Seems Kansas City, MO has also been hit hard with their reassessments this year.
https://www.kmbc.com/article/what-missouri-law-says-about-major-increases-to-property-values/27981337
So not just a local problem, seems to be a state-wide problem.
Thursday, July 18, 2019
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
The Continuing SAGA ...
As I prepare to appeal my 2019 reassessment, I am, of course, back in the cluster-#!^*# of data that is the result of the efforts of the St. Louis County Assessor's office.
And, no surprise to me, I can't seem to help but stumble across more examples of..... hmmm, I don't even know what to call it. Incompetence? Delusion? Or perhaps something more nefarious in nature, like.... Collusion? I'll present the data and you can decide yourself.
So let me start by showing you another curious scenario. This is the type of example where I start to suspicion that there's something more nefarious in nature with some of these scenarios.
Below is the bottom portion of a "comparable sales" sheet for a property in west county. This property sold in 2014 for $535,000. Clearly, at that price, it's neither a small nor inexpensive property. In spite of selling for $535k in 2014, more than 5 years ago, and in a reassessment year when Mr. Zimmerman claims home values have jumped on average 15%, this property seems immune to the reassessment woes that some of us have experienced in great quantity.
If you look at the Cost Value for each of the the comparable properties, notice that the subject property is the most expensive of the properties, and more expensive by far than at least two of the others. However, thanks to the magic and wonder that is the St. Louis County assessor's office, this property is not only valued (Market Value Estimate) at less than it sold for 5 years ago, but less than all of the other comps used to determine the assessed value, even though the Cost Value Estimate is the highest. In fact, its assessed value is more than $120k below it's Cost Value Estimate. No other comp in the list varies this much.
I'm also curious about the third comp. I'd like to know what adjustments needed to be made on a sale of a property from 2016 that warranted an adjustment in sale price of almost $100k. Seems like if the house is that different that it requires that much "adjusting," then perhaps the county needs to pick a better comp.
Except.... it actually IS a good comp. It's located on the lot immediately next-door. It was built the same year by the same builder, same-sized lot, same number of bedrooms and baths, etc. So now I really want to know the reason for the $100k adjustment....
Sure, a couple of the other houses indicate a remodel date, which might account for some of the undisclosed "adjustments." But what about the subject property? If you read the realtor description, there are "TONS of updates," including things like granite counter-tops, stainless steel appliances, and remote-control window blinds. Why isn't there a remodel date on the subject property?
Further, if you look at the property description online, for some reason, the drawing for this property is "unavailable."
This whole property scenario is fishy.
And, no surprise to me, I can't seem to help but stumble across more examples of..... hmmm, I don't even know what to call it. Incompetence? Delusion? Or perhaps something more nefarious in nature, like.... Collusion? I'll present the data and you can decide yourself.
So let me start by showing you another curious scenario. This is the type of example where I start to suspicion that there's something more nefarious in nature with some of these scenarios.
Below is the bottom portion of a "comparable sales" sheet for a property in west county. This property sold in 2014 for $535,000. Clearly, at that price, it's neither a small nor inexpensive property. In spite of selling for $535k in 2014, more than 5 years ago, and in a reassessment year when Mr. Zimmerman claims home values have jumped on average 15%, this property seems immune to the reassessment woes that some of us have experienced in great quantity.
If you look at the Cost Value for each of the the comparable properties, notice that the subject property is the most expensive of the properties, and more expensive by far than at least two of the others. However, thanks to the magic and wonder that is the St. Louis County assessor's office, this property is not only valued (Market Value Estimate) at less than it sold for 5 years ago, but less than all of the other comps used to determine the assessed value, even though the Cost Value Estimate is the highest. In fact, its assessed value is more than $120k below it's Cost Value Estimate. No other comp in the list varies this much.
I'm also curious about the third comp. I'd like to know what adjustments needed to be made on a sale of a property from 2016 that warranted an adjustment in sale price of almost $100k. Seems like if the house is that different that it requires that much "adjusting," then perhaps the county needs to pick a better comp.
