Realty Executives Elite

Verna's Archived Notes
January Archives
January Archives
January Archives
February Archives
March Archives
April Archive
May Archive
June Archive
July Archive
August Archive
September Archive
October Archive
November Archive
December Archive
Verna's 1999 Archived Notes by the Month
Search this Site
Back to the Start Page

Verna's Notebook Archived Issues

GREETINGS FROM VERNA ACKER
REALTY EXECUTIVES Elite
414.534.7400
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
Real Estate Information from Western Racine County; Waterford, WI 53185
Vol XXIX January, 2000

A HAPPY AND PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR TO EVERYONE!

If the last few days is an indicator, the real estate market should be in high gear again this year. Our phones have been ringing and things are happening. Anyone on the newsletter list who needs more attention from me than they are getting should just e-mail back to me and we will do what we can to assist you.

SHORELAND REGULATIONS ARE BEING CHANGED!!
As part of Wisconsin's 1999-2001 biennial budget, a special exception was created to allow for certain structures such as decks, gazebos, stairways, lefts and other structures without sides within the shoreland setback. To place a structure within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark, ALL of the following must apply: (a) The part of the structure that is closest to the water is located at least 35 feet landward from the OHWM. (b) The total floor area of all structures in the shoreland setback area of the property will not exceed 200 square feet. In calculating this square footage, boathouses shall be excluded. (c) The structure that is the subject of the request for special zoning permission has no sides or has opened or screened sides, and (d) The county must approve a plan that will be implemented by the owner of the property to preserve or establish a vegetative buffer zone that covers at least 70% of the half of the shoreland setback that is nearest to the water. Info is from the Wisconsin REALTOR News, January 2000, Page 3, by Tom Larson.

LEAD PAINT IS IN THE NEWS, TOO
If you are a landlord the lead paint rules are getting even stricter. The Supreme Court case of Antwaun A. vs. Heritage Mutual Insurance Company held that landlords have a duty to test for lead-based paint whenever they know, or in the use of ordinary care should have known, that there was peeling, flaking, or chipping paint in residential rental property constructed before 1978. The ruling was based on common law negligence theories. While the Antwaun decision said landlords have a duty to test flaking paint for lead, it did not say what must be done if lead is found. This uncertainty has caused considerable fear and trepidation for property owners across the state.

I put in a call to the Legal Hotline of the WRA and was told that the property owner cannot simply decide that there must be lead paint and then proceed to scrape and paint the affected areas themselves. According to Attorney Dave Sayas, a professional must be called for a lead paint inspection AND a professional must be used for any abatement. I have the entire article that we will send to you, if you wish. We have some other information, too, that has been produced by the WRA. It would be advisable for any landlord or property owner who believes that they have lead paint because of chipping, peeling or flaking, to consult their legal counsel for the impact this ruling will have upon you.

IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE MLS UPDATE FOR PROPERTY FOR SALE AND PROPERTY THAT HAS SOLD
(since December 15, 1999) , go to the attachments. If you want more information on anything sent or would like a different search e-mailed to you, let us know and we will take care of it right away. NOTE: Attachments not archived

Thought for the Day: “The most precious thing under the sun today is a minute, and he who can do the most with it can demand the most.”
Henry Kaufman

GREETINGS FROM VERNA ACKER
REALTY EXECUTIVES Elite
414.534.7400
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
Real Estate Information from Western Racine County; Waterford, WI 53185
Vol XXX January, 2000

RUNZHEIMER INTERNATIONAL HAS CHOSEN WATERFORD
for their new 70-acre, high technology business park in the village of Waterford. It will house the management and consulting firm's new headquarters and offices. The firm's present workforce is about 200. The projection is that Runzheimer is planning, over time, three 60,000 square foot buildings, which could accommodate as many as 300 employees each. The park will invite an assortment of other businesses, including offices, retail and possibly light manufacturing. “We expect to attract businesses to this park who, like us, are interested in providing their employees with the exceptional quality of life only a small town can provide,” stated Rex Runzheimer, in an article from the Racine Journal Times 1/19/00. “The Waterford-Burlington- Rochester area has affordable housing, cohesive neighborhoods, a reliable and skilled work force, excellent schools and a very low crime rate.”

