I said the other day that they may not vote on Tuesday on the windows ordinance. They might vote. There's no reason not to really, unless they decide to have a public hearing first.
Not sure how many building owners will complain. Realize that some - maybe many - of the businesses downtown are in buildings they do not own.
From what I have heard its a popular ordinance and not oppressive at all.
Ive talked to a couple commissioners and they tell me they are ready to vote. So we shall see I guess.
Should be an interesting worksession monday.
Posts
44 comments:
This is an absolute no brainer to me. In fact, they should not have been allowed to board up the buildings in the first place.
Traveler- how about interviewing a responsible business owner downtown who has managed to keep the windows in their building. It clearly wasn't as a big of a hardship for those building owners as Jim Sybrant made it out to be in the paper.
how about interviewing a responsible business owner downtown
ok, was just trying to save some of it for a later date.
there are a few that are kept up.
This stuff is not going to be an inconsequential cost, particularly in a town where it costs $2,000 to get someone to run a ditch witch for 40 feet.
If local contractors are used, it may cost as much as 2 to 4 hundred per window to make it right and some of these buildings have dozens of windows to do.
With the local contractor licensing, you may be stuck with a choice of maybe 3 companies to do the work and there is a pretty good chance they will know they have a monopoly on services and charge accordingly. It has been my personal experience that is the case with local contractors anyway.
The city should give the building owners a break and permit them to hire competitive contractors as they see fit from Ponca or Wichita or wherever to get this stuff done, or to use their own employees as well.
There has never been a better time than now to learn a little Spanish.
What is needed is an old fashioned craftsman like you used to see in A/C in the 50's that understands pocketed counterweights and window part repair rather than complete window removal and replacement.
The windows should be repaired and the owners should be given every break they can get, but what about the crappy looking buildings with patio-cover fiberglas as a facade?
That too looks horrible. There should be an overall construction code, not just one for windows.
I didn't see anything that said they had to hire local contractors. I would assume they do like everything else and go out of town.
And when it comes to other things, should we wait 10 years for the city to get it all together or take it as they give it to us? I see it as being cheaper for the building owners, and actually getting done by going this one step at a time.
I was just thinking, complaining about how much it costs to make these repairs now is ridiculous! If these owners had repaired their buildings when they should have they would have saved a lot!
And why should they complain when they've been left off to be irresponsible for so many years or decades? When, if ever, would they have to take responsibility for their property?
Amen!!! Time for everybody to get in action. Clean this city up!
Also, as for the costs they are eligible for a tax rebate on any improvements to the buildings.
"I didn't see anything that said they had to hire local contractors."
I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that if you don't have a local license, you can't legally do contracting work in A/C.
I'm not complaining about the cost, in fact I wouldn't have to pay any of it. Just saying that whatever breaks can be given, they should be.
You are right about the tax rebate.
Also, the city should realize that these are repairs, and the cost of repairs will not translate 100% to an increase in market value of the buildings and should address that accordingly.
The fair market value of buildings is based on what they will sell for, not just how big a money pit they have become.
It all comes back to the same thing. No matter how much it costs or who does the work, it should have happened a long time ago.
We will just have to see how much noise the people that want our business are going to make because they are finally being made to clean up their act.
Whoa there!
You don't think the value of the buildings will go up when they are put back into a more proper condition? You don't think the value has gone down because they are in such sad shape?
The value should go up, and those businesses should be paying their share of property taxes!
The rest of us are paying on our proper values because we take care of our homes. It's time for the downtown owners to take on some of their responsibilities there too!
"We will just have to see how much noise the people that want our business are going to make because they are finally being made to clean up their act."
Please don't lump every person who owns a derelict building downtown as a merchant. Jim Sybrant isn't even a retailer. He just owns a building. Many of the merchants who have been downtown for decades have kept up their buildings and didn't throw up tin over the windows.
Other merchants just rent and have no control over the outside of the building, for example, Patrick with is bookstore. That building is owned by an out of town person.
My guess would be that actual merchants in downtown probably would support this. It would be better for business and for the community.
The real bottom line is that it should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.
Yep. Done it myself.
I've put $ X/2 into a $ X and at the end it still is worth only about $ X.
State law says fair market value is based on the price of a property which is sold at an arm's length transaction with a willing seller and a willing buyer. And has to be appraised accordingly.