Except.... it actually IS a good comp. It's located on the lot immediately next-door. It was built the same year by the same builder, same-sized lot, same number of bedrooms and baths, etc. So now I really want to know the reason for the $100k adjustment....
Sure, a couple of the other houses indicate a remodel date, which might account for some of the undisclosed "adjustments." But what about the subject property? If you read the realtor description, there are "TONS of updates," including things like granite counter-tops, stainless steel appliances, and remote-control window blinds. Why isn't there a remodel date on the subject property?
Further, if you look at the property description online, for some reason, the drawing for this property is "unavailable."
This whole property scenario is fishy.
Townhall Meetings
A few of the County Council members arranged several townhall meetings so that Jake Zimmerman could address the flood of complaints being lodged to their offices.
I attended 3 of those meetings. Not so much because I felt I would glean some important information, but just because I wanted to see how Mr. Zimmerman would answer the questions that were asked.
I formed two opinions.
1.) Jake Zimmerman is a politician, and he's good at it. He maintained a calm and cool demeanor in the face of some pretty hostile residents. He responded to questions in a manner that didn't necessarily answer the question, but seemed to appease the room in general at least, if not the person that asked the question. If the question was too specific, or possibly too incriminating, then he would simply direct the person to go speak privately with his staff over in the corner, and he would move on to the next question.
2.) Jake Zimmerman is either lying through his teeth, or he is grossly misinformed about what is going on in his office. Numerous statements were made by him which I could easily prove to be inaccurate, and with numerous examples.
At least sort of. Remember, he's a politician, so he knows how to make a statement that isn't really true but neither is it a bold-faced lie. For example, I believe he claimed in each of the three hearings that I went to that he has "put an end to drive-by inspections." Well.... Yes, perhaps he has put a stop to "drive-by" inspections simply by forcing his inspectors to get out of their cars. Apparently to deliver a postcard. Because he HASN'T addressed the problem that inspections are not being done, which was the problem in the first place that warranted the implementation of the Missouri Statute.
He also stated repeatedly that they just want to "get it right." That has not been my experience. Everything I've attempted to get them to correct has been rejected. Even my property description is still inaccurate to-date, in spite of multiple attempts on my part, and even having one of their appraiser's at my house with a tape measure.
And I'd still like to hear the answers to the other questions asked.
The biggest problem I see is that Mr. Zimmerman is refusing to even acknowledge that there's a problem. And so he's not going to make any effort to correct anything because he doesn't think there's anything to correct.
I want to hear YOUR stories, because I know I'm not the only one that has encountered noteworthy situations. Tell me about your reassessment. Tell me about your appeal experience. I'm going to compile as much evidence as I can and then we, as a community, can evaluate our options and work to get this clearly-broken system corrected. With enough documented evidence and a crowd that is unwilling to walk away quietly from this, perhaps then -- just maybe -- we can get Mr. Zimmerman to acknowledge that there's actually something wrong with the system.
I attended 3 of those meetings. Not so much because I felt I would glean some important information, but just because I wanted to see how Mr. Zimmerman would answer the questions that were asked.
I formed two opinions.
1.) Jake Zimmerman is a politician, and he's good at it. He maintained a calm and cool demeanor in the face of some pretty hostile residents. He responded to questions in a manner that didn't necessarily answer the question, but seemed to appease the room in general at least, if not the person that asked the question. If the question was too specific, or possibly too incriminating, then he would simply direct the person to go speak privately with his staff over in the corner, and he would move on to the next question.
2.) Jake Zimmerman is either lying through his teeth, or he is grossly misinformed about what is going on in his office. Numerous statements were made by him which I could easily prove to be inaccurate, and with numerous examples.
