| Author |
Message |
    
Nursie
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 2:00 pm: |     |
Thanks to all for responding, I will head for the Town Hall. |
Vicdeluca
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 3:04 pm: | |
Here are the answers to the most recent questions:
Yes a playhouse or storage shed does count as an improvement on the lot. Similar to a garage.
I will try to explain the units and rates. There are zoning regulations that determine the minimum size of lots. If anyone saw the map at the meeting at the high school, you might have seen markings like R1-4, R1-7, etc. These translate to one family dwelling on no less than 4,000 square feet and a one family dwelling on no less than 7,000 square feet, etc.
As it was explained to me, the minimum lot size (in my case 4,000 square feet) receives the bulk of the value (.087 x $300,000) and the excess over the minimum (in my case 1,000 square feet) is multiplied with a different and lower value (.028 x $100,000).
Hope that helps. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 5:25 pm: | |
Vic,
Your examples were helpful. Thanks for spending the time to compose the message.
Would you or anyone from the TC or Mr. Galante or one of the hired assessors or anyone else you see fit be willing to go through the methodology step by step in a live forum?
Because:
1) Not everyone is reading these posts
2) There are still questions about the facts and figures, i.e.
"So you take the base cost and mulitiply it times the CCF (Cost Conversion Factor) of 2.98 (the factor for all of Essex County) and then mulitply it by the CLA (another adjustment factor) to come up with your cost new"
- or -
"That total then gets multiplied by a Net Depreciation Factor (in my case 65%)" - well what about in MY case?
etc.
Please, Mr. Mayor, conduct some kind of session OFF LINE from the TC meetings. I know with an organized presentation and Q&A session, you will answer MANY questions, and put many concerns to rest.
When can this be done?
I will be monitoring this board for a response.
Thank you again.
Dytunck |
Bobk
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 7:22 pm: | |
Mr. Mayor:
Thanks for sharing. I hope your wife is more understanding than mine would be under similar circustances. It is kind of cold to be sleeping in the garage.
I have a couple of specific questions for Mr. Gallante:
1/ Depreciation. My 1916 house in not terribly good condition is only depreciated by 20% (.80 factor). Is this another neighborhood related factor?
2/ My understanding from what Mr. Gallante said at one of the public meetings is that the land value is for an empty improved lot ready to be built on. If a lot has ledge or another similar condition that would require blasting to remove to fully use the lot would this be taken into account?
Thanks to both Mr. G and yourself in advance. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 9:03 pm: | |
Dyntuck:
(given that I know you, I can tell you that I am still trying to decipher the screen name and match it to you, and am about ready to give up :-)
What are you looking for? Info session on TV? A workshop meeting? A formal presentation of some kind?
j |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:00 pm: | |
Jerry,
I would love a workshop meeting. Announce it and let anyone interested in methodologies, formulae, comprehension of the process, etc. attend.
Here's what I see:
One evening, secure a large conference room. The Columbia auditorium is perfect. Ask Mr. Galante (or anyone who feels comfortable) to put a transparency (or opaque project) an actual CVI assessment and go through, point by point, the method by which CVI and thus, our town assessor assessed our properties. Let people ask questions in a calm and controlled manner, and answer them as they are asked.
That is to say, exactly what Mayor DeLuca endeavored to do on this message board, only live, in an open forum, with clear explanations.
If there's a question, like, "Why does my valuation have a VIEW surcharge?", or, "What is a CFF or a CLA?", or "How were the SITE VALUES determined?", or "How was the acreage cost determined?", these questions could be answered on the spot. (Instead of one by one by letter, email, and phone calls to the TC.)
I have an example... At the Columbia TC meeting, Mr. Galante said that the acreage cost was not $1M per acre, but the maximum was $350K. He then said that that had been since adjusted. (I've seen it on TV 3 times now.) Yet, my acreage cost on my Prop Card still says $350K. What gives?
Should this meeting (seminar/workshop/discussion) be televised? Absolutely. The more information shared, the better.
Jerry, I have volunteered to offer my services in any way I can on this message board, and do so again now.
If you are trying to decipher my screen name, I'll save you the trouble. My name is Henry Hamel and I live at 39 Kendal Avenue.
