Be sure to read "The Rest of the Story"

How about Sleepy Hollow Lane off Tibbitts Road just above Jubilee Estates.  Only two homes on the street--one is 3,508 sq. ft. built in 1989 and the other is 5,008 sq. ft. built in 1992.  They started out as Neighborhood 4811 (rural).  In 2003, they were moved to Neighborhood Code 4807 (Older subdivision).  I guess with the homes in Jubilee starting to be built someone in the assessor's office decided that Sleepy Hollow Lane was not so "rural" after all.  By the way, does a house built in 1989 qualify as "older"?  Anyway, in 2003 they reassessed Neighborhood Code 4807, but neither of these homes were raised.  How come?  I know the homes are not in disrepair--was it an oversight?  In 2004, they were both trended the 5.5% that Neighborhood Code 4807 was supposedly trended.  My question is--how come these  homes were moved to Neighborhood Code 4807 and not 4809 like all the other homes built in the late 1980's and early 1990's.  They sure have the square footage like homes in Neighborhood Code 4809 (Newer Subdivisions), in fact 5,008 pretty much qualifies for Neighborhood Code 4815 (High End Homes).  Must have been an oversight.  By the way, homes in Neighborhood 4809 were reassessed in 2002 and trended 10% in 2004 according to the hand-out we received from Maxwell Appraisers in 2004.  I don't think you would get some of the people on Stonebridge to agree with the Maxwell's though, because I know that some of them were not raised in 2002, but instead were raised in 2003.  I guess it just depends on who you talk to.  I'll save Stonebridge Road for discussion on another day.

Donegal Place - a quiet neighborhood with 5 homes on the street. Four out of the five homes are Neighborhood Code 4813 (Utica Influenced).  The other one is 4811 (Rural). If you are not familiar with Donegal Place, it is off Meadowbrook which is towards the top of Chapman Road. Utica Influenced is a stretch--what part of Utica borders Donegal Place? At any rate, why is the one home (Rural) when the homes are in a subdivision?   Here's their story. Two of the homes were raised in 2003 and trended in 2004. Two of the homes were only trended in 2004 and one home was reassessed in 2004. I did some reports to see if there might be an explanation. Did they not raise the smaller homes? No, that wasn't the reason. Did they not raise the ones who were already paying more assessed value per square foot?   No, that wasn't the reason. Maybe they only raised homes with white siding--I'll have to check that one out! By the way, the one that is in Neighborhood Code 4811 (Rural) is the largest house on the street. The point is how can you treat some homes differently on such a street that only has five homes that are pretty much the same. Here is a clue--the tax map number.  Be sure to read "The Rest of the Story!

Moving right along to Regency Road in Castle Estates.  Only one home was in Neighborhood Code 4811 (Rural) in 2001 and 2002.  Then it was moved to 4807 in 2003 which is where it is now.  Amazing how a home in a development can be considered 4811 (Rural), but that's not the strangest part. The strangest part is that it never was reassessed or trended even though it was in a Neighborhood Code that was both reassessed in 2003 and trended in 2004.  Funny thing is, it is the second largest home on that street.  At 2,128 sq. ft. it is assessed $89,900--the biggest house on that street is 2,149 sq. ft. and is assessed for $134,000.   How can it be that the home was in 4811 (Rural) and then moved.  Here is a clue--the tax map number.  Be sure to read "The Rest of the Story!

There are a total of 8 homes on Regency Road--presumably 7 ranch homes and 1 colonial or at least according to the Assessor's assessment database--and all were built in the late 1950s early 1960s. Take a drive on Regency Road and see how many ranch style homes you see. I bet you don't see 7.  With the exception of the colonial on one end of the street, you will find it is about split between ranch homes and raised ranch homes.  Why does that matter?  Well, if you have a finished basement in a ranch home, unless you let the assessor in and he sees a basement finished as nice as the first floor, the extra living space doesn't count.  However, if you have a raised ranch with a finished basement, that counts as living space and the square footage of the home should be adjusted accordingly.  Maybe the same person that thought one of the homes was in 4811 (Rural) neighborhood thought he saw 7 ranch homes or maybe no one even bothered to drive around to look at all.  Perhaps, we might be well served if someone bothered to look.  According to the database, except for the two mentioned in the paragraph above, they are all about 1,200 to 1,400 sq. ft. and all but one of these smaller houses are assessed for more than the 2,218 sq. ft. home!  Here's the breakdown---Three of the homes were only trended in 2004 and four of the homes were reassessed in 2003 and then trended in 2004.  Last but not least, there's the one that was never reassessed or trended. Doesn't sound like very fair assessing to me.

Here's another one that kind of baffles me. How come Arlington Road (off of Oneida Street in Utica) is in Neighborhood Code 4807 (Older Subdivision) and Christopher Circle (off Chapman Road) is in Neighborhood Code 4813 (Utica Influenced)? I am intrigued for two reasons. First, some of the parcels on Arlington Road actually are split; that is part of the parcel is in Utica and part of the same parcel is also in New Hartford.  Isn't that Utica Influenced? The other reason I am intrigued is even though Arlington Road is in Neighborhood Code 4807 not everyone was reassessed in 2003 when that neighborhood code was reassessed. In 2003, why would you raise the assessment on a 999 sq. ft. home and not raise the assessment on a 1,666 sq. ft. home?   And I would think that a 999 sq. ft. home would not be in the same Neighborhood Code as a 2,728 sq. ft. home even if it is on the same street.   By the way, just how close to Utica do you have to be to get into Neighborhood Code 4813 (Utica Influenced)?   I would think Arlington Road is a lot closer to being influenced by Utica than Christopher Circle is, especially since the description for Neighborhood Code 4813 says the homes are on the Valley View side of Higby Road.  Wait--could it have something to do with tax map number?

