1. Abatement/John Swartz - Laserfiche WebLink

removed from the floodway. It would appear that the Reed Twp. Board feels that an error was made and that the homeowners also should not bear the expense of having the FIRM corrected. Abatement application under NDCC 57-23 allows a reduction when the assessment is invalid, inequitable or unjust. Residential property is valued at market value in North Dakota. Based on the information gathered above, I reviewed factors that would affect the market value of the property. The drawback to being designated in the floodway is that no new construction is allowed, limiting the use of the property. If the improvements were severely damaged by fire, they may not be able to rebuild. It appears that fill cannot be brought into the floodway area. There could be some stigma attached to being designated in the floodway. It would appear that the property now requires flood insurance. The property would be available for flood insurance at the same rate as the surrounding Zone AE designation. As stated earlier, the problem may be corrected with a LOMR application. The application would likely be approved. To my knowledge, there have been no sales of property designated being in the floodway. Therefore, it is quite subjective in determining how much being in the floodway affects value. It's my opinion that a likely buyer would purchase the property at some type of discount and immediately apply for a LOMA or LOMR, recognizing that there is some possibility it may not be approved. It would appear that the engineering and applications cost would be about $2,000- $8,000. In a worst case scenario, the property would still be useable. It would appear that a homeowners all perils policy insurance would be available. An additional rider may be required to indemnify the homeowner for the full value of the improvement if the structures were damaged and a governmental agency would not allow the property to be repaired. The value of the land may not be covered by the insurance, however. Considering all the facts, it seems reasonable to allow some type of discount for properties placed in the floodway versus being in the floodplain, remembering that at least part of the property most likely would be removed from the floodway. The current assessment of $170,000 seems somewhat low if it was assumed that the structures were out of the floodplain. The assessor may have given consideration to the unique circumstances surrounding this property; although she was not aware that the structures were placed in the floodway. Although the taxpayer appears to be an innocent party who must pay the expense to have this situation resolved; it would not be proper to make the property owner whole by refunding tax monies collected from other tax entities having no involvement with this situation (i.e. school tax). I'm not sure what, or if, anything can be done to assist the taxpayer. I do understand the taxpayer's frustration, however. Considering the time and costs involved and the risk of capital of having this property removed from the floodway and considering the fact that the property still has value if the floodway matter is not resolved, it is my recommendation to reduce the assessment 10%, or $17,000, to $153,000.