Opinion ID: 880193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FAcruAL AND PRoCEDURAL BAcKcRoUND

Text: Grathol engages in the business of commercial real estate development in ldaho. It has taken significant steps to corffnercially develop the parcel, u'hich it originally purchased as a commercial real estate investment venture. To further the development of its parcel, Grathol filed site plans, submitted a traffic impact study, and successfully secured commercial rezoning from Kootenai County. Moreover, Grathol has marketed the parcel and engaged in negotiations with potential tenants. As it currently exists, US Highway 95 is primarily a two-lane highway. In 2002, the Board initiated a comprehensive study of US Highway 95 between the communities of Garwood and Sagle to determine the feasibility of improving the highway to a fourJane divided highway with Tlpe V Access Control. The study concluded that the highway should be improved in order to increase safety and accommodate present and future traffic demands. The study was eventually incorporated into the Garwood to Sagle Project which primarily sought to realign US Highway 95 and to construct an interchange with State Highway 54. The Board approved the Garwood to Sagle Project through its annual approval of the federally firnded State Transportation Improvement Plan (the STIP), which incorporated the Garwood to Sagle Project. Due to the size of the Garwood to Sagle Project, the Board divided it into seven segments. Grathol's parcel is located within the Athol Segment. The Board has the power of eminent domain pursuant to I.C. $ 40-311(l). The Board contends that the subject property is needed for the Garwood to Sagle Project, Athol Segment, it authorized the condemnation ofthe subject property through its annual approval ofthe and that STIP. According to MAI appraiser Stanley Moe, the fair market value of the subject property is $571,000. In an effort to avoid a condemnation action, the Board offered Grathol an additional ten percent above the appraised fair market value for a total offer of $628,100. Grathol countered the Board's offer with a demand for $3 million to $3.5 million on June 28,2010, contending that the appraisal does not account for the subject propefty' s frontage, which would result from the Sylvar/Roberts Extension. The Board contends that it is not seeking to condemn any portion of the parcel in order to construct the Sylvan/Roberts Extension. It points out that neither the Complaint nor tlle Order of Condemnation references the condemnation of any portion of the parcel for construction of the Sylvar/Roberts Extension. In this regard, Jason Minzghor, Project Development Engineer with the Board, contends that Grathol is under the mistaken belief that the Board intends to condemn a portion of its parcel for the Sylvan/Roberts Extension because of a meeting held on August I, 2010. During that meeting, two property owners, Jameson Mortgage and Frederick Krasnick, approached the Board with a proposal to extend Sylvan Road to Roberts Road through their respective properties. Minzghor asserts that the proposal was contingent upon Mortgage, Krasnick and Grathol dedicating a portion of their properties for the Sylvar/Roberts Extension in exchange for the resulting frontages that would run through their properties. Minzghor claims that after Grathol rejected the proposal, there have been no further plans in this regard. On November 19, 2010, the Board filed its Complaint with an attached Order of Condemnation, which was dated November 17, 2010, and was signed by the Director of the Idaho Transportation Department (the Director) on behalf of the Board. On December 21, 2010, the Board filed its Motion for an Order Granting Possession of Real Property pursuant to the quick-take provisions of I.C. $ 7-721. Gruthol filed its Response to the Board's Motion for an Order Granting Possession of Real Property on January 10,2011, contending, among other things, that the Complaint and the Order of Condemnation failed to meet the statutory requirements of I.C. $ 7-707 and that the Board failed to negotiate in good faith. The district court filed its Order Granting Possession of Real Property on January 27, 2011, holding that the requirements of I.C. $ 7-721 werc satisfied and that the amount of just compensation was $571,000. The district court then filed a Rule 54(b) Certificate on January 27,2011, holding that there was no just reason for delay of the entry of final judgment because the Board established the quick-take provisions of I.C. g 7-721. On February l, 201l, Grathol timely frled its Notice ofAppeal. Thereafter, the district court entered Final Judgment on March 4,2011.