| Author |
Message |
    
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 8:48 am: |     |
Actually, I now know from my certificate of continued use (which is at the office), that I'm zoned R-1-5. Why would my first line be for a .20 acre, when it should be closer to .11? |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:00 pm: | |
Gerry, if you only have one figure for acreage value on your property record card and it's based on 12,000 SF then you are overassessed. In your zone (I happen to know you are in R-1-7), the min. lot size is 7,000 SF so this would be multiplied (as a percent of an acre =.16) by 350,000 (for your neighborhood) and then the excess of 5000+/- (what ever it is)is multiplied by 100,000. These two figures are added together and then to that sum you add the site value. THis makes a significant difference in your land value.
You can see the mayor and Ed Galante explaingin this on a tape of the workshop. I can't believe this was only diclosed a eweek ago. There are so many people who wern't awareof this tha ti think the deadline should be extended...or they will all have to file county appeals. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:09 pm: | |
Njjoseph -
The person who told you to look at the AC listed on your property card is wrong...the number doesn't neccessarily reflect the minimum lot size unless your lot size is exactly equal to the minimum.
The Zone can be found by looking at the tax map at the town hall. it is NOT on your property card. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:19 pm: | |
Njjoseph -
you only have one line because you are being overassessed. It seems that for alot of us in town the factors for minimum lot size and for excess were not followed and the entire lot was calculated at the rate for the minimum.
The .11 min.lot size should be multiplied by the higher factor (300 or more) and the excess of .09 should be multiplied by 100. The total being .20. Then you add the "neighborhood tax". Depending on the size of your property, this can make a significant difference.
Isn't it interesting that all this has been revealed to us only now (just days before the deadline for review) after we have asked - at howmany T.C./meetings? - how the site values are calculated.
There are more cans of worms to stir up - the depreciation factors are all over the place...the same for the class/quality factors.
This reval has a most unscrupulous flavor to it! |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:28 pm: | |
Franny - you are living in a dream world if you thisnk that the tax assessor will VOLUNTARILY look at everyone's land value (I mean no offense to you by this statement). We have to kick up a fuss individually. If enough of us do then maybe, just maybe they'll get it.
Joancrystal-
you are right - i was using the highest land value as an example. i think 300 is the lowest. I also heard that the site values go from 30 to 170...wouldn't it be nice if all this info was published somewhere? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 9:27 pm: | |
Njjoseph: All "R-1-7" means is that the lots must be at least 7000 square feet. My lot's larger so it is a legal lot in R-1-7.
An exceptionally sized property in a zone is just that: an exceptionally sized property in a zone. It isn't zoned differently for that.
The actual size of the lot and the actual acreage is what's on my card, not "7000 sq ft" or whatever the acreage is.
I still haven't seen the replay of the workshop, either :-) |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 9:48 am: | |
Jerry, what was said in the workshop, was that R-1-7 meant that the minimum lot size is 7000, as you said. However, they also said that the minimum lot size is used in the primary charge/acre (in my case $350000), and the amount over that would be at $100K/acre. As you would see from my property card, I am being assessed at .20 acre * $350K + .304 acre * $100K. It goes against what was said in the workshop. I'm R-1-5, so my first number should be about .11, and the second should be about .39. It's not a huge difference in dollars, and I think my house is not assessed too far off from what I think it should be. However, if the rules state the first line is for minimum lot size, then the rules should be enforced; therefore, my assessment should go down. |
Kmk
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 11:19 am: | |
We are also R-1-7 folks who have .312 acres and only one line in the Land Calc. section of the card. Certified Valuations computed every square inch of our property at $350,000/ acre. It's a 30K difference if it is calculated by the two line method! Yes we did appeal. |
Franny
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:16 pm: | |
Winky - I did appeal, but I didn't include this info about the land calculations differing from one part of town to the other (I didn't know) -- if the methodology isn't consistant throughout the entire town...is this even legal? I understand the site values and acreage values can vary, but as I understood it the methodology was supposed to be the same throughout town. Am I missing something here? |
Thomas
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:20 pm: | |
I must have missed something. Can anyone help me?
If R-1-7 (7,000) is the highest min. lot size which is approx. .16 acre, then why is my card showing .4 on the 1st line (.4 x 350k + 170k = 310k).