At least sort of. Remember, he's a politician, so he knows how to make a statement that isn't really true but neither is it a bold-faced lie. For example, I believe he claimed in each of the three hearings that I went to that he has "put an end to drive-by inspections." Well.... Yes, perhaps he has put a stop to "drive-by" inspections simply by forcing his inspectors to get out of their cars. Apparently to deliver a postcard. Because he HASN'T addressed the problem that inspections are not being done, which was the problem in the first place that warranted the implementation of the Missouri Statute.
He also stated repeatedly that they just want to "get it right." That has not been my experience. Everything I've attempted to get them to correct has been rejected. Even my property description is still inaccurate to-date, in spite of multiple attempts on my part, and even having one of their appraiser's at my house with a tape measure.
And I'd still like to hear the answers to the other questions asked.
The biggest problem I see is that Mr. Zimmerman is refusing to even acknowledge that there's a problem. And so he's not going to make any effort to correct anything because he doesn't think there's anything to correct.
I want to hear YOUR stories, because I know I'm not the only one that has encountered noteworthy situations. Tell me about your reassessment. Tell me about your appeal experience. I'm going to compile as much evidence as I can and then we, as a community, can evaluate our options and work to get this clearly-broken system corrected. With enough documented evidence and a crowd that is unwilling to walk away quietly from this, perhaps then -- just maybe -- we can get Mr. Zimmerman to acknowledge that there's actually something wrong with the system.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
IN SUMMATION
This is not my area of expertise.
I’m not a real estate agent.
I can’t tell you what your house is worth.
I’m not a lawyer.
Nothing in this document should be considered legal advice. It’s not.
I’m a data and systems analyst.
Something about the over-assessment of my property pushed my
button. I can’t even say why.
I’m sure I’ve missed some things. I might even have a couple of things
wrong. It would have been nice if I
could have executed some sql queries directly against the database, but that’s
not an option. Yet.
I believe knowledge is power and information is key.
The County Assessor’s office is not very forthcoming when it
comes to sharing information.
I am.
By sharing what I’ve learned thru this process, I’m hoping
it will empower others.
Mostly, I hope for a change in the policies and practices of
the St. Louis County Assessor’s office, under whatever circumstances that comes
about.
To start from the beginning, go https://reassessment101.blogspot.com/2019/04/welcome.html
To start from the beginning, go https://reassessment101.blogspot.com/2019/04/welcome.html
Assessor’s Report Card
Maybe it’s just me…..?
Nope.
The Missouri State Tax Commission is where your appeal ends
up after you’ve exhausted all of your options with the local Assessor’s office
and the Board of Equalization, without satisfaction.
If you visit the link above and click the download button,
you can see a list of all of the appeals that are still pending before the
State Tax Commission.
As of this update for 3/5, there were 11,093 separate
appeals still pending.
Of those 11,093 pending appeals, 10,266 are from St. Louis
County.
The difference of 827 constitutes the total number appeals
pending FOR THE REST OF THE POPULATION
OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI IN ITS ENTIRETY, including St. Louis City.
It’s important to note, this does not include the many
multitudes of appeals that were resolved at earlier stages of the appeal
process. These are just the ones that weren’t.
AND, these are all pending from prior reassessment
years. The County Assessor’s office
hasn’t even started taking appeals for the 2019 reassessment.
Just imagine for a moment the amount of tax-payer money that’s
being spent on resolving appeals.
And then imagine how many of those appeals
could be avoided if the County Assessor’s office was simply complying with Missouri
Statutes.
And then finally, imagine how many more could be avoided if the County Assessor’s office was applying actual “generally accepted appraisal techniques,” instead of whatever you would call what they are doing.
And then finally, imagine how many more could be avoided if the County Assessor’s office was applying actual “generally accepted appraisal techniques,” instead of whatever you would call what they are doing.
The Missouri State Tax Commission
https://stc.mo.gov/about/
I’m curious if they’re aware of all of this going on?
If not, they’ll know soon enough.
New and Creative Ways to Manipulate the Data
When I heard the numbers were posted for the 2019
reassessment, I couldn’t help but check them out.
