City lowers millage rate by about 30% and assessment are up about 50% (Homewood: houses, neighborhood)

[Moby Hick]

Originally Posted by Lobick

I'm just happy that I wasn't receiving an unfair subsidy from my fellow taxpayers that I had become reliant upon and now felt entitled to.

In general, I'm fine with receiving an unfair subsidy from my fellow taxpayers. It's just that in this case the people doing the subsidizing were too likely to be poor for that to feel right and the unwillingness to reassess was a symptom of the worst tendencies in local political culture.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

Take 1707 Buena Vista for example. Sold in 2005 for 210,000. Currently listed for sale for 300,000 and is listed as contigent meaning that it is under contract.
Guess what the assessment is? 69,200. No appeals were taken. This would not happen in the burbs.

Yeah, cuz the 'burbs are smarter.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by Lobick

It's also important to remember that the reassessment impacts a City resident less than most other County residents since our property taxes are lower in comparison due to the higher income tax.

One has nothing to do with the other.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

Take 1707 Buena Vista for example. Sold in 2005 for 210,000. Currently listed for sale for 300,000 and is listed as contigent meaning that it is under contract.
Guess what the assessment is? 69,200. No appeals were taken. This would not happen in the burbs.

That might be true, although I'd wait a year or two to be certain since I think the reassessment process has likely overwhelmed the system and limited appeals by the City or the SD.

I do know that the School District appealed my assessment in 2007 after my purchase. I would imagine the new owner finds themselves defending the $69k value.

[Tinare]

Originally Posted by track2514

Here is a simple question for any poster that lives in the city and owns, how have your taxes been affected by the the recent changes in millage and assessment?

Mine are going down about 10%.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by Copanut

One has nothing to do with the other.

It does in totality, in that a smaller amount of my municipal and school tax burden is based upon my property value.

For example, if the reassessment effects 70% of the local taxes I pay vs. 90% of the local taxes a non-City resident pays, it impacts me less...res ipsa

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by Lobick

That might be true, although I'd wait a year or two to be certain since I think the reassessment process has likely overwhelmed the system and limited appeals by the City or the SD.

I do know that the School District appealed my assessment in 2007 after my purchase. I would imagine the new owner finds themselves defending the $69k value.

I guess that they haven't had the chance to appeal the 2002 base year assessment after the 2005 purchase price. Basically, the suburban school districts have argued that there is no way the house was worth 69,000 in 2002 if it is worth over 200,000 in 2005. The city left money on the table. They do this all the time.

What was your assessment and purchase price? Just trying to figure out what triggers the PPS it appea something.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

What was your assessment and purchase price? Just trying to figure out what triggers the PPS it appea something.

I'm not saying they aren't laxed in this regard...they are, but I do think more regular reassessments would make challenges a more standard occurrence.

I think our assessment was $170k and the purchase price was $257k. FWIW, we won the appeal.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by Lobick

I'm not saying they aren't laxed in this regard...they are, but I do think more regular reassessments would make challenges a more standard occurrence.

I think our assessment was $170k and the purchase price was $257k. FWIW, we won the appeal.

So basically, you're not paying your fair share.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by Copanut

So basically, you're not paying your fair share.

To be clear, those were the number prior to the reassessment.

To answer the question, maybe not fully paying my "fair share", I can't be sure, but it's not obvious to me that I am not. My current assessment is still slightly below my purchase price of 5 years ago and I'm reasonably certain that I could get more than that now in the marketplace, so from that standpoint it is under assessed (If we're using a true market value number). What I don't know, and what I would need to know to answer your question, is to what degree my current assessment situation is replicated throughout other properties in the City.

At that time the hearing established that our 2001 base year valuation was the proper one... apparently. The neighborhood saw property values rise quite a bit in the 6+ years in between the assessment and our purchase.

Based on my % increase in the reassessment closely tracking that of the City as a whole and now my neighbors assessed values are far more consistent and in line with my own, I feel confident that the process has made property taxation, including my own, on the whole more fair.