How can the min. lot size be .4 acre if many of the homes in a neighborhood are less then .2 acre. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:23 pm: | |
Franny - I don't think you are missing anything here at all. I am not an expert, just another town citizen who is listening very carefully. I also wonder about the legality of using differing methodologies in different areas of town. This is a big problem. A lot of people don't know about it and in the end there are bound to be a lot of county appeals...unless of course the T.C. does the obviously rational thing and postphones this eval. for a year in order to get it straigtened out. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:28 pm: | |
THomas - the min. lot size is not .4 - your card must be recorded incorrectly. 7000 SF is .16 acres. FYI - An acre is 43,560 SF. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:39 pm: | |
Winky
My card is not recorded incorrectly, as others in my area are recorded similar. I did state 7,000 s.f. is .16 acres, that was my point. 43.56k yes that I knew approximitly. Thank you for the exact number. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:46 pm: | |
Holy Inflated Land Values, Batman!
To the batcave, Robin... |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:50 pm: | |
Thomas - we have to encourage all who have this problem to go to the T.C. meeting wednesday night and confront the "experts" on this issue.
Winky |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:53 pm: | |
Ffof - does the Batcave count as a habitable basement space? - beware Batman - your taxes may go up! |
Ffof
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 9:03 pm: | |
Ya know - it's decked out with all the latest in high-tech music equipment, electric guitars, a futon, a sauna (catwoman loves this!)...but no bathroom! |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 10:29 am: | |
Thomas
According to the Mayor and Mr. Galante, your .4 acres should be broken into TWO components - .16 for the min lot area (at 350 as you stated) and the balance or excess which is .24 (at 100 for all excess). you can confirm your acreage by looking at your home survey (which everyone should have from the purchase of the home). |
Nicky
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 10:31 am: | |
I also have a .4 on the first line calculation. Does anyone have the correct calculations according to Mr. Gallante? Maybe he misunderstood Certified's methodology.
Jerry, can you clear this up? |
Thomas
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 11:09 am: | |
Yes Winky
Acreage is correct.
There seems to be some kind of conflict between "min.lot area" and the first line of the land calulations. I do not believe they are using the min.lot area as in (R-1-7) as the first line calulating factor. It looks like they just pulled this number out the sky. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 6:55 pm: | |
Come to the T.C. meeting tomorrow on Wed nite @ 7:30 pm |
Michael
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 20, 2001 - 11:14 pm: | |
I know there has been a workshop running on cable TV explaining how to make better sense out of your revaluation card but I could sure use some additional help ! I went to town hall today looking for some sort of booklet or instruction sheet to help me understand my evaluation but apparently, there isn't anything out there on paper.
I think that some sort of manual or guide on how to read the darn thing would be helpful to many people. Anybody have any ideas or comments ? |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 3:10 pm: | |
I have read the DeMartin Schwartz report carefully, and only now do I understand how the land values were calculated. I will explain below, because judging by this thread there is a lot of confusion. Wouldn't it have saved a lot of grief if someone stepped up and explained this carefully before? READ CAREFULLY
First, CVI broke down Maplewood into 42 distinct "neighborhoods" or VCSs. It's actually 25, but I'll explain that later. They applied the formulas on a neighborhood basis to the LAND VALUE portion of your property card. Your improvements (structures) are itemized separately. Two properties located within the same VCS that have the exact lot size will have the same exact LAND VALUE, as a rule. Exceptions might exist for easements or some other such thing, but assume this as the rule. Therefore, what differentiates property values on identical lots is the improvement itself.
Example: Two homes in the same VCS on R-1-7 lots each have 7,000 sq. feet of land. They are assessed $20,000 apart. Therefore, one property has improvements totaling $20,000 more. Since the assessment is based on a starting estimate and land is extracted from the cost of the structure, and since the land is equal in this example, the assessors had to come up with a $20,000 difference in the IMPROVEMENT portion. This is done by counting square footage, living space, etc, assigning a quality rating, determining a depreciation rate, calculating replacement costs, etc. Whatever math works to come up with the $20,000 difference is what is done. If they needed to finagle the depreciation to make the numbers work, they did. If they needed to futz with the quality rating, which drives the 1975 multipliers, they did.
Now back to the LAND VALUE FORMULAS.
The 42 VCSs were assigned LAND VALUES according to the following formula:
Site Value + Acreage Cost for a determined cutoff size, plus any land in excess of the cutoff.
