So what happened that so many homes have been moved from one neighborhood code to another and sometimes even back again and so many are in Neighborhood Codes that don't make any sense and are under-assessed?

Back in late 2003 when we were webmasters for the Town of New Hartford, one of our main goals was getting assessment information online.  It was, after all, the main reason why we offered to volunteer our time and expertise to be the Town of New Hartford webmasters.  We asked for a copy of neighborhood code definitions.  That is when we were forwarded the memo from the town assessor listing neighborhood codes and definitions.

Let me start by saying we have considerable database and programming experience. We were able to take the "raw" assessment database given to us by the assessor and use the information to create many reports.  As we prepared the information to make it "usable" on the internet, we noticed many irregularities with the database. The more we looked, the more we found.  In 2004, we brought our findings to the Town Board and made many reports available to them, but nothing was done.  After the "new" Town Board was in place, we once again tried to explain our findings--but they didn't want to listen and they decided to "partner with the school".  That is why we are making these reports available so that you can decide for yourself.

After talking to a lot of Town of New Hartford residents, it became very clear that a lot of people were told "that's another tax map number problem" when they complained to the assessor about their neighbors being in different neighborhood codes and discrepancies between their assessment and their neighbor's assessment.  That is precisely the explanation we were given for our street. 

Finally, it dawned on us--sort the assessment database by tax map number and see what you get. After running a report by neighborhood code and tax map number within the neighborhood code for all properties in 2001 (the year the State Reassessment Program actually started to affect residential assessments), it dawned on us that the "neighborhoods" in that year followed in line with the tax map numbers.  It didn't matter the size of the home--streets were even split into 2 or 3 neighborhood codes with absolutely no rhyme or reason only because of the difference in tax map numbers.  We couldn't believe it!  It had nothing to do with grouping "like" homes. Homes, regardless of the size, the year built, or the style were placed in neighborhood codes "wholesale".  That is how 5,000+ sq. ft. homes were interspersed with 800 sq. ft. homes.  Instead of looking at each home individually, they apparently took the easy way out and just grouped homes by tax map number.  Each subsequent year as people brought problems to the assessor and Maxwell's attention, they just moved homes in and out of neighborhoods in an apparent attempt to make corrections, but in most cases that just compounded the problems that already existed. Many homes in the Town of New Hartford have never been reassessed because they were moved so many times and others have only been trended for exactly the same reason.  How else could a home within a development be considered a Neighborhood Code 4811 (Rural)? How else could anyone think that Christopher Circle is Neighborhood Code 4813 (Utica Influenced) even though it does not fit the description for that neighborhood code.  How else could anyone think that a 5,000+ sq. ft. home compares to a 800 sq. ft. home?   How many of you have set out to buy an 800 sq. ft. home only to end up buying a 5,000 sq. ft. home?  Not many of you, I am sure! (Remember, neighborhood codes should group homes so that a buyer would basically be willing to buy either house A or house B.)  Maybe that's why there was so much animosity when questions were asked of the assessor and Maxwell--because they could not give a logical, understandable explanation.  Are you happy knowing that your home was compared to others with the same tax map number and not because of the same size, location, etc.?  And don't forget that the neighborhood code you were placed in determined the year or years that you were reassessed and the percentage you were trended in 2004.

Add to that the fact that in 2003 many properties were overlooked as far as new additions added. In many instances no increase in assessment was noted in the database even though it was clear that according to the database additional living space had been added.  Were there that many people who did not bother to get a building permit--the document that alerts the assessor to an increase in living space?  Of course, when these homes sold, it stands to reason that they sold for much more than they were assessed for because the square footage of the house was larger.  The assessor is supposed to review building permits to determine if the addition warrants an increase in assessment.

The fact of the matter is in 2002 and 2003 many of us were left to "grieve" our assessments in order to get them lowered to where they should be only to find out that in 2004 they trended us right back to where we were while others had to do nothing because they were never increased at all or merely trended a small amount in 2004.  By using  tax map numbers for determining "Neighborhoods" and also moving properties from one Neighborhood Code to another many people are still under-assessed and as they sell, the equalization rate for the Town of New Hartford drops.  Some properties don't even have a neighborhood code, so it is easy to see why they weren't increased.  We even had one property that was paying no taxes at all due to an exemption error--no town, county or school tax.  Ho hum!  Just an error on the assessor's part.  Another person was living in a very nice townhouse that the assessor forgot to increase the assessment on once the building was completed and sold--the sale price was $189,000 in February 2003.  Because taxable status date is March 1 each year, the assessment should have been increased for the 2003 roll year--it wasn't.   2004 still not increased, 2005 still not increased.  In 2006, after pointing it out to the assessor many times, the assessment was finally increased to less than the 2003 sale price of $189,000--the assessment is now $185,000 because our equalization rate was 92% in 2006.   Up until this year (2006), the assessment  was $11,700.  Oops! That is 3 years that the owner paid a mere pittance in taxes on a townhouse he paid $189,000 in 2003.  What a bargain!  Then there is the error in the method used to calculate agricultural assessments... 

So my friends and neighbors perhaps now you can see why there was such an uproar in 2003 and 2004.  Many people knew that there was a problem, but no one knew why because no one had access to the database information.  Maybe they banked on the fact that no one would know--maybe they were just not able to comprehend the problems they were causing.  Who knows!  However, your town board is and has been well aware that there is a problem and to date they have chosen to bury their heads in the sand.  If you think the Town Supervisor feels your pain, think again, his assessment has not increased one penny since the last reassessment in 1995.  Imagine that!

We urge you to talk to your neighbors and check the Online Assessment Program database for yourself.   There is only one way to bring an end to this insanity--the town needs a complete revision of the Neighborhood Codes followed by a full reassessment so that everyone pays their fair share!  Now, not later. For the record for 2007, the equalization rate is now 87%.

What is a Neighborhood Code?