I discovered several new and unusual things,
but one of particular interest.
It’s valid practice to treat houses in the same subdivision
as best comps. With few exceptions, they
are generally going to be the best comps available. Exceptions would include older subdivisions
with newer add-ons, or new builds in older subdivisions resulting from
tear-downs, and even cases where someone simply paid way too much for one
particular house.
In 2017 and 2018, my subdivision had three home sales. This is very unusual for us, as I don’t
believe we’ve had three home sales in the ten years prior, combined. We have a small subdivision and the
residents just seem to want to stay put.
This was going to be the first reassessment ever where the County Assessor’s
office would be using three homes from our own subdivision as comps, and the
first real opportunity we would have had to be accurately assessed.
Or so I thought. I
was wrong.
When I reviewed the comps listed on the reassessment
notices, I only saw two of the houses being used. After checking the posted list of valid home
sales, I discovered why. The County
Assessor’s office hadn’t categorized the third house as a valid sale, but
rather as an “Not Open Market” sale.
Except that it wasn’t a
It was a valid market sale.
It was listed with a realtor, just like the other two.
I’m sure it’s just coincidental that they “mistakenly”
flagged the least expensive of the three sales, right?
And I’m sure it had nothing to do with the fact that, by removing
a subdivision house that sold for $446k from the list of comps, they could then
replace it with a different comp – this time with a 9yo, more than 3000 sq. ft.
house sitting on a half-acre+ lot, and located nearly a mile away. No, it’s not a good comp for our
neighborhood, and there are dozens of better comps available, but it sold for
$555k – significantly more than any of the three home sales from within the subdivision -- and that’s
what’s important if the sole motivation of the County Assessor’s office is to
hike up assessed values. And they’re simply
not going to be able to do that by selecting a property that sold for less than what they already previously
assessed the neighborhood houses two years prior.
So, they manipulate the selection of comps, and apparently
the list of eligible comps as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: I received feedback on this from the County Assessor's office. Ironically, they deny it and inadvertently confirm it in the same explanation. For example:
... property was either sold out of estate, or as a result of a divorce, which raises “red flags” in terms of whether the seller was under duress or time pressures that might have resulted in accepting a below-market price.
In other words, they don't know, and apparently aren't obligated to have any proof. But if the price looks low to them, they get to flag it as not a valid sale.
Obviously, with this filter, they aren't looking for homes that are over-priced to flag.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE: I received feedback on this from the County Assessor's office. Ironically, they deny it and inadvertently confirm it in the same explanation. For example:
... property was either sold out of estate, or as a result of a divorce, which raises “red flags” in terms of whether the seller was under duress or time pressures that might have resulted in accepting a below-market price.
In other words, they don't know, and apparently aren't obligated to have any proof. But if the price looks low to them, they get to flag it as not a valid sale.
Obviously, with this filter, they aren't looking for homes that are over-priced to flag.....
Would Somebody Please Explain #2
… the row marked “year remodeled.” It doesn’t have an “i” link for more
information.
How is this defined, and more importantly, what is the
impact on valuation?
What constitutes a “remodel?” Is there some way to distinguish by the year
entered in that column that the new counter-top and faucets in the kitchen of
property #1 is not equivalent to the full kitchen and three bath gut-and-replace
that was done to property #2? Or is
property #1 penalized with the same adjustment calculation as property #2
because they’re both categorized simply as “remodeled?”
And what about patios and decks? Is there something coded secretly in the measurement
of the square footage that indicates that these two patios are not equal? Or is a patio a patio and a deck is deck in
the eyes of the assessor’s office and nothing matters but size?
http://samtheconcreteman-cincinnati.com
|
I’m willing to bet there isn’t a secret code behind the
measurement. If there is, how was my
non-existent 525 sq ft deck coded?
The fact is that the County Assessor’s office is not doing a
decent job on the inspections that they’re already required to do by law. Seems very unlikely they could correctly code
the individual property features.