Not how much money someone throws down a rat hole.
These should be considered repairs, just like fixing a roof. Any taxable value increase should come from an appraisal of the property, and not just from adding up receipts for costs of services, as Ark City has been so prone to do in the past.
OK, that's sounds fine to me. How much is it worth to buy without the glass?
As a buyer do I take into account that I'm going to have to pay to put the glass in, or does the glass have to be put in as part of the transaction?
Shouldn't I be able to buy it for less knowing I'm going to have to put dollars into it? Shouldn't it be worth more if I don't have to put dollars into it?
I agree it should be taxed on the property's value, but the value depends a lot on how much would have to be invested to put it into shape.
"Shouldn't I be able to buy it for less knowing I'm going to have to put dollars into it?"
Please don't take this response as argumentative or flippant. I know what you are asking and I'll try to answer it as honestly and neutrally as I can.
The value of a property to a buyer is based only on one thing:
Cash flow.
How much do you have to pay in upkeep and cost? (Which just went up with the school bond)
What does it cost to operate? (gas water and lights)
What rent can I get from others or what is it worth to "rent" to myself for a business?
What does the money cost me to buy it?
Am I losing money?
If the answer is yes(losing money), the buyer won't buy at that price.
The re-sale value of the downtown buildings will immediately go down by the price of window repairs when the commission rules on the mandate and will return to the current value and maybe slightly more after they are repaired.
In no way will the building owners be able to recover their expenses in the window repairs in the increased value of the building.
There is no requirement to repair the buildings now. The value of the buildings are what they are. When downtown buildings are sold, almost all are sold "as is", and honestly I've seen recent prices of $24,000 for a storefront building on central South Summit.
You put $5 grand in repair on a $40 grand building, it will still sell for about $40 grand.
"I didn't see anything that said they had to hire local contractors."
http://www.arkcity.net/stories/032807/com_0004.shtml
Deadline nearing for contractors licenses
By FOSS FARRAR
Traveler Staff Writer
The deadline for general contractors and carpenters to apply to do business in Arkansas City is only a few days away.
They have until April 1 to apply for licenses to do business in Arkansas City under a new program approved last year by the City Commission. Sixty people have applied for licenses so far, a city official said Wednesday.
Their applications have been forwarded to the Building Trades Board, said Jim Hendershot, director of building, planning and codes for the city.
Before the city's action last year, general contractors and carpenters did not have to be licensed to do work here, Hendershot said. But plumbers, electricians and heating and air-conditioning tradespeople have been required to have licenses for the past several years.
"This is for consumer protection," he said. "Homeowners who hire the contractor will know they are licensed, insured and have the proper permits. It's all geared toward protecting consumers from people who may be less than honest."
The Building Trades Board worked on the ordinance for over a year, Hendershot said. It looked at how other cities develop licensing rules. Most companies favor the licensing, he said.
A grandfather clause will exempt those already in business as "established businesses." They will have until April 1 to apply for the license without having to take a test. Instead of the test, they will be able to show references.
After April 1, the test -- a nationally recognized exam -- will be required. Application forms for the licenses are available in Hendershot's office at City Hall, he said.
The way I read the actual policy it seems that if a contracter has passed the Kansas State examination then they don't have to to retake the test in Ark City. They just have to pay the fee.
So, it is pretty easy for someone outside of Ark City who has passed the Kansas State test to get a license. I would imagine that Wichita requires you to pass the test to get a license, too.
If a group of building owner's went in together to get the best deal and that person is from Wichita they could easily just pay the fee. Even with the fee you might come out better in the long run or it might require someone from Ark City to give you a better bid.
The national test might exempt a contractor, also, so you might be able to look to Oklahoma.
In fact, if they were really smart they would start organizing now to hire one contractor and get the best possible deal they can.
They have to have a business license, to do business like construction.
they do not have to be from here.
Lowes in Ponca and Derby, as well Home Depot and some others, have licenses here. Its no big deal at all.
if you own the property and do the work yourself, you do not have to have a license of any kind.
:)
So let me get this straight. A building falling apart in any kind of disrepair sells for a set amount of money. If it is fixed up and cleaned up it still sells for that same amount of money?
I've been watching too much TV. Every weekend they show homes, restaurants and other buildings that are worth MUCH MUCH more by fixing them up. So much for the "reality" in TV
Value, price, or none of the above the buildings downtown have to improve if we have any hope of improving our town. The owners don't care if it falls apart. Shouldn't we just demolish them now and save the money?
