Financial- Vandermay Law Firm (Previous Tenant)

Home Browse Search

~ HANNA, MCELDOWNEY & ASSOCIATES 5835 S.W. CArtYON LAt~tE, SUrrE 405 PORTLAND, OR 97225 ~ (503) 297-9588 F~~ 297-2835 ~ SCANN BUDGET# ~~ `l-~ November 9, i998 OBJECT# ~~~ Elyn M. Lyon, Property Manager PROJECT# Marion County General Services DATE RTP H 7 DATE RTF ~'~ 100 High Street N.E., Room 5321 APPROVE ' INITIA S Salem, Oregon 97301-3665 // ~~~G~~~~;3 3 ~'~~~'~ ~~ ~ t~ ~;~ :~~ /6, ~3Z. ~2~ Subject: The VanderMay Law Firm Claim for loss of Personal Tangible Property ~~ f 33, ~ Dear Elyn: ~`i~~,~,~. ' - ~~~ ...._ ~~~:~ ~~ ~ ~~~i As stated in my letter of November 4, 1998, I have reached th~ conclusion that The VanderMay Law Firm claim of $5,933.33 is not payable under the provision of direct loss of tangible personal property. However, the claim may be payable under 49 C.F.R. 24.105 of the Federal Act which states the following: "When acquiring any interest in real property, the Agency shall offer to acquire at least an equal interest in ~~I buildings, structures, or ather improvements located upon the real property tu be acquired, whic6 it requires to be removed or which it determines will be adversely affected by t6e use to whic6 such real property will be put. This shall include any improvement of a tenaat-owner who has the right or obligation to remove the improvement at the expiration of the lease term." This section goes on to say that the value of the tenant-owned improvement is determined by the appraiser and is based on its contributory value. Hence, the County had two obligations: (1) To insure that the apprais~~ cansid~red the value, ~f any, of t~nant-owned improvsrnents in the appraisal report, and (2) To offer to buy the tenant-owned interests from the tenant. Apparently, the appraiser did not include the value of any tenant-owned improvements in the appraisal and, consequently, the County did not offer to acquire any tenant-owned improvements. Additionally, Maureen Callahan VanderMay has stated that relocation agents for the County assured her that they would be able to claim the loss of value of their tenant-owned improvements under other provisions of the Federal Uniform Act. The failure of a public agency'to follow the provisions of 49 CFR, Part 24 of the Uniform Act does not, in itself, invalidate a claim that otherwise might have been payable. The claim has been documented by the tenant, the improvements have been referenced by the moving company and the documented replacement value is considered to be overall reasonable.