| Author |
Message |
    
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 3:46 pm: |     |
Well, I think that they're trying to find ways to differentiate houses. Houses with attics that you can stand in should have a higher market value than the same house with a crawlspace. Even higher would be those with a finished attic. A house with a finished basement should be higher than the same with a totally unfinished basement. Whether you do anything with the space is your choice. An interested buyer takes all of this into account when looking at various houses, so the assessor should, too. |
Mag
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 4:22 pm: | |
Looking at it that way then ... a (2)-fixture bathroom in an unfinished, unheated basement (which, in my house, has a tendency to flood) should not be rated the same as a (2)-fixture bathroom located within a kitchen area. And certainly not the same as a "powder room" off a first floor family den. I don't have one of the latter ... only using it as an example. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 4:23 pm: | |
Mag- Thanks for your attic formula. Here's an odd thing...on my portion of Unfinished attic I have a multiplier of 1.25 instead of 1.16. Why do you suppose that is? It certainly makes only a small difference, but it is curious. |
Mag
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 4:32 pm: | |
Ffof
I believe that multiplier is a "quality factor". But I have no clue as to how the "quality" of unfinished space is determined. Perhaps Mr. Galante, et al. will be able to help us with this tonight as well. |
Mem
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 12:43 am: | |
Bacata,
Regarding my attic - Certified never showed up for my original assessment. They then decided to count the attic as heated living space in the sunsequent assessment I received by mail. I called and made an appointment for a live rep. Once again I waited but no one came. Reschdeuled a new appointment, and again, a no show from Certified. I then went to Town Hall, and they sent someone to my house. They took the square footage off my attic. I have other notables that I am contesting as a result of the original non-reviewed assessment, and am going through the appeals process. This is certainly taken up a lot of my time! The workshop I attended at the town hall was very enlightening. |
Mem
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 12:49 am: | |
Sorry, last post was to Maq regarding attic. They deleted from living space qualifications, this also impacts square footage as living space. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 8:57 am: | |
I would like to thank the Mayor and Mr. Gallante for the informative workshop they gave yesterday evening. I attended via TV so I wasn't able to confirm the following:
I believe I heard Mr. Gallante say that land in excess of the minimum zoning requirement will be assessed at a rate of $100,000 per acre. The example given was a 5,000 sq ft lot in a 4,000 sq ft zone.
Did I hear this correctly? Or is this just wishful thinking on my part? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:33 am: | |
Bobk, that is correct. It's $100K/acre over the minimum, and it's the same charge all over the town. The cost for the minimum acreage is the same only for the nieghborhood. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 9:39 am: | |
Mag, I don't think that the bathroom in the basement should be charged any differently from the one in the kitchen or off the den, unless the quality of the bathroom is different. For example, a bathroom that was recently modernized with new tile should be considered new, while the one in the basement might be considered average.
However, the appraisal for your house considers all the modernization to come up with a general class/quality for your house, so all bathrooms will be charged the same. I'm not sure if it would be better to itemize individually, as it might raise the quality factor on your house, and only the basement is discounted, i.e. your class is 17 because the basement is not as great, but if we forget about the basement, the house will be 18 or 19. The more expensive charges are upstairs! |
Yvette
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 10:16 am: | |
I missed the part about the traffic, can anyone give some details about the percentages of traffic and on which blocks they were given???? |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Thursday, February 8, 2001 - 11:05 am: | |
Mem, is your attic otherwise finished apart from the heat and pull-down door? Mine is finished (poorly, in my opinion, but still would qualify with paneling up for walls, floorboards, carpeting and some electricity/lighting in a good portion of it.) We use it for storage but know we could turn it into a den or something by putting in heat and an exhaust fan for the summer months. So probably mine should have some sort of midway multiplier or quality factor.
Bacata |
Us2innj
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 3:34 am: | |
Can someone answer a question I have about the Record Card. Under Residential Cost, the first line lists our unfinished basement as 958 (times blah blah) equals 4907. Then at the bottom of that column, it lists under Garage/Misc; Attached Garage, and then Basement Garage "C" @ 177 and 1116 respectively.
Does this mean I am being assessed for the basement twice? What does the "C" following Basement Garage mean? |
Bobk
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 8:06 am: | |
us2, unless you do have two garages suggest you fill out a review form ASAP!! |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 8:58 am: | |
It seems that way to me, too. However, if your garage is part of your basement, you shouldn't be charged twice for the basement, only for the incremental charge of making it a garage rather than a basement. It's just like the finished portion where there's 2 line items -- one for the space and one for the extra cost of finishing.
