with setting up of computers, telephones, heating and air conditioning, the business owner will pay-out-of-pocket for anything over and above the $40,000 amount.

In this example this amount would be $260,000.

In a cash-strapped economy, any out-of-pocket expenses could make or break a business.

Actual Cost Relocation

The following expenses can be reimbursed to the business owner based on the individual and actual costs of the move.

Moving (no maximum amount with one exception):

1. Transportation of Personal Property

2. Packing, crating, unpacking, uncrating of Personal Property

3. Disconnecting, dismantling, removing, reassembling, and reinstalling equipment, machinery, and other personal property

4. Storage of personal property up to 12 months

5. Insurance for the replacement value of personal property during the move and necessary storage

6. Any license, permit, or certification required at the replacement site, which the business had at the displacement location

7. Replacement value of property lost, stolen, or damaged during the move

8. Professional services for planning, moving, and reinstalling the personal property

9. Re-lettering signs and replacing printed materials made obsolete by the move

  • Stationery
  • Notification of the move

10. Actual direct loss of tangible personal property

11. Reasonable cost incurred trying to sell and item that is not to be relocated

12. Purchase of substitute personal property.

13. Searching for a replacement location (Maximum $2,500)

14. Costs to secure professional move bids

15. Low Value/High Bulk

16. Disposal of personal property and hazardous materials

If a business owner does not opt for the lump sum payment and chooses to be reimbursed via actual costs, there are a few expenses which are capped. My next blog will explain and list these items.

If your company has to move due to eminent domain, which option would you choose? Contact Martyn Daniel, Eminent Domain and Business Relocation Consultant to help you answer that question.

 

Attorneys, Businesses, Eminent Domain

Land Use Attorneys Should Work With Eminent Domain Consultants

Leave a comment

As reported on the land attorney blog of Waldo and Lyle, PC law http://www.emdomain.com/index.html , “Small Business Owner Stands Up to Condemning Authority . . . and Wins”, Charles Andrews of Virginia, owner of Downtown Used Auto Parts received good news in 2006 that the Supreme Court denied Virginia’s Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority (NRHA) the right to condemn his property for use as a parking lot for employees of an adjacent Coca-Cola plant.  http://www.emdomain.com/Editorials/small/small.html
Andrews’ did not accept the land valuation offer in his eminent domain case. “One of the reasons Andrews rejected NRHA’s offer was NRHA’s refusal to compensate Andrews for the going business, despite the fact that it could not be relocated.”

A common misconception of eminent domain is that businesses must take the offer the government makes for property or else the business owner will not receive anything at all.

Although NRHA had offered to purchase the property, Andrews refused to sell.

In December of 1999, NRHA sent C & C Real Estate (Andrew’s company) a letter stating NRHA’s intent to acquire the property. Andrews was dismayed. “If you look at that letter you get, the way they write it sounds like you don’t have any options. Your option is nothing! They tell you what they’re gonna do. They tell you they’re going to take your property and they’re going to relocate you. They don’t want to do that. They didn’t even want us in the city,” he said.

Andrews was fortunate. After one and a half years of legal proceedings the Judge ruled that the NHRA was not authorized to condemn.

And although his salvage business could not be relocated, in cases where a business can be relocated, there are only two choices; a standard relocation option or a planned option.

Andrews’ attorneys might have advised him to accept either the standard government relocation or an amount based on income no greater than $20,000. Or Andrews might have worked with an eminent domain consultant to review specific relocation line items. The latter would allow for relocation costs to be reimbursed at a much higher rate.

Anytime a property can be relocated, land attorneys should consider working closely with an eminent domain relocation specialist for a planned relocation. While the attorney is handling the legal aspects of the case, the consultant can respond to the submission of relocation claims, many of which are not capped; the exception being the search for a relocation site at reimbursed at $2,500 and reestablishment costs which vary by state from a maximum of $10,000 to unlimited. All other planned relocation line items must be reasonable in cost and have supported information to be approved by the relocation agency.

