My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC MINUTES 04121988
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1988
>
CC MINUTES 04121988
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/30/2015 9:15:18 AM
Creation date
8/20/2014 7:13:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Meeting Date
4/12/1988
Meeting Type
Regular
Document Type
Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I satisfied with the $2,000 reduction in valuation they had been given by <br />the assessor, who made an onsite inspection of the property at their <br />3 request. <br />4 Mr. Bredemus told the Council the house had been purchased in 1985 <br />5 for $92,000 and the 1988 valuation had been $91,000, which the <br />6 assessors had reduced to $89,000 after looking at the house. He said <br />7 the back yard had been flooded three times and there had been 20 inches <br />8 of water in the basement in the three years he had lived there and his <br />9 sons didn't think a $2,000 reduction would go far towards installing <br />10 drain tiles or putting a $1,000 check valve on the drain. The resident <br />11 said he presumed that even if these preventive measures were taken, <br />12 there would have to be full disclosure of the water problems to any <br />13 perspective buyer and the asking price would have to be jacked up to <br />14 cover those costs. <br />15 Assessors Perceive Further Reductions Improbable <br />16 The assessors indicated the person from their office who had inspected <br />17 the property had based the $2,000 reduction on the condition of the <br />18 house as it was when he inspected it and it would be unlikely that <br />19 further reductions would be given. Mr. Bredemus was also told the <br />20 property's valuation had probably not been greatly affected by the <br />21 construction of a larger than usual home in his area. The assessors <br />22 also said it was not their office which considered properties on St. <br />23 Anthony Boulevard more valuable, but rather the sale of properties on <br />'4 that street which set the valuations and the market makes very little <br />i differentiation between corner and mid -block lots with larqe back <br />26 yards. <br />27 Councilmembers advised Mr. Bredemus further by saying: <br />28 Sundland told him the Assessors Office had provided each Councilmember <br />29 with a brochure showing recent sales of homes in St. Anthony <br />30 and there were several homes similar to this property whose <br />31 sale prices were comparable to this valuation; <br />32 pointed out that the location of the home might have some <br />33 bearing because he knew of a case of a family who bought a <br />34 home in his own neighborhood who deliberately bid $6,000 <br />35 over the asking price to assure getting a home close to <br />36 St. Charles Church, which, of course, probably affected his <br />37 own value; <br />38 said as far as the City finding solutions to long standing <br />39 water problems on streets like St. Anthony Boulevard went, <br />40 the study the engineers were just completing seemed to indi- <br />41 cate those solutions wouldn't be inexpensive for either the <br />42 property owners or the City as a whole if adopted. <br />43 Enrooth said there had been flooding problems on that portion of the <br />44 Boulevard ever since he could remember; <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.