CC PACKET 04281987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- • Mr-. Hanscom told Councilmember Ranallo the reason there had been a deviation between the raises the two ramblers experienced could have been because of different characteristics of the two properties. He said the assessors had looked at the Parade of Homes last year to -see how costs of various aspects of properties . like decks, finished basements, fireplaces, etc. had escalated and that information had been fed into the computers. Therefore, one of the ramblers might have received a higher valuation because of a fireplace or something else the other didn' t have, he added. Mr. Childs pointed out that Mr. Mazurko had said one of the rambler' s owners had -finished off his basement since the last physical examination of the property in 1984 and those improvements had probably not yet been included in the valuation assessment. Mr. Hanscom agreed that. the only way the assessors can know about such .improvements without inspections is if a building permit is issued by the City. This would be remedied when that quadrant is inspected by the assessors in 1988 . Mr. Mazurko reported the interior of his- previous home across from St. Charles Church had never been physically inspected while he lived there between 1973 and 1983 . He also denied ever receiving a notice that the assessor had attempted such an inspection during that period. LaVonne Fritz, 3105 Croft Drive, who was also present to protest her assessed valuation, told the assessors that "never in the 26 years I 've lived in my home had -I had ' a physical inspection of my property by the County .Assessors. " No action was deemed necessary related to Mr. Mazurko' s .property.. On-site Inspection of Office Condo in Northgate Office Park Requested by Tim Tromiczak Mr. Tromiczak told the Councilmembers: . -commercial evaluations had been explained to him by Mr. Holmes who had said his valuation was based on comparables for recently sold' condos in this and similar office complexes; -his own valuation had gone from $81,300 to $81 , 400 which sounded fair to him since the . last condo .sale in the office park had been for $94 ,000 until' he had gotten appraisals from three different realtors which had been for much less than his assessed valuations; -Thorpe Realty had told him the best he could hope to sell his condo would be between $68,100 and $71,000 because the- new tax laws made such investments less desirable. Calhoun Realty had suggested the property would sell for around $70 , 500 and a local realtor, Dave Forsythe, had estimated the condo would probably only sell. for $69 ,000; •