The Waldo and Lyle Law firm states, “We work with experienced eminent domain appraisers, real estate professionals, engineers, traffic consultants, economists, soil experts, environmental scientists, land planners and other experts to develop and prove our client’s case. Whether we are helping a property owner protect her home, a church protect its property, or a commercial or industrial owner protect its business assets, we have the experience to represent successfully the property owner.”

Martyn L. Daniel, Eminent Domain and Business Relocation Consultant

 

Businesses, Eminent Domain, Workshop

EMINENT DOMAIN AND BUSINESS RELOCATION WORKSHOP OFFERED FOR CITIZENS AFFECTED BY THE PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL AND COLUMBIA RIVER CROSSING PROJECTS

Leave a comment

Eminent Domain Consultant Spearheads FREE Workshop
Featuring Land Use Attorney Guest Speakers

Bothell, WA – June 7, 2011 Martyn L. Daniel of Martyn Daniel LLC, Bothell, WA, Eminent Domain and Business Relocation Consultant will present a free 2-hour workshop on June 14th, 2011 from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm at the Milwaukie Center, Milwaukie, OR.  Daniel will discuss the rights and reimbursement benefits for those citizens affected by the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail and Columbia River Crossing projects.

Special guest speakers will include prominent Lake Oswego, OR Land Use and Eminent Domain Attorneys, Neil N. Olsen and Jim Zupancic of Zupancic Rathbone Law Group whose topics will review the legal rights of those affected by the TriMet mega-transportation plan.

The Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project will create a light rail alignment that travels 7.3 miles, connecting Portland State University in downtown Portland, inner Southeast Portland, Milwaukie and north Clackamas County. A number of private and commercial properties will be purchased.

In a DJC Oregon article (4/26) authored by Zupancic and Olsen titled, Portland-Milwaukie light-rail ‘mega project’ moves forward the attorneys state, “Armed with more than $200 million in property acquisition money, TriMet will acquire by agreement or condemnation more than 200 properties or parts of properties for the project’s right-of-way and other purposes. These acquisitions or takings will displace approximately 20 homeowners and more than 60 businesses.”

The attorneys further state, “As the project moves forward, and property acquisitions and takings continue, business owners will not only be wrestling with TriMet over the correct valuation of their real property, but also be facing fundamental challenges to the continued viability of their businesses.”

Martyn Daniel adds, “I’ve received a number of citizen questions regarding valuation of property and how to ensure that relocation claims will be approved that we decided to combine our efforts to spread some light on the impending eminent domain process.”

The public is invited to attend this free event.

Topics will include:

  • Do you know your rights as a business or property owner?
  • Do you have concerns regarding relocation reimbursements and property takings?
  • Did you know that relocation benefits may be available to you?
  • Did you know how to find hidden and often overlooked relocation costs?
  • Learn how to turn denied claims into approved claims.
  • Will you know how to analyze your property offer?
  • Do you know how to respond to your property offer?
  • What can you do if you do not agree with the offer you have received?

 

Registration is required by June 12th, 2011. A Question and Answer session will be offered at the end of the workshop.

To register, visit www.EminentDomainWorkshop.com or call Martyn Daniel directly at 425 398 5708.

Contact:  Martyn L. Daniel

19027 100th Ave NE
Bothell WA 98011
Phone: 425 398 5708

###

 

Eminent Domain

NYS Court of Appeals Hears Eminent Domain Challenge

Leave a comment


On Thursday, October 15, 2009, NYS Senator Velmanette Montgomery stood before the NYS Court of Appeals along with constituents from Brooklyn for their landmark challenge to the ESDC’s abuse of eminent domain. The Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state, is being asked to rule on the legality of seizing private homes to benefit a private development, in this case, the controversial Atlantic Yards proposal. Senator Montgomery said, “We have a situation where the State of NY is participating in actually abusing the law of eminent domain…This really is the worst possible example of how government can interfere in the quality of life of the people in our State. But today we hope, and we anticipate that the Court will rule on the side of the people of the State of New York. “

Martyn Daniel Eminent Domain Specialist