Let's compare a couple of streets. Morgan Lane and Virginia Lane. Both have homes that are about the same size--in the 2100+ sq. ft. range. Virginia Lane was basically all built in 1988; Morgan Lane was built between 1988 to 1992 with the exception of two newer homes that were built in 2000 and 2005. However, Virginia Lane is in Neighborhood Code 4807 (Older Subdivisions) and Morgan Road is in Neighborhood Code 4809 (New Subdivisions). Weren't the homes on both streets basically built within a 4 year period?  Aren't they both in the Pippinwood area?  So what is the difference? Their tax map number, of course.

Morgan Lane tax map numbers are similar to Eagle Ridge and Middle Grove Lane--all of them are 4809 (Newer Subdivisions).  Virginia Lane tax map numbers are similar to Tennyson Circle,  Laurelwood,  Lowell Drive--all of them 4807 (Older Subdivision0 - primarily built in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's.   Add to the list Galway Road which similarly is in the Pippinwood area, primarily homes are 2100 - 2,700 sq. ft homes that were built between 1987 to 1991 and yet these homes are in Neighborhood Code 4807 (Older Subdivisions).  This one just begs the question "Just how old does a subdivision have to be in order to be considered a Neighborhood Code 4807 (Older Subdivision)? And according to the Neighborhood code definitions Neighborhood Code 4809  is newer subdivisions in the Town, price is around $150,000 to $200,000.  Such as Pippinwood & Higby Hills.  Huh?  Besides the fact that each Neighborhood was probably reassessed differently in 2003, they were clearly trended differently in 2004.  Virginia and Galway Road would have been trended 5.5% and Morgan Road was trended 10%.  These homes are basically all in the same area and probably have the same group of potential buyers--only the tax map numbers are different.  Is that fair?

Butternut Road - that would be the area behind the Chestnut Hills condos, just  off Danberry Road.  Eight beautiful homes all built between 1987 to 1993.  Two of the homes are in Neighborhood Code 4809 (Newer Subdivision) and 5 of the homes are Neighborhood Code 4807 (Older Subdivision).  I wonder why?  Oh, now I see the two homes in Neighborhood Code 4809 have different tax map numbers than the five in Neighborhood 4807.  Five tax map numbers begin with 339.008 and the other two begin with 339.012.  That explains it.  Sorry you two property owners in Neighborhood Code 4809 you were trended 10%, your neighbors were trended 5.5% in 2004.  I wonder what the difference in percentage each was raised in 2003 when they reassessed.

By the way, according to information handed out by Maxwell in 2004, neighborhood code 4809 was last reassessed in 2002.  Funny, these 2 homes and many other Neighborhood Code 4809 were reassessed in 2003 and not 2002.   Only some Neighborhood Code 4809 were reassessed in 2002--others in that neighborhood were not reassessed until 2003.   Look at this copy of the Trending Analysis Summary handed out by Maxwell in 2004 to justify their trending values.  The first thing you will notice is that it does appear to have been created in a spreadsheet program.  Maybe it was but the figures are flawed.  Add up the # of sales column and see what you get.  We got a total of 225 sales not 266 like their spreadsheet says.  So did they not use formulas in their spreadsheet and they just didn't do the right addition or did they fudge the numbers?  Makes one wonder if anything else on the spreadsheet is correct especially given the fact that many Neighborhood code 4809 homes were indeed increased in 2003.

Fawncrest, off Clinton Road is a subdivision of homes built in the late 1980's with the exception of a few newer homes.  Fawncrest has 3 different tax map numbers and likewise has three different neighborhood codes. Eight homes with tax map numbers starting with 328.014 are in Neighborhood code 4817 (Starter Homes) and were only trended 7.5% in 2004. Eight homes with tax map numbers starting with 328.015 have been in 3 different neighborhoods since 2001. First they were in 4809 (Newer Subdivisions), then moved to Neighborhood Code 4801 (Village of New Hartford) and finally moved to Neighborhood 4807 (Older Subdivisions). They were reassessed in 2003 and trended 5.5% in 2004. Eight homes with tax map numbers starting with 328.018 are in Neighborhood Code 4807 (Older Subdivisions) and were reassessed in 2003 and trended 5.5% in 2004. One home with a tax map number starting with 328.018 is actually in Neighborhood Code 4809 and was only trended 10% in 2004--it doesn't appear to ever have been reassessed like other Neighborhood Code 4809s. How can a neighborhood of like housing be divided into different neighborhoods?  What do you say to the people who were reassessed as much as 20% in 2003 and then trended in 2004 when many of their neighbors were only trended 7.5% in 2004?   "Sorry, we will try to make it right and do better in about 3 or 4 years!"  Is there any wonder why there was so much outrage in 2003 and 2004?  How many times have you shopped for a new home that has just the tax map number you were looking for?  Why then should any home be assessed because of the tax map number?   Do you think it might be selective or unequal assessing?