City of Janesville won't inspect homes
Photo
Other business
The Janesville City Council on Monday also:
-- Rezoned the former Moose Club at 120 N. Crosby Ave. so the owner can build a banquet facility in the basement.
-- Declined to amend charter ordinances to change the appointment process for some city committees.
-- Changed North Franklin Street between Highland Avenue and Mineral Point Avenue to a two-way street. Construction should begin this summer.
-- Bought homes at 414 N. Washington and 417 N. Washington St. The city will tear down the first to expand Washington Park and sell the second to a low-income family.
-- Sold the former Riverside Plating property at 1728 N. Washington St. The city sold the property for $13,500 to Brian Bailey, owner of adjacent The Watering Hole, to build a parking lot. Council members Tom McDonald and Yuri Rashkin voted no. McDonald was concerned that the city tore down a shed and graded and seeded the property but did not recoup the $5,000 cost. And Rashkin noted the value of a 0.8 acre of improved land in the city is about $50,000.
"We're selling $50,000 worth of land with improvements (for) $13,500?" he asked.
-- Authorized a $15,000 TIF loan to Jamin Arn, owner of OfficePro, to start a new business, Recycling 4U. The company would collect, recondition, reload and sell laser printer cartridges to office supply businesses. Up to half of the loan would be forgiven as Arn employs up to four people.
Council members Kathy Voskuil and Frank Perrotto voted no.
"I don't understand why this would have to be forgivable," Perrotto said. "If he went to a bank, he'd certainly have to repay his loan."
But council member Russ Steeber said it is not uncommon for the city to help businesses starting up or relocating.
McDonald said the city has given out forgivable loans in the past and mentioned a large company that just got a TIF loan. That company could have gone to a bank, too. The city should help the little guys as well as the big guys, he said.
Brad Cantrell, community development director, said other development loans have been tied to job creation. Arn has a proven track record of building a company and employing people.
"We think these small local entrepreneurs are our future," he said.
JANESVILLE — City officials are betting a drop in residential property values combined with a revaluation of commercial property will get the city get into compliance with state statutes.
If so, the city won't have to spend $1.75 million for a full revaluation.
Statutes require cities be between 90 percent and 110 percent of fair market value once every four years. The goal is to make taxing equitable.
Officials estimate that property in Janesville is assessed at about 84 percent of fair market value.
The city council Monday decided residential properties will not be inspected inside and out. That treatment will be reserved for commercial properties, a process expected to cost $100,000 to $180,000. That money is already budgeted.
The commercial revaluation coupled with declining housing values could push the city naturally into compliance, City Manager Eric Levitt said.
Richard Haviza, city assessor, said property values continue to decline and estimated they have fallen about 10 percent since last year.
Typically, values change only 2 to 5 percent a year, he said.
Once a city's ratio falls out of compliance, the state gives it three years to get back into compliance or the state orders its own revaluation.
The city's last revaluation in 2002 caused such a stir that enough residents protested to the state to investigate the process. The state gave the city high marks but said it could improve its public relations.
"Generally, revaluations are not well received by property owners." Haviza said in his presentation to the council.
Cities can revalue in three ways:
-- A full revaluation that includes interior and exterior inspections of all parcels, something the Department of Revenue recommends every 10 years. The cost is estimated between $1 million to $1.75 million. About 30 percent of Janesville properties were last inspected in 1996-97 and another 25 percent were inspected within the last five years. Doing only the commercial part of the full revaluation will take about a year—half as long as revaluing all properties.
-- External review, in which all parcels are inspected only from the exterior.
-- A market update, in which new properties or properties that have been sold or remodel are revalued.
City staff recommended a full revaluation. Staff said it would be more equitable, would update the city's property database and would provide a realistic picture of property values.
But Levitt recommended a hybrid approach.
Commercial properties would be inspected inside and out for the 2010 assessment role. If residential values do not fall naturally into compliance, staff could do a market update for 2011. The city could use budgeted money for the revaluation.
"I would say doing a full revaluation right now is unnecessary, expensive, misleading and inaccurate," council member Yuri Rashkin said.