BTW- Kendal has only 1 L. And there's no need to get snippy like you did last time. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:08 pm: | |
Snippy? When? Where?
I know your name and address; you introduced yourself to me at the meeting (thank you). I was just trying to figure out what Dytunck was an acronym or abbreviation for, and am ready to give up, still... |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:19 pm: | |
Jerry,
It's my caveman name.
So enough about my screen name, how about my suggestion for a workshop?
Dytunck
OK, maybe just occasionally snippy |
Thomas
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:30 pm: | |
Sorry Vic
I'v been away for a few days. I just read your post on how the value of your house was achieved. I had to laugh, what are you trying to confuse everyone with crazy calculations? You must be taking math lessons from Jerry.
Ever hear of Ad Valorem? Its latin for "according to value"
Can you honestly say your house is only worth $132,000
You know that number is wrong so stop playing games. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:48 pm: | |
Dytunck and Jerry,
The workshop idea has a lot of appeal. I am available to provide whatever assistance I can.
Wayne Caviness |
Thomas
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:49 pm: | |
Hey Jerry
Here is a math question for you.
If 1000 homes on the east side of town are under valued by $40,000 like yours and that was corrected how much effect would it have on the tax rate?
Just wondering |
Melidere
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 12:08 am: | |
(summoning her best horschak imitation) OH! oh!! OH! oh!! OH! oh!! OH! oh!!
"None, Mr. Kotter, after you take into account the 500 houses on the west side that have been marked down 80,000 to adjust for the 'bubble'".
You seriously think you would get 172 for that house in anything but a blazingly hot market? |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 9:02 am: | |
Thanks, Wayne.
I'm hoping to see a posting with a scheduled workshop any minute now.
Dytunck |
Pstob1126
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 10:33 am: | |
Thanks Mr. Mayor... Very helpful and useful info for everyone on this board. And giving the entire community a chance to understand such facts would be most appropriate. I hope the forum will become a reality.
If you're willing to answer a few more specifics on the property cards, here are a few I have:
- What distinguishes the BASEMENT statistic (square footage) from the BASEMENT FINISH stat?
- What makes a portion of a basement finished?
- Do exact measurments count, or is it simply "fully finished," "half-finished" and "unfinished?"
- What criteria is used to classify attic space as a bedroom? I am in such a situation, with a partially finished attic (one heat duct) and about half raw storage space. At purchase, and again last August, a commerical real estate appraiser considered it an "attic." CV counted the full square footage as a bedroom. Realistically, our home would be listed as a three, not four, bedroom home.
Thanks in advance.
Paul |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 10:38 am: | |
Thomas: are you feeling inadequate in your ability to understand mathematics?
Are you completely out of *productive* ideas?
Or do you just feel like being nasty?
Probably all three, is my guess....
there, another posting I'll regret later. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 10:39 am: | |
Dytunck: you won't see a final answer or a schedule until the weekend's over. It is a good idea and I need to talk to the others to see when and where.
j |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 10:51 am: | |
Jerry,
THANK YOU!
Dytunck |
Thomas
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 6:40 pm: | |
Ya thats right Jerry I can't understand your new new math and I just want to be nasty.
These formals are put out by you and Vic in an effort to try and justify a bad assessment. That makes me angry.
Vic knows his assessment is low and won't admit it.
And yes Jerry I know your not an assessor.
I have not run out of Ideas but you don't want to hear them.
We need to ask the County for more time so Mr.Galante can review the assessmnets properly. Instead we have to try and rush it through so we can get this over with. Why?
Why can't we hold off till Sept. or Jan. 2002 if needed and get it right. Oh ya "some people might appeal thier taxes and win". |
Alidah
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 8:52 pm: | |
Can anyone explain why we are charged considerably more for steam heat/radiators than forced hot air?
Why are bathrooms so cheap? |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Saturday, February 3, 2001 - 11:09 pm: | |
Thomas,
Why should those overpaying continue to overpay until Jan. 2002? "Some people might appeal thier Taxes and win" is an understatement. The people whose taxes went down have prove that they are overpaying. Do the people whose taxes went up have prove that they are now overpaying? If so then they can appeal. I think the town would lose a lot more appeals from the eastside then the westside. Whole areas on the eastside were overpaying while only individuals on the westside were overassessed.
