| Author |
Message |
    
Nohero
| | Posted on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 8:47 pm: |     |
... it is really hard to keep up. We have been basing our understanding, of the tax impact of our assessment, on the data that Jerry made available online. Now, apparently, according to the "MTV" rebroadcast, there have been some adjustments to some areas. Some have been based on traffic, some have been based on a disregard for the "views" (which I could never understand anyway), and some may be just for the heck of it. So, given all of this, if some folks now have less of an increase than before, that means that I will have more of an increase. Is there some way to find out where we all stand right now?
And remember, we only have two days to get our letters in ... |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 6:52 am: | |
Nohero,
It's true that whenever anybody wins an appeal on their house assessment and gets the valuation reduced for whatever reason (they live on a noisy street corner, which lowers their market value, or they don't have a view to sell that they were mistakenly charged for), they will be paying less taxes than we all first thought they would. Thus, you and I and the rest of the town will pay more to maintain the town.
That having been said, please realize that (a) everyone in town is legally entitled to a correct assessment whether we like it or not and (b) you and I aren't going to be paying all that much more because others win their appeals. Somebody should correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that, roughly speaking, someone who gets their assessment lowered by $50,000 will have their tax bill lowered by $1,000. That $1,000 will be divided among every other household in Maplewood.
It's true that neighborhood wide adjustments made by Mr. Gallante last month meant that hundreds of homes got pull-backs in their formerly projected taxes. Mr. Gallante tried to explain those adjustments at the time, but he was booed and shouted down, leaving other residents in Maplewood struggling to make sense of what happened. However, my understanding is that none of them were made "just for the heck of it," but to make sure that people's assessments didn't exceed the market value of their homes, which is the law. The TC has hired an independent auditor to review the entire assessment process.
In the meantime, I think if you e-mail Jerry Ryan, or ask him on these boards, he will give you a formula for figuring out your likely taxes.
k. |
Nohero
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 9:20 am: | |
Townie - Don't get me wrong, I do not disagree that the reassessment was necessary. The whole point of the assessment was to try and correct the previous imbalance, so that the relative values of properties in this town, for tax purposes, would be appropriately set. I also know what our likely taxes are, from the "formula" and from the extensive data Jerry made available online.
However, with the recent adjustments, "neighborhood" or otherwise (and by the way, were any non-complaining neighborhoods adjusted?), I no longer have a sense of what level of taxes my assessment number will produce. Also, since the assessments for many houses are now different from what is indicated in the generally-available information, I do not have any way to compare the assessment on my house, to other houses that I can see around town, in order to get an idea about whether my assessment seems "right" or not.
The reason for my question was simply this: There are a lot of us who didn't go down to the municipal building with torches and pitchforks, who didn't make grandstanding speeches at the high school meeting in order to get a start on the 2001 election, and who didn't go around accusing the mayor of splitting this town into "East" and "West". What we did do was wait for the facts, and examine the information to decide how we felt about where we were coming out on our taxes. The "adjustments" in value, once the information is out in public, may (or may not) change our view of whether our homes are properly valued, in relation to some of those houses which are now getting value adjustments. |
Townie
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 9:59 am: | |
Hi, Nohero,
I didn't think you were arguing. Just looking for information. I think that Jerry Ryan is the person to ask about what the tax rate is likely to be. And I believe he keeps the assessments database updated and that the large database he's been making available via e-mail (and I believe the one in Town Hall) reflects all the neighborhood-wide adjustments that were made. So you should be able to check out your block and compare your assessment to others. I don't know if any non-complaining neighborhoods were adjusted.
Maybe Jerry will pop by this thread. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 9:08 pm: | |
I have not updated anything in the database since I issued it; I am not getting real-time updates from the assessor. I expect to reissue everything as close as possible to when the data are filed with the county.
It is possible that the 2.75% rate will change depending on how many other adjustments are made. It is also possible that it will not change.
Remember that 2.75% number is a 2000 rate for comparison purposes.
I don't know what the new tax rate for 2001 will be yet. It will certainly be higher than the 2.75% |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 11:46 am: | |
Anybody read today's Ledger which states that the year 2000 had the biggest percent jump in sales figures ever. Now, we have on tape Mr. Galante's confirmation that the reval was weighted heavily on the sales figures for 2000. Could this possibly be a the root cause of the town's panic? And I think phasing in the horrific increases is a hugh insult for people who won't be able to afford the taxes now or later. |
Alidah
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 9:00 pm: | |
You mean like Hugh Grant? |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:45 pm: | |
Mtierney-
part of the problem with the tax assessment is that while the lowest sales - estate sales, family sales,etc,- were dropped from consideration when values were developed by Certified, the highest sales - exuberant sales, at the top of the wild market- were included. if they had been dropped too then we would have seen a very different outcome. Also three years averaging would have helped. |
Blackcat
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 9:55 pm: | |
If majority of high sales were done in 2000 and they did indeed use the past three years, wouldn't 2000's figures weigh heavy in the average? |
Alidah
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 4:00 pm: | |
The way I understand it, is that they looked at three years sales to determine a trend and then used the latest sales to set the values.
The way it played out on my street is that the last house that sold on the street sold for $430,000 in 1999. Now no house is valued at $430 or below (I think the lowest value on the street is $440).
So it looks like the prices from 1998 and 1999 aren't even used at all! |
Bobk
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 6:01 pm: | |
I live on a street where from 1990 through 1999 houses regularly sold in the $250k to 315K range year in and year out. In 2000 there were a couple of sales of atypical homes in the $500k range. Now everything is being assessed north of $450k.
Incidentally on the top 100 increase in tax list our street has about eight. A very high proportion, at least in my opinion.
I know prices have gone up, but doubling in one year? I can't believe that this is going to stand up. But, we will be paying taxes on this basis for the next ten or twenty years. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 6:33 pm: | |
Blackcat-
If three years had been used for the average, even if the exuberant sales of 2000 are included, the larger actual number of sales would bring the average down.
Come to the Wed. nite meeting 7:30pm |
|