Rashkin said even if the city did a full revaluation, real estate prices could drop or rise so dramatically that the city still could be out of compliance.
He wondered how true a picture the city would get if it did a full revaluation in such turbulent economic times.
Council member Frank Perrotto said he couldn't think of a more sensitive issue for property owners than revaluation.
"The question of spending $1.7 million as an estimate is a very difficult pill to swallow at this particular time," Perrotto said.
Perrotto believes real estate values will continue to decline and agreed Janesville might become compliant naturally.
"The way I look at this: We're taking a calculated risk at this moment in time," he said.
There is still time to consider a market update for 2011, he said.
Council member George Brunner said the fairness issue concerns him, especially when homes have been improved without needed building permits and so are not assessed at fair market value.
Inspections inside and out are the only way to address the fairness issue, Brunner said. But he said the hybrid suggestion makes sense in these uncertain times as property values decline.
"Why would we even do anything now?" council member Tom McDonald asked. "Why don't we just wait a year and see what the market does and use all seven of our years?"
Levitt said he suspects property values might begin to rise again after next year.
If the city gets into compliance next year, the city wouldn't need to do a revaluation again for another seven years.
McDonald was the only council member to vote against the eventual motion.
Jun 30, 2009 at 8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
realitybytes - the City gives, free money 15K to Jamon Arn for his business - yet the formerly contaminated site of Riverside Plating can't be sold to a local guy, who grew up in Janesville, who has been in the same business, in the same location for 19 years??? The City gives HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of our tax dollars to total strangers - (TIF districts) and the minute the TIF agreement is up, they flee town (Unisource, Inc.) Give me a break! The City should have given that lot to the Watering Hole for a buck just to get it back on the TAX ROLE - making money for the City, NOT losing money - like the whole Westphal Electric purchase - which will generate NO TAX dollars for the CITY! That property is being taken OFF THE TAX ROLE - so when the Council talks about budget deficits, ask them to sell of some City property. The Riverside plating lot was of NO use to anyone else - and would have ultimately sat as a weed field or become "parkland". I think I'll go down to the Hole right now and congratulate Bails for getting the lot, and SUPPORT HIS BUSINESS, as he is working to improve that area - and the Watering Hole employs local people. Keep your eye on the Council meetings - and pay close attention.
Jun 29, 2009 at 6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
I did contact the Gazette and it was indeed bought by the City of Janesville for $800,000.00. A nice chunk of change for the Westphal's.
Jun 25, 2009 at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
lynda, the Gazette doesn't read all posts. Maybe you can email Marcia Nelesen and ask her, she might know.
Jun 25, 2009 at 4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
My husband has said that it was printed in The Janesville Gazette a few weeks ago that the city aquired the Westphal & Energetics land for around $800,000.00.
Can the Gazette comment on this article???
Jun 25, 2009 at 3:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
realitybytes, I might be wrong but I thought that even though McDonald and Rashkin made those comments, the vote was unanimous.
lynda, I believe the city foreclosed on the lot because of back taxes -a few hundred dollars which the city paid. The back taxes and the cost of tearing down the shed and taking out a wall and the grading and seeding were additional costs. This all totaled up to $13,500. Otherwise the city got the land for free.
The city only wanted its costs which is what Bailey was willing to pay. Adjacent owners to available city land have some priority, I think.
ihavealife, as for the value of $50,000, that figure was based on the lot's square footage. I don't think there was a buyer who would pay that amount.
Good to see that Yuri is concerned about how OUR dollars are spent.
Jun 25, 2009 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
The former Riverside Plating land is worth $50,000.?? It also said with improvements ?? If there were improvements made to the land who paid for them ?Does that mean the city paid at some point to add the land/lot onto city services?I thought when Riverside Plating was shut down they were on a well.Anyways glad to see it will become a parking lot and not just a weed garden.
Jun 25, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Does anyone know how much this cost to buy that land?
Jun 25, 2009 at 2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Think about the money the city spent on aquiring the Energetics and Westphal property and land to make a riverside development. I wonder how much money that the taxpayers are footing for this. I think this was brought up quite a few years ago when the owner was on our city council for a term.