Since they won't be worth any more after repairs the taxes can't go up!
Someone is missing something somewhere.
Someone is missing something somewhere.
Some people are trying to find a negative here ... thats whats missing - reality :)
The city promised to do something about the appearance of the city - they are doing something, so the naysayers have to figure out how its still bad :)
downtown there is a tremendous tax break. thats TAX BREAK. they wont have to pay taxes for many years on any repairs that are made.
of course we dont want new businesses to get tax breaks.
Someone made the point about demolishing them. Really, if they are not going to be saved, we might as well.
and if the owners wont save them, then we have to help them save them from themselves.
remember though, this applies to the whole town ... not just downtown.
I wonder if there could be some type of Grant for adding energy efficient windows!
I read an article not to long ago about a film that GE makes that
when applied to windows allowed the light but not the heat - they were proposing it's use on multi-story buildings in the larger cities. Immediate payback in energy conservation!
There are some efficient inserts-
ex. double payne - that also really modernize the look of older style buildings.
I hope the City and Landlords can find a good compromise fair for all - but a carrot works better than a whip!
"Every weekend they show homes, restaurants and other buildings that are worth MUCH MUCH more by fixing them up."
Just not in Ark City. They do these demo and remods in big cities and suburbs where the market is better and will support multipliers (otherwise they wouldn't do them). The Ark City market doesn't support the multipliers.
If you can figure out how to translate this to Ark City, I'm sure you could get a lot of takers.
The first step is to upgrade the aesthetics of downtown. As downtown starts looking better, then everybody's value increases, but it takes time. A high tide floats all boats.
Windows and facades will make a big change in the looks of downtown.
But let's keep in mind that fair market value is FMV and probably has little to do with repair costs.
Don't penalize the building owners with higher taxes than are reasonable, by confusing out of pocket repair costs with property values.
Tax them on the fair market value, as required by state law.
"Don't penalize the building owners with higher taxes than are reasonable, by confusing out of pocket repair costs with property values."
Yes, this is very true.
I looked at the BOE building. It is appraised for taxes in the mid 70s but it needs about $25,000 - $30,000 worth of repairs not upgrades. Just to be functional it would need a new roof and HVAC system. In its current condition it is not worth $75,000. If I were to buy the building at say $30,000and immediately do the necessary work then it would be worth $75,000. However, it wouldn't be worth $100,000 so the taxes shouldn't be raised just because I did the required maintenance on the building.
Now, if I did more work on the building and turned it into apartments, a cafe, or some other type of real upgrade then it might have a higher FMV.
That's just stupid.
If it isn't worth $70K then it just isn't worth it. It must be re-appraised to show the proper value. On the other hand, if it is worth $70K repairs would make it worth more.
You can't be wrong both ways.
I am not the appraisor. All I know is that you would be stupid to pay $70,000 for a building that needed $30,000 in extensive work just to make it usable.
That would not even include the money needed to update it and turn it into anything useful.
I can guarantee you that if I sunk that much money into it that I would still have a hard time selling that building for more than $75,000-$80,000 in the outdated condition that is in even with a new roof.
I am sure that you could get it reappraised but even at that it is only worth what someone will pay for it.
Ask all these poor people in CA whose homes appraise at $500,000 but they are only getting offers of $350,000- $400,000. They owe more on their homes that what they are worth in the current market.
"That's just stupid.
If it isn't worth $70K then it just isn't worth it."
"I am not the appraiser. All I know is that you would be stupid to pay $70,000 for a building that needed $30,000 in extensive work just to make it usable."
"I am sure that you could get it reappraised but even at that it is only worth what someone will pay for it."
You could put $150,000 in the BOE building in a heartbeat and still sell it for $70,000. One of the reasons they moved is it wouldn't meet ADA. Good luck there. It probably has asbestos if you really looked. If so, there goes 3 million.
How sure are you that you could get it re-appraised? I never could on mine.
1. Welcome to downtown.
2. Good luck getting it re-appraised.
3. In the past, if you listed the repair cost of $8,000 for a roof, it would increase the appraised value of your building by $8,000 without considering that it replaced a pre-existing roof that was already part of the appraised value. Window repair is the same thing.
