Property Reassessment

reassessment

September 6, 2008

Condition of newer homes questioned

Property owner thinks some newer homes might not have been ranked high enough.

By Jennifer Learn-Andes jandes@timesleader.com
Luzerne County Reporter
Jennifer Learn-Andes on Facebook   |   @TLJenLearnAndes on Twitter

The condition of Dave Sebolka’s Dallas Township home was ranked as “very good” by Luzerne County’s reassessment company, prompting him to question why he’s finding much newer homes listed with “good” and “average” conditions.

Sebolka urged county officials and property owners to take a close look at ranking disparities because condition is one of the top 10 factors that played a role in the new values. Rankings that are off could cause properties to be valued too high or low, he said.

He suggests a computer search of all newer homes to flag ones that did not receive “very good” or “excellent” condition rankings.

“The county is going to lose out huge on the undervalued ones,” Sebolka said.

Sebolka’s home was built in 1997. He detected the ranking variation when he passed a newer home in his municipality and decided to research its value. The description on the reassessment company’s online database, www.courthouseonline.com, said the home was built in 2004 and had a condition ranking of “good.”

Other examples are easy to find. Homes ranked in “good” condition include: a 2005 prefab/stone brick house on Ice Harvest Drive in Rice Township and three vinyl homes on Jennifer Lane in Sugarloaf Township, one built in 2004 and two built in 2006.

Another taxpayer has pointed out that a 2002 vinyl home on Church Road in Union Township is ranked in “average” condition.

Tim Barr, of reassessment company 21st Century Appraisals Inc., said the inquiries make him question whether he should have publicly released condition rankings on the database because the role they played in the assessed value may be misunderstood.

A condition ranking was plugged into a formula along with other information to come up with a new value. However, 21st Century’s certified Pennsylvania evaluators had freedom to go back and adjust the condition and a few other factors if they concluded the formula’s value was too high or low, Barr said.

Some formula factors can’t be tweaked – such as the type of exterior finish or the lot size – because they are not open to interpretation, Barr said.

Therefore, adjustments up and down were made in “subjective” formula categories, such as condition or the style/quality grade, Barr said.

Property owners are free to point out inconsistencies in condition or any other factor during their informal reviews or formal appeals, but the focus will ultimately be whether the new assessed value is accurate, Barr said.

“The issue in the end is the total value,” he said.

Barr posted the conditions and other top valuation factors on the online database after property owners started questioning how the company came up with the new values.

21st Century has said these 10 factors have the most influence on the new values: location, exterior finish; living space square footage; number of stories; dwelling type; age; property type (residential, commercial, industrial); acreage; condition; and quality of design and construction.

These condition rankings may be placed on properties: unsound; very poor; poor; fair; average; good; very good; and excellent.

Great room logic won’t be changed

Luzerne County’s Board of Assessment Appeals won’t be changing the method the reassessment company has used to value floor-to-roof great rooms, according to a statement released Friday.

The reassessment company, 21st Century Appraisals Inc., counted the non-existent second-floor square footage as living space, rather than valuing the rooms separately as an amenity. County commissioners Greg Skrepenak and Stephen A. Urban want to see the square footage deducted, arguing that it doesn’t exist.

The board’s statement says 21st Century’s method was consistently applied throughout the county and discussed at public meetings over the past four years.

The statement also says property owners have the legal right to challenge their market values at formal appeals.

The board cautions in the statement that appeals must be based on market value, not a “single component or method.”

“Attacking a component on method without addressing the market value may not lead to a successful appeal,” the statement says.

Jennifer Learn-Andes, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 831-7333.

Tweet	Follow @TLnews

Send Question or Remark to the Publisher