| Author |
Message |
    
Sullymw
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 30, 2001 - 3:14 pm: |     |
I think we really need some definitions of the data presented on the Property Cards if we are going to evaluate them objectively.
How are the Land Rate values and Site Values determined?
What are the multipliers used in the Residential Cost Approach and how are they determined?
What is CCF and CLA and how are they determined since they factor into the ultimate building value?
What are the "Neigh", "VCS" and "Class/Quality" codes and what do they mean?
I'm sure others have more questions.
Who can provide us with this information? Without it I can't tell for sure whether by assessment is accurate.
Jerry, Vic: can you respond?
Thanks |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 5:33 pm: | |
Sully,
AMEN! I was in the assessor's office (well, I think it was his office because it says "Assessor" in 9 inch gold painted leters) today. The assessor wasn't in today. The assessor (during the turmoil of this revaluation) is in between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays. Huh? That BARELY qualifies for the category "Part Time." 3 Hours per week! Can we maybe borrow him from Springfield until this blows over?
Aside from the fact that his office hours are extremely inconvenient to the very large working and commuting population, he is making himself unavailable. I asked for an appointment and was told by two people in the office that he is not scheduling appointments. I have to submit my reasons for why I think my assessment is in error in writing. I want him to explain the very things that Sully posed in his/her message. When I understand HOW he assessed my land/improvements, then I will be able to put in writing what the errors are.
I now have to come back on Wednesday, Feb.6 at 4:00 and fight through what will probably be a long line as he hears several questions from concerned citicens one at a time.
How about a "How to Read Your Assessment" seminar some evening? Followed immediately by the "How Maplewood Calculated Your Property's Value."
I see a room with an overhead or opaque projector and a properly working PA system.
How about a roll call:
Mr. Deluca?
Ms. Davenport?
Mr. Liebman?
Mr. Ryan?
Ms. King?
Mr. Galante?
Sincerely,
Dytunck |
Maggie
| | Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 5:44 pm: | |
Dytunck
Any mention made while you were at the Assessor's Office today as to when the part-time, temp assessing staff is supposed to start? |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 8:20 pm: | |
Maggie,
The people in that office were all very nice, really, but know absolutely nothing about this reval business. I didn't ask specifically when the additional assessors were due to hold office hours, but I was in the assessors office for a good half-hour. I asked to see Galante and was told to come back next Wednesday. If the staff knew about the new assessors, they didn't volunteer any info. |
Mlj
| | Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2001 - 11:59 pm: | |
The Property Cards should be explained/decoded in detail. I suggest that Mr. Galante provide this information at the next TC meeting. |
Jgberkeley
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 8:08 am: | |
At the last meeting I think he tried. However, his discussion moved into a classroom presentation on the three known methods used to determine property values. Then it moved into commercial evaluations. As it did, I remember, the TC stopped him and moved to the next topic. Be careful for what you ask for, you just may get it! |
Pstob1126
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 8:28 am: | |
Education and information. Those are the elements that residents really need to determine the "fairness" of the reval process.
First step: Explain how the process works and how to decipher the figures on the property card. (Great idea, DYTUNCK!)
Second step: Explain how to appeal (to whom, when and what supportive documentation might be appropriate to present).
Follow these steps, openly and proactively, and you'll foster confidence in our local government and our elected officials.
Paul |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 10:00 am: | |
Dytunk's post raises an interesting question about how many hours a week Mr. Galante works for Maplewood. I assume that it must be quite a few more than 3 hours on Wednesday, and I hope that means he's out in the field, or he's in the office at other times completing the paperwork.
Does anyone know how many hours he really works for us? |
Vicdeluca
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:05 am: | |
I spent an hour on the phone with Ed Galante and I will try to answer some of the questions listed above about the record cards.
Residential Cost Approach Section
The first number represents the square feet of the room. That is multiplied by a standard industry guideline percentage and to that is added a constant factor (again from the guidlines). That total is multiplied by a quality factor (from the guidelines) and then multiplied again by an adjustment factor (in most cases it is 1.00). That gives you the cost for that item. For example, my basement is 520 square feet x 3.150 + $700 x 1.15 x 1.00 = 2,689.
You then add up all the totals in the residential section and it is reflected in the base cost number. That number represents the cost of the structure based on 1975 costs. It seems that 1975 is the base line established by the state.
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. For example, my base cost is 34,383 x 2.98 x 1.00 = $102,461.
That total then gets multiplied by a Net Depreciation Factor (in my case 65%) and the result is a building value of $66,600. To that is added any garages or other structures on the lot. In my case, $6,923 for the garage. Add the two together and round off and I get an improvement value of $73,500.