So, if the town had a choice to throw out the reval or delay it(which it doesn't)it wouldn't change the fact that the taxes are going to go up on the westside and go down on the eastside. It would simply change the way you are charged. Instead of you having a higher assessment you would have to pay a mucher higher tax rate. The fact that you want the reval thrown out shows that you are out for yourself and not the betterment of the town. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 8:08 am: | |
Eb- the fact that you don't want to wait a year on the assessment and get it done properly shows that you are out for yourself and not the betterment of the town. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 4:06 pm: | |
Ffof: the same could be said about you: The fact that you want those overpaying to continue to do so shows that you are out for yourself and not the betterment of the town. It's all a matter of viewpoint except that harm (in the financial and legal sense) has already occurred to those of us overpaying. And that may well become a point for the lawyers if the pattern continues.
Bacata |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 6:53 pm: | |
FLOF,
"get it done properly" what does that mean? Does it mean lower the assessments on everyone whose taxes were largely increased? Does it mean raise the taxes on those whose taxes were greatly decreased? Is that what you think will make it fair?
What I am hearing throughout the town is that they agreed CVI made some mistakes (which the town has stepped in to correct) but for the most part they were pretty close to the fair market value. The biggest complaint is the actual amount of the raise in their taxes. Most or atleast those who are honest about the situation say they feel CVI was accurate but they can't afford the increase. I don't have a problem with those people and my heart does go out to them and I hope we can find some kind of help for them. But to those who say the reval is incorrect or the process is flawed simply because they don't want to pay their fair share... to them I say man up and pay your fair share!!!!
Yes I know, "everyone wants to pay their fair share" c'mon do you honestly beleive that? There are a lot of people screaming to throw out the reval and that it is flawed, yet they didn't even look at their own property card. So are they just trying to start trouble in town or are they looking out for the betterment of the town?
The answer to your question to me is...as I have stated in a previous post I started out looking out for myself but after I spoke with my neighbors who had no clue to what was going on or how to fight for their rights I began helping and offering my assistance to them. I spoke at a neighborhood association meeting and explained what the process was and how to get the answers to their questions. I could have kept my mouth shut and just looked out for myself by waiting until the TC acted and then took the action I needed to take. One way or the other my taxes are going to be decreased so I didn't need to organize a group or help out anyone but I did it to help those who needed the help. So I guess what I did was for the betterment of the town. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 10:00 pm: | |
First - Bacata- the reason I posted what i did 3 posts ago was to parrot the last thing Eb said. So then when I read your post parrotting me, it sounded pretty funny! I guess I should stop doing that. One thing did catch my eye though, you said something like "it's a matter of viewpoint except that harm has already occurred to those of us overpaying." So I guess two wrongs are going to make a right? Actually, this is a rhetorical question - I absolutely don't know the answer to all this except to help get state property tax reform on the state's agenda (I have supported this idea on other threads).
And Eb- I haven't really said what I think would make it "fair". You addressed your last post to me, but it seems like you're upset with people who you think don't want to pay their fairshare. I personally don't know of anyone of my friends or neighbors who say they don't want to pay. They may think that their assessments were way off, and many have done something about it as is their right, and then they'll pay.(Some will move).
I'm glad you feel that you have helped your neighbors and would consider this bettering the town. I, too, have been helping my neighbors. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 12:53 am: | |
Eb
the reason we should ask for more time is so the mistakes can be corrected. It can't be done in the next two weeks. The reason that people who are currently over paying will have wait a liitle longer to get their assessments corrected is because mistakes were made -alot of them. If you have a problem with that you should be complaining to the TC and Certified as I have since the start of this mess. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 10:59 am: | |
What if we take until the end of the year or the beginning of 2002 to correct the mistakes and make the reval retroactive for 2001? And then apportion the taxes for homeowners that sold in 2001?
This way, everyone who is overpaying will do so for 2001, but will get a huge credit in 2002, and those that are underpaying will have time to have the mistakes corrected, or when the reval is done again, the new numbers could be legitimized?
Not a perfect solution, of course, but "fair taxes" is the name of this game. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page