16
Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level Case 1, PIN 18-24-204-017: in-ground pool and living area issue. Tab 4 For the 2014 assessment year, the appellant made two claims to the township assessor. 1. Her in-ground pool was not an in-ground pool. 2. The enclosure surrounding the pool should not be considered gross living area. An interior inspection of the property and especially its dwelling was made by the township Assessor and one Deputy Assessor; both are Illinois Certified Residential Real Estate Appraisers. The two appraisers’ unanimous conclusions based on their inspection and the related pictures were: 1. the pool was indeed a pool and 2. its enclosure should be classified as gross living area per Fannie Mae guidelines as well as the American National Standard Z765-2003: Method for Calculating the Square Footage of Single-Family Residential Buildings. The Chief County Assessment Officer reduced this parcel’s assessment for 2014 by roughly $33,000 without a Board of Review hearing or consulting the township assessor. The Chief County Assessment Officer stated the reduction was due to “condition.” A roughly 10% decrease in assessed value seems unsupported in light of the extensive number of interior and exterior pictures taken by the two appraisers during their inspection and presented herein. For the 2015 general assessment year, the township assessor used regression analysis as it did for all other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving her assessment notice, the appellant repeated her claims to the township assessor. The township assessor conveyed the Chief County Assessment Officer had already reduced the parcel’s 2015 assessment by $44,000 without a Board of Review hearing or consulting the township assessor. For 2015, the assessment reduction was made without the property owner having to file an appeal with the McHenry County Board of Review. Conclusions. The county’s assessment reduction appears to not be based on valuation theory or practice. The county’s assessment reduction appears to not be supported by market data. The county’s assessment reduction appears to be capricious and violates uniformity. The county’s assessment reduction could be interpreted as exhibiting favoritism.

Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving

Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level

Case 1, PIN 18-24-204-017: in-ground pool and living area issue. Tab 4

For the 2014 assessment year, the appellant made two claims to the township assessor.1. Her in-ground pool was not an in-ground pool.2. The enclosure surrounding the pool should not be considered gross living area.

An interior inspection of the property and especially its dwelling was made by the township Assessorand one Deputy Assessor; both are Illinois Certified Residential Real Estate Appraisers.

The two appraisers’ unanimous conclusions based on their inspection and the related pictures were:1. the pool was indeed a pool and2. its enclosure should be classified as gross living area per Fannie Mae guidelines as well as

the American National Standard Z765-2003: Method for Calculating the Square Footage ofSingle-Family Residential Buildings.

The Chief County Assessment Officer reduced this parcel’s assessment for 2014 by roughly $33,000without a Board of Review hearing or consulting the township assessor.

The Chief County Assessment Officer stated the reduction was due to “condition.” A roughly 10%decrease in assessed value seems unsupported in light of the extensive number of interior and exteriorpictures taken by the two appraisers during their inspection and presented herein.

For the 2015 general assessment year, the township assessor used regression analysis as it did for allother residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value.

After receiving her assessment notice, the appellant repeated her claims to the township assessor. Thetownship assessor conveyed the Chief County Assessment Officer had already reduced the parcel’s2015 assessment by $44,000 without a Board of Review hearing or consulting the township assessor.

For 2015, the assessment reduction was made without the property owner having to file an appealwith the McHenry County Board of Review.

Conclusions. The county’s assessment reduction appears to not be based on valuation theory or practice. The county’s assessment reduction appears to not be supported by market data. The county’s assessment reduction appears to be capricious and violates uniformity. The county’s assessment reduction could be interpreted as exhibiting favoritism.

Page 2: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving

������������

�� �� �������������������� ������� �� ���

����� ������������������������� !���"#

� � "����$������%�

�������� �&!�'()�� *��*���*��+�,"�����#�-���.

�������������� ������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������ ������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������� �!������������������������������������"��������

#�$�

�������������������� �����������������������������

��������������� ��!��"#��$#�%�%�&'�()�

���*�!���*����� ����(+,��-.$%.$#%.#�/�0�����) ����1�

Bob,

Because I genuinely value your counsel, I’ve been giving our phone chat about this person/parcel a lot of thought over the past two days and want to share my thoughts and conclusion with you.

In preparation for our inspection tomorrow morning, we assembled the attached packet. Rather than giving this person a break, I’m thinking of pursuing a violation of 35 ILCS 200/25-40 for providing me with erroneous property data over the phone.

1. She directly told me the pool house is not heated and cooled to the same standard as the rest of the dwelling and therefore should not be considered GLA.

