The Agency Risk Management (Arm) Division Is Helping The

1247 WordsMar 9, 20175 Pages
The Agency Risk Management (ARM) Division is helping the Condemnation Review Board (CRB) and the Right-of-Way (ROW) Division Chief with their Tomahawk condemnation case risk assessment process. Establishing the Risk Context The ARM established the risk context for the Tomahawk case. One of the main objectives of the Department is the construction of roads and bridges for safety traffic. Sometimes, it will need to acquire right-of-way involving adjacent parcels to develop projects. These acquisitions create a risk context that would affect other aspects of the project such as scope, budget, schedule, and quality. In addition, an early impact to the schedule would affect the stakeholders and the team involved in the project development.…show more content…
This means that the Starr Avenue will cross under the freeway profile; the drivers on the freeway will be able to full view the parcel without any impediment. This condition eliminates the misunderstood assumption. Please see the attached exhibit A. Another important assumption in the evaluation is that the parcel in the after-condition losses access from the north and from the west side of the parcel due to the required drainage permanent easement (PE). Both of the above-mentioned assumptions are important because Anderson based the after-condition severance damages on them, as explained later on this memo. On February 24, 2017, the CRB met with the ARM, AGO, and the OPC to discuss the Tomahawk case. The objective was to decide between the full and partial take of the parcel. The appraisal was analyzed including the assumptions mentioned above. Considering the lack of visibility (misunderstood assumption) and lack of access assumptions the severance damages were calculated at 75% of the underlying unit price ($15.00/sf), which means that the Remaining cost of the parcel is 25% of $15.00/sf ($3.75/sf) . At that time, the AGO and CRB recommended the full take due to the simplicity of the process. Their reasoning on this recommendation was that the cost of the full take was 14% higher than the partial take cost. With this recommendation, the NDOT could avoid the risk of having further parcel associated claims from the parcel owner. As a follow up item
Open Document