CC BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES 04221986

Home Browse Search

_3_ Bill Hampton, 3212 Croft Drive, said he was more concerned about his home being . classified as "non-homesteaded" than he was with his valuation. He said he and his wife had taken possession of their home January 28, 1986 and prior- to that time had been given to understand by the real estate company that the property was homesteaded, as stated in the purchase agreement. Mr. Hampton indicated the very afternoon of the day they assumed the property, he and..his wife had. returned the card applying for a homestead classification to City Hall . The property owner reported seeing the previous owners move out of the house that same morning but said he had been unable to reach them since that time to confirm the homestead classification at the incorrect addresses he had been given, presumably because of an impending divorce. The real.tor had not been very cooperative either, 'Mr. Hampton said, because they claimed the misunderstanding was not their responsibility. Mr. Hanscom told Mr. Hampton the lack of documentation that the home had been homesteaded had caused the reclassification,of this property and an affidavit from the neighbors. that the house had been vacated by the previous owners the same morning as Mr. Hampton had moved in would certainly be helpful . The Assessor indicated he woule report back on this matter when the Board of Review is- reconvened. Jerome Brede, 3216 Townview Street N.E. , indicated he was "seeking a point of clarification"because he and his wife "were sort of contesting" the valuation they had been notified would remain for their property following an onsite inspection. Mr. Brede reported having an appraisal of his home about a month ago after which the appraiser had concluded that "comparing the Brede home with sales of four homes .of similar type within the City in the last 12 months, they would be very lucky to get the price at which their house had been assessed". The property- owner said he had built his home in 1978 of "a quality less than we could have used" and he indicated • he perceived that quality had not been weighed 'in the Assessor's final evaluation. As a result, Mr. Brede stated, he had concluded that "all homes in St. Anthony are not being treated equally" . The .property owner stated further that he disagreed with the Assessor's assumption that, because his home is comparatively new, its values are appreciating while older homes would. be depreciating. Mr. Brede said he had noticed a home placed on the market a couple of months ago which had an assessed value of only $90,000 for which the owners were asking $140,000, and-, although he realized they probably didn't get that much for the house, the homeowner indicated he didn't believe the realtors could be that far off. He was convinced that a 20 year old home could be just as valuable as his eight year old house, Mr. Brede said. When Councilmember Enrooth asked what the differential was between the assessed valuation of Mr. Brede's home and what the realtor estimated it was worth, the property owner told him, according to the letter he had received from the Assessors, April 12th, his home was evaluated at $126,000 where the appraiser had estimated its worth between $115,000 and $120,000. However, the property owner said he "wasn't arguing about the $126,000" because he perceived he "might be able to sell his property for that", but his contention was that "everybody in the Village is not being evaluated in the same manner". Mayor Sundland commented that he perceived the information Mr. Hanscom was getting this year was furnished by more sophisticated computers which were able to give a more realistic market valuation to the City's property. • Mr. Hanscom indicated he perceived Mr. Brede was stating a philosophical difference with the county's methods of evaluating the City's properties but he knew St. Anthony had a good "coefficient of dispersion" Ca measurement of difference between assessed and market valuations) which did not have the type of disparity the property owner perceived.