Land Calculation Section
The unit is a percentage of an acre of land. The rate is the value per acre of land. The site is a standard value given to the land because it is a buildable lot. The conditions represent (1)an adjustment for traffic, (2)an adjustment for topography (for example you live on a steep incline and cannot use your property or an easement runs through your lot) and (3)an adjustment for an economic condition (for example you live next to a factory). Most homes will have 100 in each of these conditions meaning that there are no adjustments being made.
Again, my lot is 50 feet by 100 feet or 5,000 square feet. Part of my lot (.087 acres) is valued at a rate of $300,000 per acre and part (.028) is valued at a rate of $100,000 per acre. I have no adjustments for conditions.
Therefore, .087 x $300,000 + $30,000 x 1.00 x 1.00 x 1.00 = $56,100 and .028 x $100,000 x 1.00 x 1.00 x 1.00 = $2,800. My total land value $58,900.
My total property value is $132,400.
Other answers:
The Neighborhod and VCS are designations by the assessor and Certified to place each property in its approriate style and class. Mine is neighborhood 26 and VCS 26. There are 42 different classifications in Maplewood.
The class/quality number comes from the state asessor's manual and is standard.
I hope this helps some. I really do not know more about the cards than what I have posted. If you have a very specific question, I will try to get an answer.
Additionally, I have just posted a lot of information about my own house ( I am sure my wife will be thrilled.) and I hope it will not lead to another thread of innuendoes by Thomas and others about my valuation in relation to others. I do not think that would be useful. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:12 am: | |
Vic, thanks for the information. Just one question on a minor topic. I actually got assessed for a tool shed that I have on my property. The tax on it is not going to break the bank, but it's more the thought that it would be considered a "taxable improvement" to my property. Is it standard procedure to tax something like that? Thanks. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:27 am: | |
Vic - Thanks for the info. Just curious- Why the different land values per acre applied to the 2 parts of your lot? Is this normal? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:28 am: | |
Thanks, Vic, I'm sure it was difficult to get into such specifics!
Overtaxed -- I have the same problem as you: I got taxed for a shed, even though the prior owner built it as a VERY small playhouse. I'm not sure the dimensions allow for a lawnmower to be stored in it.
Ffof, I had the double-pricing on my lot, too.
Vic, why are such non-permanent structures taxed, and do we really need a permit to put up one of these sheds that come in a kit? |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 11:46 am: | |
I'm still curious. Why the different land values and how/why was your property divided up? I have one land value ($350,000 per acre)times my acreage plus a site value. Do yours(Njjoseph and Vic) have site values? |
Mag
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 12:25 pm: | |
Mayor DeLuca
I have already submitted my request for a review to Mr. Galante's office. At the time I delivered it, I felt that I had outlined all the relevant concerns and provided all the appropriate supporting documentation to back up those concerns. From looking at the information you posted above, it now appears that I might have been somewhat naive regarding all the factors that may have contributed to what I feel is an overly-exorbitant assessment for my property.
For instance, it never occurred to me to specifically point out that the quality, adjustment, and/or CLA factors may have been, in whole or in part, inappropriately assigned. I hope that Mr. Galante's office will take into consideration, when reviewing the requests, that most residents (including myself) tackling this process are novices in the realm of tax appeal.
Also, do you have any specific information as to how Mr. Galante's office is handling requests? Someone posted recently that they were told Mr. Galante will only be in on Wednesdays, between the hours of 7 and 9PM (I believe), and was unavailable otherwise. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 12:43 pm: | |
FFof, I believe everyone has a site value. Mine is $170,000. The "per acre" amount is then added to it to get the total land valuation. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 12:59 pm: | |
Yeah yeah I got that part. But Vic and Njjoseph said that their total acreage was divided up into two parts and assessed at different rates per acre. Why would Vic's land be divided up into .028 and .087 acres? and apparently Njjoseph had this also. I'm just asking. |
Nursie
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 1:14 pm: | |
I have a question. Is the "property record card" that I sent for from Certified the same as the one people are picking up at the Townhall? Do I need to get that one too? |
Nohero
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 1:25 pm: | |
Nursie - I would recommend picking up the copy at town hall. The document that we received from Certified was a one-pager, without all of the information that is being discussed above in this thread. After reading some of this discussion, we picked up a copy from town hall - that one has two pages, and has the information. If for any reason you think that the one you received is missing something, better check at Town Hall. |
Mag
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 1:37 pm: | |
Nohero
Ditto ... I also received only a one-pager from Certified in response to my request, stamped and self-addressed envelope provided to boot. And it was the second page, without the most relevant information. Is there any end to that company's unwillingness to deal with this situation on the up-and-up? |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 2, 2001 - 1:54 pm: | |
I was wondering if I was going crazy. I too received only the one pager from Certified, consisting of a floor plan (that, by the way, contained some living space that we still haven't been able to find!) along with some "Building Information" down the side. After reading some of the posts here I started to suspect I was missing something so I went to Town Hall to get a copy directly. The missing page was provided, and it's most helpful. |
|