4. Each and every purchaser of buildings in downtown has made that "stupid" decision. Call it city pride or altruism or stupidity or whatever you wish but that is how it looks when you buy a building in downtown. Fact of life.
Oh, yeah. If you want a closer look at all of that, consider the Newman/Intermark building and the investment and present value on it. Or the empty AC Office Building and what it would take to make it viable versus what you could sell it for in Ark City's current market.
It's called being "upside down".
The AC Office building has windows that just fall out of their frames onto the sidewalk. I've seen it myself.
"Good luck getting it re-appraised."
I didn't mean reappraised for tax purposes just meant for the purchase price. They had it appraised and I could have had it reappraised to possibly justify a lower offer.
My family already owns a building downtown so, trust me, I already know the pitfalls. That is why I pretty much decided against it.
We have window's though so I am not personally worried about the current ordinance. In fact, I am pretty much for it as it would improve the downtown area.
"I didn't mean reappraised for tax purposes just meant for the purchase price."
My point is: it has to be the same thing.
They have to have a business license, to do business like construction.
they do not have to be from here.
Lowes in Ponca and Derby, as well Home Depot and some others, have licenses here. Its no big deal at all.
I tried to get Lowe's (Ponca)to install a hot water heater for me, but they said they quit doing that in AC due to the contractor licensing. I wonder if this applies to window installation?
On property taxes - I think that property taxes should be based off of purchase price (honestly, more times than not they are appraised by county at much lower). I also think that they should not be allowed to go up until the property is sold. When a person buys a property, they look at all expenses to determine if they can afford it. This includes property taxes and insurance! If these rates keep going up, the owner could be forced to sell. For those retired citizens on a fixed income, this could put them out of their house!
I know that we hate to be told by our government to do anything. Honestly, I think we get too much of that already. However, when it comes to downtown, a lot more is at stake. I think that the windows should be repaired.
Although it looks like a positive thing, contractor licensing in Ark City will hold the city back and needs to be changed NOW.
There is a nasty unintended consequence from this, simply because Ark City is so small and there are few contractors here.
If Ark City were bigger it would make sense. Trust me, I've had two contractors take partial payment money and run for the hills, but limiting contractors to those licensed only in Ark City opens up another type of problem and I've seen it too.
It is anticompetitive pricing, with the knowledge that no out-of-town contractors will be competing for the work. They stick it to us.
It is probably why there is not a Lowes here.
It needs to be changed, where a contractor with any city or state license in Kansas or Oklahoma in the specific trade can legally work in Ark City.
Push for that one too. That would be easy to pass. 4 votes to one, and would push progress in Ark City .
"Although it looks like a positive thing, contractor licensing in Ark City will hold the city back and needs to be changed NOW."
Be willing to bet the local contractors were glad this ordinance was passed.
"Be willing to bet the local contractors were glad this ordinance was passed."
Ka-ching!!!!!!!
you could approach the city commission with this. Easy to do :)
is there another way to control, or at least make it hard for, con artists ?
I'm confused. Exactly which con artists are we talking about here.
The ones we know or the ones we don't know?
:)
If a contractor has a license anywhere else, all they have to do is pay a relatively small fee and prove they have insurance.
Ark City isn't any different than half of the cities in the state, or in Oklahoma.
The reason Lowe's doesn't want to deal with us is because the commissioners threw them out and insulted them at the same time. Besides, I hear they didn't like the quality of work of a particular plumber politician. Maybe that's why he was against them coming here?
Exactly which con artists are we talking about here.
The ones we know or the ones we don't know?
>>>>>>>>
Well i dont know if we know them or not.
THey are people who rip off little old ladies. They want cash up front, then leave and are never heard from again.
Or they do really bad work and wont make it right.
I'm thinking more about the roofer who leaves a tarp on your roof for 6 months while he is off doing other jobs in Ark City.
Is that a con man or a regular roofing contractor?
I'm guessing that if it isn't going the way you think it should, turn it into the city and let them decide. Isn't that what the licensing was about?
I know only a few contractors in town, couple carpenters, a roofer, a plumber or two etc.,
They are all good, take pride in their work, and charge fair prices.
They have no problem with licensing.
Kind of like a union, all they do is protect the bad workers!
an interesting story:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2008/mar/11/council-oks-tax-abatement-to-attract-lowes/
Post a Comment