Question:  How can a parcel be rural (4811) one year, high end (4815) the next year and then older subdivision (4807) the next year?

Answer:  When it is located in the Town of New Hartford, N.Y. or when pigs fly!

Take a look at our spreadsheets (in pdf format--you will need 8.5 by 14 paper to print or you will have to piece smaller sheets together after printing).  Listed below are spreadsheets for Paris Road, Higby Road, Jordan Road and Lloyds Lane.  More streets will be added.

The problem is that this scenario is not the exception--it is the norm for most streets in the Town of New Hartford.  Is there any wonder we have a problem?  We will be adding a report for the whole town giving the neighborhood codes for the years 2001 to 2004 for each parcel all in one report so that you can compare your home and others.  Do you think that moving parcels from neighborhood to neighborhood each year causes problems?  Talk to your councilman and let him know.  They will do nothing unless the majority speaks up.

We will continue with streets from all over town so you can visually see what a mess this is. Click on the name of the street to see a pdf spreadsheet of the assessments from 2001 to 2004.

1. Paris Road - Part of the parcels are in the Village of New Hartford and are correctly identified by Neighborhood Code 4801.  Not a difficult task since they have a clear identifier in the assessment database--it is the SWIS code--you will find it on your tax bill.  The Village of New Hartford is 304801 and the Town of New Hartford is 304889.

   But take a look at the rest of the parcels.  We have color-coded this spreadsheet so that it is easy to see the changes made to neighborhood codes over the course of the State Reassessment Program in years 2001 to 2004.  Can you believe that some parcels have been moved from Neighborhood 4817 (Starter Homes) to Neighborhood 4811 (Rural) and then back to Neighborhood 4817?  And how about the parcels that have only been trended (address highlighted in gray)?  Don't count the Neighborhood Code 4811s at the bottom of the spreadsheet.  That neighborhood was only reassessed in 2004 so that would be the only increase they should have if they were in the neighborhood 2001-2004.  Except, of course, for the one parcel (in red print) that has never been increased or trended.  Is there a reason?  I won't even get into the discussion of whether or not these properties are rural--that depends on your definition of rural.   Could it be the other parcels highlighted in gray were moved so many times it was difficult to keep track of whether they had been reassessed or not?  So just what determined what neighborhood a home should be in?  Or is it simply by "trial and error"?

   ---

2. Higby Road - Interesting how one can apply neighborhood codes to parcels and not use the guidelines of the neighborhood descriptions--not much reason to have descriptions if you aren't going to follow them. Does make it a little difficult to tell if you are being fairly assessed, don't you think?  Oh, I could understand it if the homes were "unique" and did not fit into any neighborhood code description.  Assessors can even use a home in a neighboring community for a comparable if there is nothing similar to it within the community where the home is located.  But let's look at Higby Road for a minute. I drove over it just to double check -- the 200 - 300 numbers on Higby are below Chapman Road/Valley View. The 400 numbers are between Chapman Road/Valley View and Mohawk Street. The 500 numbers are between Mohawk Street and Sessions Road. 600 and up are after Sessions Road.
   
   The day I drove over Higby Road the 400 numbers were on the Chapman side of Higby Road, not the Valley View side. But take a look at the spreadsheet houses numbered 382 - 408 are in Neighborhood Code 4813 (Utica Influenced) yet the Neighborhood descriptions say the 4813 is on the Valley View Side of Higby. The 200 numbers on Higby are on both sides of the road and yet they are all 4807 (Older Subdivision).  Several of the developments on Higby Road that are on Chapman Road side of Higby Road, such as Meadowbrook and Christopher Circle are 4813 (Utica Influenced) but Higby Road below Chapman is not.  Kind of confusing!  And how is 352 - 379 Higby Road Neighborhood Code 4811 (Rural)?  I guess the assessor wasn't sure either because in 2003 they were all made Neighborhood code 4807 (Older Subdivision) then moved back to 4811 (Rural) in 2004--I guess because they forgot to reassess them in 2003 when Neighborhood Code 4807 was reassessed.  Instead they reassessed them in 2004 with Neighborhood Code 4811 (Rural).  Huh?
   
   Then we have the one home at 227 Higby, built in 1952, that all of a sudden became a 4815 (High End) home in 2003.  You would have thought that the square footage of the home would have been a tip-off that it might be a high end home.  Unfortunately, the High End homes were supposedly reassessed in 2002--that one wasn't reassessed until 2003.
   
   How about 257 Higby Road--we don't know when it was built or how big it is.  Then some homes were rural then changed to older subdivision and then changed back to rural.  I can't imagine what happened there.  And how about being a high end home like 518 and 520 Higby then an older subdivision.  Unfortunately, for 518 Higby he was moved back to 4815 (High End) home in 2004 and trended 15% like the rest of that neighborhood, but 520 stayed in 4807 (Older Subdivision) and was only trended 5.5%.  Amazing because 518 Higby is the smaller home. And in case you are wondering why some of the parcels are in red instead of black, they would be the ones who have never been reassessed or trended.  Mystery to me!  Guess some people are just luckier than others!

---

3. Jordan Road - Not much to say about this one that hasn't already been said before - just more of the same old same old.  People moving from one "neighborhood" to another.  Interesting how 4 (the ones in red print) of the 27 homes supposedly never increased in value between 1995 and 2003; they were merely trended in 2004.  Particularly hard to believe since so many other homes saw an increase in value.  You might want to look these homes up on the assessment program.  Heck, one of the homes on Jordan Road is even a Neighborhood 4817 (Starter Home).  Two of the homes (in blue printing) were moved to 4815 in 2002, but not reassessed like everyone else in 4815.  These homes were reassessed in 2003.  Very Interesting--if Neighborhood Code 4815 was reassessed in 2002, how come these two weren't reassessed until 2003?
   
   So I keep asking the same question--is it fair if some of us have to keep "grieving" our assessments while others sit around on their a$$ because their assessment never was raised or was only trended slightly?   You tell me!

---

4. Lloyds Lane - More of the same old, same old.  Twelve (12) homes on the street and not everyone is in the same neighborhood.  Some are 4811 (rural) and some are 4807 (Older Subdivision).  I have a hard time figuring out how any part of Lloyds Lane is rural when the rest of it isn't, but this is not the only street with this strange phenomena.   One home they just decided in 2003 that it was really a 4815 (High End)--guess prior to 2003 they missed the fact that it was a 4,310 sq. foot home.  Looks like they reassessed it in 2003 even though Neighborhood Code 4815 (High End) was really reassessed in 2002.  And look at the (4) homes in blue print.  These homes were moved from 4811 (Rural) to 4807 (Older Subdivision) in 2003, yet they were never reassessed; they merely trended them in 2004.  One home (in red print) has never been reassessed or trended.  And don't forget to look at 10 Lloyds Lane, they apparently added 800 sq. ft. to their home and yet they were never reassessed--only trended.  Their assessed value per sq. ft. went from $64.94 per sq. ft. in 2002, to $44.48 per sq. ft. in 2003 (the year of the addition) to $46.92 in 2004, the year they were trended.  Not bad.  I guess the town has a rewards incentive for people who build additions on their home.  I wonder where you go to apply for it.
   
   So I keep asking the same question--is it fair if some of us have to keep "grieving" our assessments while others sit around on their a$$ because their assessment never was raised or was only trended slightly?   You tell me!  

What is a Neighborhood Code?