Letter From the Woodstock Assessor's Office: "Appalling"
It was with no small amount of surprise that I recently opened a letter from the Woodstock assessor’s office, which contained a real estate notice of increase. Given that I have not made any modifications to my house or property since the prior assessment in 2007, I am mystified as to the origin of any thought process that would lead the town assessor’s office to determine that my property has actually increased in value during this last horrific year in our country’s history.
Is it possible that the town of Woodstock’s governance has chosen to completely ignore the crisis in real estate value that has been going on for more than a year now and continues to plague our country? I hope that this is not simply a grab for more money from an already overtaxed citizen of Connecticut and Woodstock.
I would like the Board of Selectmen to please identify for me the economic signals that the Town Hall and the assessor’s office have utilized to determine that any kind of growth has occurred in the real estate market during 2008, because this increase seems to be completely out of step with what is happening right now.
I have submitted my appeal to the assessor’s office regarding this situation, but the fact that there was an increase at all is appalling. Let me say that one more time, appalling. The word is barely strong enough to describe the dismay and horror that I felt after opening a letter which indicates to me that the town in which I reside has leaders that hold zero regard for the economic welfare of their fellow citizens and seem only to want to follow a model that calls for constantly escalating taxation at any opportunity.
These assessments should be stopped, at the very least until our economy begins to show some signs of recovery. Think about this, the town has just raised taxes when we are all down on the ground. I might add that I am aware the town is currently battling to maintain the mill rate. Should the mill rate increase, this would be a double shot of disregard.
JAMES GOULD
WOODSTOCK
Good for you Mr. Gould in questioning this action by the Town. I am curious as to whether anybody else received such a letter and what the alleged basis of the increase in value might be. Perhaps just trolling around to see if the recipients are asleep? Sounds like Woodstock to me.
If this house was built in 2005 the value should be lower. I would have a CMA (Comparative Market Analysis) done by a real estate agent. If you haven't done any updates or modifications you have lost around 35% equity in the last 2 years.
This Selectman insists it is mandated by the State to increase tax revenue. We will all be going through this in the next two years (Revaluation) dig your heels in!
Yes we can. Just say NO!
Home prices in Connecticut plunged 16.2% in November 2008 compared to the same time frame in 2007 according to The Warren Group. Home sales in Connecticut dropped 26.6% in the same time period. The Warren Group says it's the sharpest decline in 20 years.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/around_town/real_estate/Connecticut-Home-Prices-Plunge.html
Maybe Dave Richardson can help me out here.
According to Prop 46, "the town shall limit the increase in the town's combined annual budget to revenue generated by growth in the grand list,"
and, "In the event of revaluation, the actual dollar increase in the combined town budget shall be limited to the the dollar amount of increase in the preceding year's budget or the average amount of increase over the preceding three years, whichever is lower."
So with this in mind, the town hall is not eager to have revaluation done because they know that property values have sunk. The result thus being a decrease in the grand list, correct?
So, according to Updike, Kelly, and Spellacy, under Prop 46, the maximum increase is calculated based on actual growth in revenue, and such growth,in turn, is calculated based on actual revenue increases generated by particular real and personal property additions to the Grand List.
The point being, if property revaluations cause an actual decrease in the Grand List---a decrease in property tax revenues (as they are likely to do with the loss of property values we are currently experiencing), wouldn't the "maximal increase", being dependent on the following Prop 46 clause actually force the budget to remain neutral... or could it force the budget to actually decrease? Perhaps this is why the town hall is in a tizzy about reval. God forbid we have to DECREASE spending for a change.
"In the event of revaluation, the actual dollar increase in the combined town budget shall be limited to the the dollar amount of increase in the preceding year's budget or the average amount of increase over the preceding three years, whichever is lower."
Dave Richardson, can you give us your opinion on this? Thanks.
As you noted, and based on the last reval, in a reval year any increase would be limited to the increase in the previous year or the average of the previous three years which ever is lower, so an increase or decrease in the grand list due to the reval would not have an impact on spending for that year.
This is not fully in compliance with the latest legal opinion from April 2006 but is how it was done in the last reval year. The legal opinion from April 2006 would have used this formula only for the increase in revenue from the grand list and would have allowed for increases due to increases in state and federal funding and for the normal exemptions under prop 46. The BOF chose not use this method as the simple average yielded a higher allowed increase in spending for that particular year.
On the more general question of the effect of a change in valuations, a decrease in the overall grand list would result in an increase in the mil rate equal to the change in the grand list so as to be revenue neutral. In other words a 20% decrease in valuations, on average, would mean a 20% increase in the mil rate. For the individual home owner the impact would depend on whether your property decreased at the average rate or more or less than average. If your evaluation decreased more than average your tax would actually go down, if it decreased less than average then your tax would go up.
Dave