Date: Fri 15-Sep-1995

Publication: Bee

Author: KAAREN

Quick Words:

DeVestern-revaluation-tax

Full Text:

Assessor Says Revaluation Shouldn't Shift Tax Burden

B Y K AAREN V ALENTA

The 1995 property revaluation in Newtown won't result in significantly higher

property taxes for local homeowners, Tax Assessor Mark DeVestern told the

Chamber of Commerce Tuesday night.

"Typically in big cities after a revaluation, commercial/industrial property

hasn't appreciated as much or has depreciated more, and the shift (in the tax

burden) is on residential properties," he said. "But we don't think it's going

to change that much in Newtown. Our shifting will be minimal."

Town officials, and particularly members of the Legislative Council, have been

anxiously awaiting the outcome of the revaluation, fearing that it would bring

an increase of as much as 25 percent in the tax burden of local residential

properties. But Mr DeVestern said preliminary figures do not show that to be

the case.

"Shifting is a nightmare for an assessor," he said. "But we have completed

just about all of the residential appraisals and approximately 75 percent of

the commercial/industrial appraisals and we do not see this happening."

Mr DeVestern said that some commercial/industrial properties and some

residences definitely will benefit from the revaluation, others will wind up

paying more in taxes. "Certain types will go up or down more than others," he

said.

Mr DeVestern, Attorney Frank Pennarola and John Valente, president of

Lesher-Glendinning Municipal Services, were the guest speakers at the chamber

dinner in the Fireside Inn. They discussed the methodology used by the

revaluation company to calculate the assessments of local businesses and

explained the appeal process.

The new assessments will be sent to taxpayers in late November or early

December.

If property values increase in a town because of a revaluation, the mill rate

decreases correspondingly. In the last revaluation which was done 10 years

ago, property values in Newtown rose 50 percent. "If you had a $200,000

property, it was valued at $300,000 after the 1985 revaluation," Mr DeVestern

said. "We are way down from that peak. We see the average going up 29

percent."

"Because we won't have the same kind of increase in property values that we

had 10 years ago, the mill rate will drop but not as much as it did 10 years

ago. But motor vehicle and personal property taxes also will go down a

little."

Mr Pennarola said that when property owners get their new assessments they

should multiply the assessment by 0.7 to determine what the fair market value

has been set at.

"Ask youself whether you would sell the property for what the assessor

determined the fair market value to be," he said. "If you think it is worth

more, than you probably wouldn't want to appeal. Remember that the Board of

Assessment Appeals (formerly known as the Tax Review Board) not only might not

reduce your assessment, it might increase your assessment. That's rare, but it

does happen."

Mr Pennarola said property owners who are considering an appeal should get a

copy of the tax assessor's field card to see if there is anything missing

which might adversely affect the value of the property, such as an easement or

wetlands.

The first step in the appeal process is an informal hearing with the tax

assessor. If there is still a disagreement, the next step is a hearing before

the Board of Assessment Appeals. By state law, property valued at more than

$500,000 may skip the informal hearing and go straight to court.

Mr Pennarola said property owners should bring all relevant information to the

hearings including any recent appraisals. Generally, an attorney or a

consultant from an assessment appeal firm is not necessary.

"If you want to bring a professional, your best bet is an appraiser who has

done properties similar to yours," he said. "Be wary of assessment appeal

companies. This is a process taxpayers usually can handle themselves."

Mr DeVestern said that a new state law changes the revaluation from every 10

years to every 12 years with a review every four years.

"It is my understanding that revaluations done in 1995 will not have another

revaluation until 2007 but revaluations done beginning in 1996 will be

statistically reviewed at four and eight year intervals."

Mr Valente said the revaluation will not take sewers into consideration

because the sewer project will not be completed until 1997. He also commented

on property owners who tradionally do work without a building permit on their

property immediately after the revaluation official has appraised the

property.

"These people think that once the appraiser leaves, the work can be done and

no one will know," he said. "But the inspector often goes back and re-inspects

at random. We often take more than one look at a property."