Jun 25, 2009 at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Keep in mind....I don't like redistribution, uneccessary government spending, and socialism. If we spent the dollars taken from our people more aptly, and stopped placing it in places where it should not be....Our taxes wouldn't be this high. Example-I see scuzbucket people who live off of the government, still doing crime and drugs, and yet our roads keep getting crappier. Sure seems this way. I want to pay taxes and I feel it is my responsibility, I just want it to make sense.
Jun 25, 2009 at 2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
I see this as a double edge sword. One if you improved your home more than slightly, your taxes increase. (which doesn't always make sense-your wages may not have gone up and you are being punished for making your neighbor hood better). Two, if you are not assessed, it's because your property value isn't good enough to be! Either way it only hits you negatively, unless you are richer and it doesn't bother you anyway.
*
There are tax credits and other incentives out there for those who do certain improvements and such, right? So why is it not spelled out in clear language (in fact advertised), but they have no problems coming to your home to look for a reason to tax you even more. It always seems to come down to one thing, punishing good behavior, no wonder some people let their property go to hell.
*
I have a question for somebody...If my house is worth slightly more and is nicer than before, but nothing major (like a new addition), then why should my taxes go up, if the fair market was viable for them to do so?
Jun 25, 2009 at 1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
This is bad for the sole proprietorship business. More small business will get run out of town because of higher taxes. We already have to pay more than enough in personal property taxes. Ours went up from a few hundred dollars to almost $1000 this year. Mind you, this is on top of property taxes.
Jun 25, 2009 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
"It sounds like the Sold the former Riverside Plating property at 1728 N. Washington St. The city sold the property for $13,500 to Brian Bailey, owner of adjacent The Watering Hole, to build a parking lot. Council members Tom McDonald and Yuri Rashkin voted no. McDonald was concerned that the city tore down a shed and graded and seeded the property but did not recoup the $5,000 cost. And Rashkin noted the value of a 0.8 acre of improved land in the city is about $50,000. "We're selling $50,000 worth of land with improvements (for) $13,500?" he asked."
Thank you Tom and Yuri for your rational questioning. For the other members of our City Council...where are your heads?
Jun 25, 2009 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Actually, Unidentified, a lot is being done. Many sound decisions are being made. Some people treat relatively minor budget shortfalls -- perfectly expected given the closure of GM and the overall recession -- as some sort of fiduciary Armageddon.
.
In this case people have to remember that yes, the assessment of their property may go down, and yes, the rate may go up -- but in general the budget is spread among the same population, so the actual tax charged will not change that much. The only thing that's unusual this time is that assessments may decline instead of rise. If it rose, the tax rate would go down, but the tax charged would still not change that much.
.
Think of a see-saw with a series of weights on both ends. Change the size of the weights and you need to change the number to make it balanced.
Jun 25, 2009 at 8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
I had a family member sell a home recently. That was only after dropping the price nearly $30,000 dollars. Janesville seems to be in a constant state of "What should we do." Everything from what we should do about custodians in our schools to what we should do about assessments. The problem is that nothing ever really seems to get done. Analyze the data and make a sound decision. Then move on to one of the other problems.
Jun 25, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
bottom line, janesville will appraise home values when it is in THEIR best interest.
Jun 25, 2009 at 7:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Just because your assessment goes down does not mean your taxes will go down. The tax rate will go up.
Jun 24, 2009 at 11:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Keep in mind that tax assessments and appraisals are similar but often result in quite different numbers.
.
Median sales are indeed off 20%, back to 2004 levels, although these also aren't the same as home values because only some homes are on the market and those that are may be distressed/forced sales.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/wrarocksales
Jun 24, 2009 at 9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
I know a house that was just appraised for the same price paid 5 years ago (after about 20K of improvements and repairs over that 5 years!). Housing values are definitely down!
Jun 24, 2009 at 8:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
lets see, a revaluation might mean less taxes and janesville can't have that right now, eapecially in the midst of their overspending. i know of a person that had their house reassessed privately and it droped in value 100 thousand. but now that the city won't be doing their job that person won't be seeing a drop in property tax very soon,will they. another con being snuk by the citizens of janesville.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.