NOTE: The cutoff is NOT the same as the minimum lot size as was stated by the Assessor and Mayor at the Property Card Workshop. This is where the confusion arises. Let's look at an actual VCS formula:
Neighborhood #1 or VCS# "AC01" is Wyoming and Upper Wyoming Avenues. There are 261 parcels within AC01. All the LAND was calculated using the formula: (Site) $ 170,000 + (Acreage) $350,000 per acre times % of an acre, (which is 43,560 square feet). The cutoff lot size is .4 acres. Anything over .4 acres is $100,000 per acre.
Three parcels in this VCS for example:
The Smiths live on R-1-7 with the minimum 7,000 square feet. They have (7,000 divided by 43,560) .16 acre. Their Land Value is $170,000 + ($350,000 * .16) -equals- 170K + $56K -equals- $226,000.
The Wollenskis live on R-1-7, but have 12,560 square feet. They have 5,560 feet in excess of the minimum lot size in the zone. THEIR land value is 170K plus (350K times .29 acre) -equals- $170,000 plus $101,500, or $271,500. The entire lot is multiplied by 350K per acre because while exceeding the minimum lot size for the zoning, it did NOT exceed the cutoff assigned by Certified, which is .4 acre or 17,424 square feet.
The Lugers live on R-1-7 with 21,000 square feet. Lucky them. They have 14,000 square feet in excess of the zoning lot size, but only 3,576 square feet in excess of the cutoff. Those 3,576 sq. ft. are multiplied by $100,000 per acre. 3,576 is .08 acre. Their land value is 170K plus (350K times .4) plus (100K times .08) - or 170K plus 140K plus 8K, equaling $318,000.
Still with me? Anyone? Bueller?
The 42 VCSs have formulas assigned to them, but there are only 25 different formulas. For example, AC01 and AC02 have identical formulas, so even though CVI assigned them as different neighborhoods, they are assigning land values in AC01 the same way as in AC02, which makes them the same neighborhood.
Does this clear up the confusion from this thread?
Dytunck |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 3:22 pm: | |
Here's the complete listing of VCSs and formulas.
| NO. | BOUNDARIES | TOTAL PARCELS | BLOCK & LOT RANGE | VCS | FORMULA | | | | | | | | | | Site | Prime | Cutoff | Excess | (Cutoff in Sq. Ft) | | 01 | Wyoming, Upper Wyoming | 261 | 5.02/9.10.02/78.01 | AC01 | $170,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.40 | $100,000.00 | 17,424 | | 02 | Claremont Ave, below Wyoming, Ridgewood Rd, Maple Terr | 358 | 8.05/237-14.03/70 | AC02 | $170,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.40 | $100,000.00 | 17,424 | | 03 | Hemlock, Claremont Drive | 43 | 8.09/171-8.10/180.03 | AC03 | $170,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 04 | Kendall, below Wyoming, Collinwood, Cedar | 363 | 5.02/10-15.06/249 | AC04 | $140,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 05 | Washington Park | 41 | 7.03/171-7.04/216 | AC05 | $170,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.40 | $100,000.00 | 17,424 | | 06 | East Cedar | 22 | 15.01/2-15.02/24 | AC06 | $90,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 07 | Below Ridgewood, Woodland, Maplewood Ave, Walton | 215 | 12.01/1-15.07/422 | AC07 | $170,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.40 | $100,000.00 | 17,424 | | 08 | Winthrop, Baker, Lenox | 75 | 11.06/127.01-12.10/301 | AC08 | $160,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 09 | Carleton Ct | 33 | 11.01/60-11.06/125 | AC09 | $115,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 10 | Burnet, Salter | 136 | 18.01/220-19.20/152 | AC10 | $110,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 11 | Dunnell Rd | 20 | 16.03/131-17.16/157 | AC11 | $80,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 12 | Elmwood, Kenningston, Midland Blvd | 637 | 24.01/176-36.06/62 | AC12 | $90,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 13 | Burr, Berkshire, Burroughs | 119 | 25.03/93.01-36.07/138 | AC13 | $60,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 14 | South 4th, Essex Ave, Hudson Ave | 261 | 36.01/287-38.07/104 | AC14 | $60,000.00 | $100,000.00 | 0.15 | $100,000.00 | 6,534 | | 15 | Elberta, Midland Blvd, Ball Terr | 422 | 31.34/158-43.42/267 | AC15 | $45,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 16 | Orchard, Meadowbrook, Hillcrest | 476 | 35.01/198-44.03/187 | AC16 | $60,000.00 | $100,000.00 | | $100,000.00 | | | 17 | Jennifer Lane | 8 | 24.08/286.01-24.08/286.08 | AC17 | $90,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 18 | Oakland, Park, Oakview (west of Prospect) | 77 | 23.03/195-24.08/280 | AC18 | $95,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 19 | North Cresent | 46 | 23.01/82-23.03/192 | AC19 | $150,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 20 | Prospect St | 58 | 23.01/78-27.06/169 | AC20 | $150,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 21 | Courter, Oakland, Plymouth | 384 | 26.01/2-33.01/303 | AC21 | $95,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 22 | Boyden Pkwy | 58 | 31.34/1-31.34/138 | AC22 | $45,000.00 | $350,000.00 | | $100,000.00 | | | 23 | Park Ave, Harvard, Tuscan | 569 | 22.01/1-22.03/255 | AC23 | $95,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 24 | So. Pierson, Broadview | 115 | 21.01/34-22.01/230 | AC24 | $85,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 25 | Rynda Rd | 137 | 19.20/206-21.12/123 | AC25 | $50,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 26 | Hilton Section | 668 | 29.06/555-49.16/102 | AC26 | $30,000.00 | $300,000.00 | 0.09 | $100,000.00 | 3,790 | | 27 | Jacoby, Van Ness, Newark Way | 585 | 31.05/21-48.47/4.01 | AC27 | $30,000.00 | $300,000.00 | 0.08 | $100,000.00 | 3,485 | | 28 | Lee Ct, Troy Ct | 115 | 45.03/76-46.03/189 | AC28 | $40,000.00 | $100,000.00 | 9999.00 | | | | 29 | Condominiums - Irvington Avenue | 18 | 42.02/35/C0001-42.02/35/C0018 | AC29 | $30,000.00 | | | | | | 30 | Condominiums - Irvington Avenue | 22 | 42.02/39/C0001-42.02/39/C0022 | AC30 | $40,000.00 | | | | | | 31 | Condominiums - Hausmann Ct | 16 | 45.03/94/C0036-45.03/94/C0051 | AC31 | $40,000.00 | | | | | | 32 | Condominiums - Burnett Ave | 18 | 48.47/25/C0001-48.47/25/C0018 | AC32 | $30,000.00 | | | | | | 33 | Condominiums - Boyden Avenue | 10 | 47.02/244/C0001-47.02/244/C0010 | AC33 | $20,000.00 | | | | | | 34 | Condominiums - Ridgewood Rd | 8 | 11.04/67/C0001-11.04/67/C0008 | AC34 | $150,000.00 | | | | | | 35 | Condominiums - Highland Pl | 13 | 12.04/203/C000A-12.04/203/C000M | AC35 | $135,000.00 | | | | | | 36 | Condominiums - Valley St | 86 | 16.01/25/C001A-16.01/25/C007N | AC36 | | | | | | | 37 | Condominiums - Meadowbrook | 148 | 44.02/118/C0024-44.02/118/C75B | AC37 | $25,000.00 | | | | | | 38 | Condominiums - Ostwood Terr | 8 | 46.02/229/C0001-46.02/229/C0008 | AC38 | $50,000.00 | | | | | | 39 | The Top | 92 | 5.01/5/C0PHI-5.01/5/C008M | AC39 | | | | | | | 40 | Rosedale, Cypress | 11 | 19.20/72-19.02/93 | AC40 | $90,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 41 | Raymond Terr | 15 | 20.01/385-20.03/376 | AC41 | $55,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | 42 | Buckingham, End of Maplewood Ave | 82 | 14.01/171-15.07/417 | AC42 | $90,000.00 | $350,000.00 | 0.20 | $100,000.00 | 8,712 | | | 6,849 | | | | | | | | |
|
Ffof
| | Posted on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 10:27 pm: | |
Dytunck - Thank you for clearing up the land value questions. Where did they come up with the "cut off" numbers though? |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 10:36 pm: | |
They used a number that would only apply to a handful of parcels - the extraordinary parcels within a neighborhood. It's not as scientific as they would have you believe. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page