1. there was a home on the parcel in years 2002, 2003 and 2004.  If the parcel was a vacant lot in any year, it was not included so as not to skew the report.

2. the home was in Neighborhood Code 4807 in 2003, either from the start or because it was moved to that neighborhood from another neighborhood.  The column headings are highlighted in yellow for the year 2003, the year of the reassessment in Neighborhood Code 4807.  The report is currently sorted by street.

If you would like to view an Adobe pdf copy of my spreadsheet, please click here!  If you have a copy of Excel and would like the actual spreadsheet so you can sort the information yourself, please click here!  Both versions are currently sorted by street.

Here are some facts about Neighborhood Code 4807 and the 2003 reassessment:

• 2,119 homes were in Neighborhood Code 4807 in  2003  - of those homes, 351 were in Neighborhood 4807 in 2003 only because they were moved from other neighborhoods (they were from 4801 (Village of New Hartford), 4811 (Rural), 4813 (Utica Influenced) and 4815 (High End homes).   The homes that were actually moved into the "neighborhood" for the 2003 Reassessment equate to 16.5% of the homes in Neighborhood Code 4807 in 2003.

 

• Of the 351 homes moved into 4807 from other neighborhoods, only 25 assessments were actually increased.  That means that of the 351 homes that were moved into 4807 (for whatever reason, only the assessor knows for sure) only 7% of those parcels saw an increase in their assessment.  So why move them into the neighborhood?

 

• Of the 2,119 total homes in Neighborhood Code 4807, 794 homes had no increase in their assessment--that would be 37% of the homes in 4807, the largest neighborhood in the town that saw no increase in assessment in Neighborhood Code 4807, a neighborhood that supposedly was under-assessed and needed to be raised by as much as 20% for some homes to bring the neighborhood to 100% of market value in 2003.  What this means is that we are to believe that 37% of the homes in Neighborhood Code 4807 saw no increase in value since the last revaluation in 1995.  This is hard to believe!  By the way, this percentage does not reflect the 20 homes where the assessment was actually decreased in 2003.  (I assumed that was either by a stipulation or Board of Assessment Review decision.  The same applies to any decrease in 2004.  I do know that 43 Imperial Drive had a fire in 2003 so that accounts for their decrease.)

 

• In 2004, 170 homes that were considered Neighborhood Code 4807 in 2003 were moved to other neighborhoods to include 4805 (Hamlet of Chadwicks, 4811 (Rural), 4812 (this is no such neighborhood), and 4815 (High End Homes).

 

• 37 of the parcels that were in Neighborhood Code 4807 in 2003 (and either remained there or were moved) still saw no increase in assessment in 2004 even though some of them were moved to neighborhoods that were either reassessed or trended in 2004. 

 

• Of the 37 that still were not increased in 2004 (these are highlighted in green on my Excel spreadsheet), 25 of the parcels were actually moved into 4807 in 2003 from other neighborhoods.   Further, 13 were always in 4807 since 2002, 24 were then moved to other neighborhoods and not increased in 2004.

 

• In 2004, 4805 (the Hamlet of Chadwicks) and 4811 (Rural) were the reassessment areas and 4815 (High End Homes) were trended 15%.

As a side note, in 2003, Neighborhood Code 4807 (Older Subdivisions) consisted of homes that were built between 1750 and 2002 and included 6 with no year built indicated in the database.  So I ask again, how old does a home have to be in order to be considered in an older subdivision?

So do you think it might be possible that 37% of the homes in Neighborhood Code 4807 (the highest parcel count neighborhood) did not increase in value in 2003 while others saw a 20-25% increase in our assessment and many of us did not do one thing to our home?   Possibly in some instances there may be an explanation, but 794 homes or 37% seems quite high to us.   Look at some of the addresses, they certainly are not in a depressed area of New Hartford.  And why the need to keep moving parcels in and out of neighborhood codes?  Seems strange that your home would be Rural or High End one year and then an older subdivision the next and then moved back the next year. What's up with that?  Best bet is to look at the report for any homes in your area or homes that you are familiar with before you decide what these reports are showing. We certainly are not able to physically look at all the properties that weren't increased.  These reports are provided for your information only.  Sales for each property are now included in the Assessment Program and would be helpful in determining if a property has increased in value.

If you think that because you are not in Neighborhood Code 4807 this doesn't affect you, think again.  It impacts everyone!  Stay tuned for our review of other neighborhoods!

If these reports bother you, call your councilman.  Unless we let them know how we feel, they will continue to deny there is a problem.

The International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) defines a neighborhood as "(1) The environment of a subject property that has a direct and immediate effect on value.  (2)  A geographic area of properties sharing important location characteristics defined for purposes of market analysis or modeling (typically with fewer than several thousand properties)."  Notice both of these definitions revolve around the notion of effect of location on value.

In simpler terms, a "neighborhood" consists of properties that are comparable in terms of the probability of a buyer being equally as interested in buying House A as they would be in buying House B.  In other words, if I was a buyer, I would not be interested in looking at a house in a neighborhood code made up with homes that are 1,000 sq. ft. when I intend to buy a 5,000 sq. ft. home. Therefore, the 1,000 sq. ft. home should not be in the same neighborhood code as the 5,000 sq. ft. home.