That would be fine if the secondary property aspects were
just informational and didn’t actually factor into the assessment calculations.
The problem is
that County is still assessing properties using this generic measurement data,
so in their calculations, presuming the same square footage, the patio on the
left will be valued the same as the patio on the right.
Of course, I could be wrong, but there certainly isn't anything available online for property owners to view. And even if so, my own experience with my deck makes me highly doubt it would be accurate.
Of course, I could be wrong, but there certainly isn't anything available online for property owners to view. And even if so, my own experience with my deck makes me highly doubt it would be accurate.
Would Somebody Please Explain
The comp used for this property sold fairly recently, on
3/2/18. It sold for $641k. After comparing the property details of the
comparable property to the property details of the target property, the County
Assessor’s office adjusted the sale price of the comparable property down $20k,
to $621k.
Except that the comparable property IS THE SAME AS the target
property. The property that
recently sold was used as one of its own comps.
I don’t understand this adjustment.
I could understand if they had increased the sale price, because the housing market is improving,
and a house that sold nine months ago should have increased in value, even if
just minimally. And I could understand an
increase if the new property owners had done some improvements since moving in.
But being as it’s exactly
the same house, why in the world would the sale value be adjusted down?
Per the County …
….except that in the
example above, THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES.
The comparable and subject properties are the same property.
And then, after determining that the real market value of the house was not $641k as it sold for,
but was actually only valued at $621k, they then calculated the “Market Value
Estimate” to be $755k.
This example is
not at all unusual for recently sold properties.
By the way, is the actual Statistical Model Estimate for
this property $753k or $741k?
Adjusted Sales Price, according to the County Assessor’s Office
This is an interesting example of the "magic" that the County Assessor's office performs in its reassessment process. I'm immeasurably saddened that this is done by a computer.
Now look at the "Adjusted Sale Price" that was calculated by the County Assessor's program.
The County adjusted the sale price of the smaller house to be more than that of the larger house. This should trigger red flags all over for the Assessor's office.
This adjusted sale price is what is then used to determine the assessed value. It's no wonder they have so many complaints pending.
These two properties sold in 2016 within a month of each other. They are located about 200 feet from each other in the same subdivision. They were used as comps for another property. Now, nevermind that the one is a ranch and the other is a two-story. We've already discussed the inappropriateness of mixing ranches and two-story houses as comps.
Notice the overall specs of the two houses. The one on the right is clearly a bigger house. It has a slightly larger lot, significantly more square footage, 5 years newer, larger finished area in the basement, bigger garage (3-car vs 2-car), and bigger patio. The only disadvantage is that it's only 3 bedroom.
Everything about this second property screams that it is more valuable than the one in the first column. Even the "dwelling value" and "cost value" indicate such.
Most importantly, the market value proved that out, too, with the property in the second column selling for significantly more than the one in the first column.
Now look at the "Adjusted Sale Price" that was calculated by the County Assessor's program.
The County adjusted the sale price of the smaller house to be more than that of the larger house. This should trigger red flags all over for the Assessor's office.
This adjusted sale price is what is then used to determine the assessed value. It's no wonder they have so many complaints pending.
Adjusted Sales Price
This is not associated to my property. If it was, I would be angry.
“So, you’re going to take my house and comp it to a bigger
house (2960 vs. 3025) with a bigger garage (682 vs. 770) and an extra fixture
(2 vs. 3) on a bigger lot (.32. vs. .54) that was built 16 years later than mine (1994 vs. 2010), and the only
advantage I have is a 700 sq familyroom in the basement, then you’re going to
knock $18k off the sale price of that house and call it even??? I don’t think so!
And how exactly is their larger .54- acre lot
valued at less than my smaller .32-acre lot? (139k vs. 141k)”
“Oh, and you also comp’d my 4br/3.5b 2-story to a 3br/2.5b ranch
(not shown).”
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)