| Author |
Message |
    
Dave23
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 9:21 am: |     |
I received my property card that Certified generated and am having a little trouble comprehending some of it.
Specifically, next to "deck" they have the number 28. Does anyone know what this means? (This alleged deck that I have is best described as "stairs", if you ask me.)
Thanks. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 9:37 am: | |
Dave, is the property card simply an outline showing the specifications of the house..i.e. room sizes? Is there additional information on it? |
Dave23
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 10:39 am: | |
It's an outline of the rooms (though that, too, is hard for me to understand). Additional info includes:
-Type of house
-Type of roof
-Foundation
-Baths
-Kitchen ("modern")
-plus subjective things like Condition ("good") and "eff age" (40)
And a few more things. |
Tomr
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 10:51 am: | |
Dave,
Does the number "28" appear at the right side of the card under the section "Residential Cost Approach"?
If so, it would appear to be the square footage of the top landing. (A little bit larger than five feet square). |
Dave23
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 11:12 am: | |
Tomr:
There is no section labeled Residential Cost Approach, but I think you are right. Is there really such a thing as a five foot "deck"?
Now I have another question: I have been thinking about adding a deck (not knowing that I already had one). Since, by definition, I would actually be "expanding" a deck, will I still be spanked by the town's tax assessor when I get a permit?
Thanks. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 11:18 am: | |
Dave, I would assume that any improvements you do to your house that requires a permit would result in some (upward) adjustment of your assessment. |
Mag
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 2:34 pm: | |
Dave and Tomr:
I also have a number, "36" to be exact, both on the lower left of the sheet corresponding to letter "D" and also on the right side next to Deck/Patio. I could be wrong, not being expert in reading/interpreting these things, but I believe that it refers to the square footage (in my case) of the so-called "open porch" in the front of the house.
I had one of these in Brooklyn, and we called it a "stoop".
Can't seem to figure out, however, how this was calculated into the building value or if, in fact, it was considered part of the "livable area" of the house. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 2:56 pm: | |
I haven't yet received my card, but will in the very near future. Your comment about your stoop reminded me that the partial covering of the roof at my garage door is considered an "open porch." |
Mag
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 3:49 pm: | |
So here I am ... with my property data sheet to the left of me ... and to the right, a few pages of notes written in haste as I scanned (what I felt was) the appropriate comparable data from that voluminous compendium of town-wide assessments.
Now I am faced with preparing some sort of cohesive presentation for Mr. Galante ... perusing this data, (hopefully) interpreting it to a tax assessor's standard, and organizing it in such a way as to demonstrate, undeniably, that my assessment is appreciably more than just slightly off-the-mark.
Of course, the comps on my block and the immediate environs may not be truly "comparable", in that I don't have complete knowledge of the appointments in each home (e.g, sq footage, # of bedrooms/baths, finished vs. unfinished attic/basement space, etc.). Any suggestions on how to deal with the lack of this seemingly very pertinent data? And please, don't tell me that I should ring all my nearby neighbor's doorbells and ask to walk the premises.
Thanks in advance. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 4:35 pm: | |
Be very careful with those "overhangs" and such. Among other factual inaccuracies, Certified calculated the square footage from our small mansard-like roof overhang, labeled it as a room, and included it in our "livable space"! No walls,no heat, no nothing, just out there open to the breezes, and they concluded we could live there! |
Livinwestwless
| | Posted on Monday, January 29, 2001 - 4:19 pm: | |
Can anyone tell me what Certified's criteria for "living space" is and how they get their square footage numbers?
My house as a very usual shape and Certified estimated the sq. footage at 2070 ft. I measured all the interior space and came up with 1850 sq. ft.
Plus, on my second (top) floor, I have an UNHEATED, partially finished space (no plaster or drywall, but rather a heavy cardboard material on the roofline) that amounts to 280 sq. ft. In Certified's world this is know as a "family room".
This comes to a total of between 280 and 500 sq. ft. discrepancy. I brought this up at my meeting last Tuesday and when I got my new assessment on Saturday it only went down $1000. I also got the $50,000 neighborhood reduction, but that was taken off before I even broached the subject of square footage.
Does this make sense? Did they just blow my calculations off and believed their inspector? I thought a room had to have heat to be considered living space. Our boxes and old junk seem to like it, but I can't imagine spending much time there myself. |
Lah
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 8:10 am: | |
Either they don't care about heat or they think we're lying. The landing at the top of my attic stairs was labeled a 'den' (it has no heat, but I must admit that we have crammed a desk with a computer there). I explained what the space looked like and they asked me if it had heat. I said no and thought they would adjust. Got my new reval? Guess what? The landing must still be a 'den' because my assessment hasn't changed. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 8:38 am: | |
I got my property card. My meeting with Certified was on Jan. 10, and I received the new valuation letter on Jan. 20. It went down $2000 from the first. I thought it wasn't low enough given what had been discussed.
NOTHING has changed on my property card. I suppose those of us meeting the last few weeks before Jan. 19 didn't receive specific adjustments, only neighborhood adjustments. |
Mag
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 9:38 am: | |
Livinwest
I believe Certified calculated total square footage by measuring the outside perimeter of each house and then multiplying by # of stories (e.g., 1st story and basement, 1st and 2nd stories, etc). The resulting number would not then match total square footage arrived at as a result of measuring the interior dimensions of individual rooms (e.g., subtracting for walls). |
Livinwestwless
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 9:56 am: | |
Last night I got up to speed on how to read my property card.... amazing how little I understood of those hieroglyphics they used during my meeting. Now I see what they did and I accept their measurement of 2070 sq. ft. So I've dropped that fight and am sticking with the simple premise that they included an unheated storage area as a "family room" and an unheated porch as part of the kitchen. This amounts to over 300 sq. ft. which I would think would have impacted my assessment more than $1000.
Njjoseph---Did you get a new property card? I didn't. When I called Certified and asked how do I know which of my discrepancies were modified and where the $1000 came from I was told, "I can't tell you that. I have no idea." Consequently I have no knowledge of whether Certified even dealt with my issues---I believe they didn't, thinking I'd be satisfied with our "neighborhood" reduction. |
Mag
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 10:18 am: | |
Livinwest
Would you happen to know if, under the 'residential cost approach' section, a basement or attic has to have been identified as "unfinished" (dsignated UNF) in order for it to have been calculated into the assessment at a lesser dollar rate (I think the term is)? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 10:31 am: | |
Livinwest -- I didn't get the card automatically. I stopped by the tax assessor's office and it was given to me quickly. I was in the building no more than a minute and a half. Just bring your block and lot number to facilitate, and they'll print you a copy from the computer.
Maq, I have a basement where part is finished. The whole basement is calculated using a multiplier of 3.15, and the finished part is an addition 3.11, for a total of 6.26. The finished part of the basement, therefore is slightly more than half the cost of my 2nd story, per square foot. I assume the principal is the same for an attic, although the multipliers may be different.
In fact, I'm not sure what the multipliers represent, and they may be different based on the age of the home, type of wall (i.e. sheetrock), etc. |
Livinwestwless
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 2:09 pm: | |
Mag---
My basement is unfinished and was multiplied by 3.150 like Njjoseph's. It doesn't say UNF. |
|