But it sounds like they're charging you for 2 garages, one attached, and one integral (part of the basement). |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 9:57 am: | |
Us2innj, I have the exact same situation. I asked Ed after Wednesday's meeting about it. The second charge is a surcharge for the use of that portion of the basement as a garage (almost like it's an "improvement" to the basement). I don't think he's going to uphold any appeals on it (but you can try). |
Mem
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 1:15 pm: | |
Bacata,
My attic is completely unfinished, with exposed insulation, etc. I may be wrong, but unheated areas are not supposed to count as living space square footage. I would definitely appeal it if I were you and good luck. |
Maggie
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 1:33 pm: | |
Mem
It seems readily apparent that unfinished, unheated, in-door spaces were not dealt with uniformly house by house. You appear to be one of the lucky ones who actually got it deleted from your living space calculation.
I'm beginning to think that the treatment of details like these will never be uniform across-the-board. A real basic inequity, but one that Mr. Galante seems to find palatable. |
Mem
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 1:56 pm: | |
Maggie, I guess I was lucky, but it took ages for someone to finally show up from Certified. He took one look at the pull down door and deleted it. If the appeals process is fair and decent, others with similar situations should be able to rectify them. |
Yvette
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 2:43 pm: | |
Bacata - Mem is right any area of the house that is not heated should not be calculated in under living space.
My basement is finished but no heat and therefore, it is not calculated in under living space. As it was explained to me --- since the room could only be used for part of the year and not the entire year because there was no heat, then it could not be counted as living space.
My attic isn't done at all and has no heat...it also is not calcuated, and it's not a crawl space with a drop down door. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 3:13 pm: | |
Where is living space on the property card, and why should it have anything to do with assessment?
My basement is unheated, yet there is a portion that is finished. The only place I'm charged for it is under "Basement." The only place on the property card that identifies living space is NOT used in any calculation. |
Yvette
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 3:48 pm: | |
I believe we are referring to the total sf we should be paying for under the "heated area"
Are you sure that the basement sf is not included in the sf under the "heated area" |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 3:55 pm: | |
In my situation, I'm sure. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 4:01 pm: | |
Thanks for the info, folks. I'll follow up on it as soon as I get a chance to watch the rerun of the property card presentation.
Bacata |
Nursie
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 5:31 pm: | |
I watched my tape of the workshop and and still am not sure what "class quality" means and how it was determined. I know it was addressed on this thread but I am still not clear.
Also, "EXP Attic", does that really mean expanded attic, and if so does anyone know what "expanded attic" itself means. Full attic maybe? If it is not included in your total living space because it is not heated I guess that is okay. But if "expanded" means added on to, than it is not okay in my case. Anybody know more about this? |
Alidah
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 9:58 pm: | |
Class quality is a subjective classification that the assessor uses to get to the number they have (already) decided to assign to your house. It ranges from 20, being the highest for a fabulous house with great detail, to 12 (I think). They can make up higher and lower classification numbers if they need to--to get to their number.
The class quality number affects the multipliers.
I wouldn't worry about all the details on my card. Just the square footage of heated (livable) area.
I suppose that EXP means exposed? Rafters, etc., i.e. unfinished?? |
Cfa
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 10:35 pm: | |
My house has a classification of 17 which I know is not correct. Houses around me have to be 20 or higher, if there are any higher. I'm wondering if they classified my house higher because of the houses around me. Is the classification appealable? |
Nursie
| | Posted on Friday, February 9, 2001 - 11:24 pm: | |
Alidah,
Thanks for that piece of information.
Cfa,
You have a very good point, but how are we going to find out what is correct if this is based only on subjective information? (the Certified guy's "eyeball" propective?) I would still like to know what the determining factor is for the the "class quality" number. Perhaps the operational definition of "class quality" might be helpful. Is it my imagination, or did they sort of skim over that factor the other night at the workshop? Maybe I am the only one who didn't get it. Could someone from th TC please resopnd to this question? |
Lisat
| | Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 10:37 pm: | |
Nursie,
You might want to battle the Certified guy's 'eyeball' perspective with photographs. Including photographs of your home or a particular room/space could help a great deal. I understand it's underutilized. Include a date on the photo. |
Nursie
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 1:04 am: | |
Lisat,
Took photos this morning. Thanks for the input, and the the date and address--as well as the lot and block # will be on the back of each photograph. |
Aruba18
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 9:09 am: | |
All this means is that if you took the time, effort and expense to make the most of your home, you are going to get nothing but grief from the tax assessor. Doesn't seem exactly fair, does it? |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page