The park will be located at the intersection of Hwy 164 and Hwy 36. The company plans to sell some parcels to businesses or develop some multi-use buildings. The expected range in cost could be $25,000 to about $150,000. The company expects to begin park improvements in late spring and take occupancy of its first building about a year later. Infrastructure costs of about $6,000,000 will be paid for with the TIF district, a frequent method for jump-starting business parks.

HAVE YOU HEARD….
The real estate market in our community is doing very well. Even though we are in the middle of January, in the middle of the winter, homes and property are selling well. The rates have risen a bit but not substantially. For anyone who is worried about the 8.25% and 8.5% interest rates, check back to the early 80s when we sold homes at 16%-18% interest rates. The credit card that you are using often have 20% +/- interest rates on credit balances. Even 8.5% is a good rate for the purchase of your new home. Don't let the market pass by. There are some wonderful homes and properties for sale. January 19, The Community State Bank offered 8.75%, 0 Points, 30 Yr fixed January 19, Firstar Bank offered 8.375%, 0 Points, 30 Yr fixed. (Loan officers for these two banks and others are on my web site: www.vernacker.com )

WHAT IS NEW SINCE THE LAST NEWSLETTER?
The attachments here are for the most recently listed and the most recently sold in the Western Racine County area and the eastern Walworth County area. If you would like an update on everything that is for sale in a certain area, let us know. Just e-mail your criteria and we will send the search results back by return e-mail. E-mail me at verna@vernacker.com.
NOTE: The attachments are not archived.

GREETINGS FROM VERNA ACKER
REALTY EXECUTIVES Elite
414.534.7400
FOR YOUR INFORMATION:
Real Estate Information from Western Racine County; Waterford, WI 53185
Vol XXXI January, 2000

What an incredible month January has been! If it keeps up, the real estate market should be in excellent shape this year. We have been extremely busy! I heard on the radio over the weekend that some economists are expecting the rates to go up as much as ˝% because the economy is doing so well. Don't let that worry you, however. Did you know that a ˝% interest rate change, amortized over 30 years only costs you $3.00 per thousand.

Contents:
Comm 83 Septic Rules expected to Pass
Use-Vaue Assessments of Farmland will Impact Transactions
Updated Listings and Sold since mid-January
NOTE: Attachments are not archived

SEPTIC SYSTEM RULES EXPECTED TO PASS FEBRUARY 2,2000
“The Department of Commerce has formally reintroduced major new regulations of private on-site septic systems, known as the Comm 83 rules…..The revised rules are expected to pass the legislature by February 2, 2000. After the legislative review, the rules must be formally promulgated and printed. This process will take approximately 8 weeks. Once promulgated, the rules will become effective in two months. Therefore, Wisconsin property owners should be able to take advantage of the new septic technology on or about June 1, 2000.

However, because municipal and environmental groups continue to have concerns over the new rules, a threatened lawsuit could result in further delays. A lawsuit to block implementation could come as early as mid-March after the rules are formally promulgated………..” This was taken from the Wisconsin REALTOR, February, 2000 issue.

Previous newsletters cover more of Comm 83. Go to archived issues. You might also talk to your government representatives for more information.

HEADS UP IF YOU HAVE FARMLAND OR INTEND TO BUY FARMLAND FOR DEVELOPMENT
I will provide you with some excerpts from a full page article regarding this subject. If you would like the full article, e-mail back and I will mail it to you.

Some recent changes to Wisconsin's system of assessing farmland has caused considerable controversy throughout the state and will likely impact real estate transactions relating to farmland. The changes are regarding use-value assessments, how they are made, and some recent changes to that program. Use-value is essentially a tax break for owners of agricultural land. The land is assessed as farmland, based upon expected corn yield, prices, cost of production, interest rates, and local property taxes. Corn is used as the basis because it is the most commonly grown crop in Wisconsin. Prior to the recent budget changes, penalties could be assessed if a person sold farmland for development, that they had owned for less than five years and had benefited from a lower value under the use-value system. The article I mention goes into detail regarding the taxation method and the ensuing penalty guidelines. While the penalty remains in effect, the recent budget bill modified how the penalty will be calculated. Instead of assessing a penalty upon the person who sells the land, the new system assesses a penalty upon the person who changes the use of the land to a non-agricultural use. The revisions to the use-value system also include a new disclosure requirement for sellers of agricultural land that is assessed under the use-value system. If the buyer intends to change present agricultural use to a non-agricultural use penalties would be assessed. Let me know if you would like the article that I reference in its entirety.