• If it’s not heated, how does she keep the pool from freezing in the winter? Perhaps draining the pool? Don’t know but we’ll find out tomorrow.

2. She also stated she does not have an in-ground pool. • The permit and resulting HIE were granted for one and it appears on our sketch so I wonder

where it went. Don’t know but we’ll find out tomorrow.

We’ve stumbled upon numerous “skeletons” since I’ve taken office so it’s crystal-clear my work is cut-out for me building the trust of Grafton Township’s property taxpayers in this office. The only way that can be accomplished if by this office treating everyone fairly; that means “the same” regarding assessments.

If people are in financial trouble with their mortgages, property taxes, whatever, that should not and cannot be my problem. My charter is clear: comply with the Illinois Property Tax Code specifically 35 ILCS 200/99-145(a).

I’ll update you on what we discover tomorrow.

Thank you again for taking/making the time to share your thoughts; they are always truly welcomed and appreciated!

Sincerely,

�������������� ������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������ ������������

Because the County Chief Assessment Officer

decided to override the township assessor

even in light of an interior inspection by two IL

Certified Residential Real Estate Appraisers, it

appears he and I have different opinions of

"right" and "wrong."

Exhibit F

Page 3: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving

Township assessment based on the interior

inspection by two IL Certified Residential Real

Estate Appraisers

County revised assessment made via

stipulation (no Board of Review hearing

where the township assessor could

present his case).

Exhibit F

Page 4: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving

������������

�� ����� ������������ ��� ������� �������� ����� ������� ������

�������������������� �����������������������������

������������� �! "���#��#$�%��$�#&��'����(����')*���(�

����+�"�,�-�.� �+����� ������,/��0������ ���������*�����*��������1*������������)�����

Dear Ms. McGinn:

My e-mail was created after an in-depth review and analysis of all appropriate and applicable standards. It clearly specified the two national standards used to properly determine the gross living area of residential dwellings.

The following points were clear. 1. “This room is not constructed to the same standard as my house.”

The inspection clearly determined it is: at least 2*4 wall stud construction with an interior finished of drywall and an exterior finish of siding consistent with the rest of the dwelling. That determination is substantiated by the pictures we took.

2. “�Not heated or cooled to the same standard.”

Nothing in either standard requires this.

3. “72º in the winter.”

4. Nothing in either standard requires this.

Regarding your comment “…how your office is able to tax someone out of their home.”, the assessor’s office has only minimal input into the taxation process: the determination of the tax rate via our calculation of the township’s equalized assessed value (EAV).

We're all property tax payers too and are just as incensed as you at the amount of the total tax levy requested each year by the taxing districts (schools, county, etc.).

The total levy determines the amount of your tax bill; the assessor's office determines only your share of that total levy. Our mission is to do our best and make sure everyone pays only their fair share of that total levy based on the market value of their property.

The township assessor has no impact on the amount of your property taxes; our input stops at determining your fair share of the total tax levy. Even if everyone's assessment goes down, your property taxes could remain the same, or even go up, unless the total levy stays the same or goes down.

Assessments are the second of four steps in the property taxation process. the first step is the most critical. 1. Taxing districts (primarily schools and county) determine the size of the total tax levy ($$$). 2. Assessments (Township Assessor determines your fair share of that total bill: % of $$$). 3. County and State Adjustments (Chief County Assessment Officer and Department of Revenue). 4. Calculation (County Clerk) and Mailing (County Treasurer).

Exhibit F

Page 5: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving

#

Hopefully this clarifies the process and precipitates your attendance at future school board and county board budget meetings where your concern over lower property taxes can be effectively heard.

Sincerely, Alan Zielinski Grafton Township Assessor (v) 847.669.3383 www.GraftonTownship.us

cc: Robert Ross, McHenry County Chief Assessment Officer James Burke, Grafton Township Chief Deputy Assessor

����������')*����� ��������� )*����)� )��������

������������ �! "������#$�%����#2�3'�����������������

����+�"�,�-�.� �+����

� ������,��0������ ���������*�����*��������1*������������)�����

������������

�� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

������������������������������ �������� ������������!��������������������� �����������������������������

����������������������������������������

�����"��������������������������������������������������������������������������#����������������� ��������

��� ������������������������������������ ����������������������������� ���$���������#�������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������%������������������������&'"��������

������(�����������������#���������������������������������

�"���������� ���������������������������������� ����������������$������������� ��������������

)������*�����

+����������'��,�����-./0�1���2)�����������2�3)���4*�� ���#����� ��5������.�

Dear Ms. McGinn:��

Attached is our determination regarding your request for a re-evaluation of your in-ground pool enclosure.��

If you have any other questions or concerns, please contact us at your convenience.��

Sincerely,�Alan Zielinski�Grafton Township Assessor�IL & WI Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser�(v) 847.669.3383�

www.GraftonTownship.us��

cc: Robert Ross, McHenry County Chief Assessment Officer� James Burke, Grafton Township Chief Deputy Assessor�

Exhibit F

Page 6: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving

Grafton Township Assessor

10109 Vine Street, Unit C

Huntley, IL 60142

November 11, 2014

Ms. Anne M. McGinn1690 MoorlandCrystal Lake, IL 60014

RE: Field inspection report for your property (PIN: 18-24-204-017-0000).

