| Author |
Message |
    
Nursie
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 1:25 am: |     |
I am still not sure what "Class /Quality" means. I watched my tape of the "propery data card" workshop, and altough it was very educational for me, I still do not have a clue about the number that determines "Class/Quality" and exactly how it was reached. Can anybody help here? |
Nursie
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 8:48 am: | |
Sorry, I posted this twice by mistake. That is what I get for posting at 1:25 AM. |
Joancrystal
| | Posted on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 9:05 am: | |
The appraiser's handbook (available in the Main Library's reference room) has pictures and definitions of each of the class/quality groupings. There are a lot more than the 9 used in Maplewood. Unfortunately, some of the class/quality pages are missing so your's may not be there. An earlier posting (not by me) stated that this book was also available on line but I forget the URL. |
Gskrltr
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 3:59 pm: | |
What's even more interesting is that the class code for my house was a 17 in the last reval...and now it's an 18.5......that's a huge difference since that code is a multiplier against square footage.I didn't know that code could change. It seems quite a few of my neighbors also had a change upward. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 4:10 pm: | |
It could change if the house was maintained and improved. Easily!
It could also change if it stayed the same, but the average quality of the other houses dropped. Mr. Galante said 16 was the average. |
Gskrltr
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 5:36 pm: | |
In reading the manual I understood the class code to refer to the quality of the original construction. Custom built houses would have a higher number than subdivisions,etc.If 16 is the average and 20 is the highest, that means there are alot of houses with really low class code. Maintenace shouldn't increase the code.Maybe additions or renovations could. The only change in 20 years is a new bath. But just going from an 18.5 to and 18 lowers the assessment by almost 36,000. Those little class code values are pretty important it seems |
Nohero
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 5:57 pm: | |
At the property card workshop, it was stated that the firm which did the old reval had chosen to use lower class codes for the calculations - the example given was that a house of "17" quality was priced as a "16". There was no explanation of why this would have been done.
That having been said, it does seem that the class code is a significant factor in the overall assessment, but it is also a subjective one which is hard to argue about |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 6:11 pm: | |
Nohero,
Yeah, that was my house. It just goes to show that they work backwards to make the numbers work.
BTW- In the twenty years since, we somehow got promoted up to an 18. I guess we live in a more "stately" home now.
Everyone see what's going on here? |
Nohero
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 6:17 pm: | |
Dytunck - Honestly, I do not know if something is "going on here" now. There is the possibility that something was "going on here" way back when - the old assessments could have been "flattened", with a deliberate choice to narrow the range of values between the more expensive and the less expensive properties.
I am not saying that it happened that way. However, just comparing old and new property cards is not going to provide enough information about which subjective choice (the one now or the one then) is more correct. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 6:30 pm: | |
Nohero,
What's going on here is exactly what went on last time. Some major fudging of "subjective" data in order to make the objective data fit.
You can't change the size of your living room (I know you could, but follow me here), it's still 18 x 12 like it was in 81. The constants used in the prop card calcs based on 1975 numbers leave very little wiggle room. That's where the fudge factors come in.
I'm no genius, (hell, I can't even do the "Town Hall" jigsaw puzzle on the main page) but I do know a stacked deck when I see one.
Dytunck |
Gskrltr
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 4:28 pm: | |
Guess what y'all.....according to another assessor.....there isn't a class code"18.5"....why doesn't that surprise me!!! |
Bobk
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 4:14 pm: | |
Let's see. First we find out that a lower rate on "excess" acreage only applies in certain sections of town and now we find that the 1975 base costs are being upped from where they were in 1981. Uhm,...I think we have a problem.
I think doing a reval is more than justified, but i don't like the idea that CV has had to force round pegs into square holes to get to the numbers the TC wants.
I AM DISGUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|