Dear Ms. McGinn:

Thank you for allowing us to perform an internal and external inspection of your property. This letterconveys our findings that will be effective this property tax year (2014) and next (2015).

Issue: The property owner requested a re-evaluation of the structure enclosing the in-groundpool claiming it was incorrectly classified as gross living area (GLA).

Inspection: October 31, 2014

Inspectors: Dan Knezevich, Grafton Township Deputy Assessor, Illinois Certified Residential RealEstate Appraiser.Alan Zielinski, Grafton Township Assessor, Illinois & Wisconsin Certified ResidentialReal Estate Appraiser.

Determination: Based on the interior and exterior inspection, coupled with verbal testimony by theproperty owner, it was determined that the pool enclosure is:

• constructed to the same standard as the main dwelling,• heated to the same standard as the main dwelling (hot water radiant heat)• is not cooled to the same standard as the main dwelling (dehumification only).

ANSI Standard Z765-2003 describes the procedures for measuring and calculating thesquare footage of detached and attached single-family houses. That standard defines“Finished Area” as "An enclosed area in a house that is suitable for year-round use,

embodying walls, floors, and ceilings that are similar to the rest of the house."

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), known as Fannie Mae, is agovernment-sponsored enterprise that serves as a major secondary market lender. Assuch, it plays a key role in determining appropriate real property appraisal techniquesprimarily in the residential arena. FNMA defines Gross Living Area (GLA) as follows."Gross Living Area" is space that is intended for human occupancy and is:

Exhibit F

Page 7: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving

[Recipient Name]November 11, 2014Page 2

1. Heated by a conventional heating system or systems that are permanently

installed in the dwelling and generates heat sufficient to make the space suitable

for year-round occupancy;

2. Finished, with walls, floors and ceilings of materials generally accepted for

interior construction and with a ceiling height of at least seven feet, except under

beams, ducts, etc. where the height must be at least six feet four inches; and

3. Directly accessible from other living area (through a door or by a heated hallway

or stairway).

The pool enclosure unquestionably meets the building quality requirements for both theANSI and FNMA standards.

The pool enclosure unquestionably meets the FNMA standard for being directlyaccessible from another living area in that it is separated from the main dwelling by onlya sliding glass door.

The pool enclosure unquestionably meets the environmental requirement for both theANSI (“suitable for year-round use”) and FNMA (“Heated by a conventional heating…”,“…permanently installed…” and “…generates heat sufficient to make the space suitablefor year-round occupancy.”) standards.

Although the pool enclosure is not air conditioned, neither the ANSI nor FNMA standardrequire this in order to be categorized as “Finished Area” or “GLA.” Based on the above

data and industry standards, the pool enclosure is correctly stated as GLA for

property assessment purposes.

During the inspection, the building perimeter was re-measured to the ANSI (.1 foot)standard using a Leica Disto D5 laser distance meter. The outside perimetermeasurement generated a GLA of 3,675 square feet as shown on the attached sketch.

The dwelling’s GLA will be adjusted accordingly for the 2015 tax year.

It was a pleasure making your acquaintance. Please contact our office with any questions you might have.Our goal is to always be as fair and accurate as possible with our assessments.

Sincerely,

Alan ZielinskiGrafton Township Assessor(v) 847.669.3383

cc: Robert Ross, McHenry County Chief Assessment OfficerJames Burke, Grafton Township Chief Deputy Assessor

Exhibit F

Page 8: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving
Page 9: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving
Page 10: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving
Page 11: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving
Page 12: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving
Page 13: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving
Page 14: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving
Page 15: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving
Page 16: Overview: cases against potential favoritism at the county level …alforassessor.com/Tab4_web.pdf · other residential parcels to re-assess the parcel to market value. After receiving

Tuesday, March 15, 2016 11:39:45 AM

No hearing:

stipulation

by the Chief

County

Assessment

Officer.

2015 assessment Exhibit H