2014 TRIM Notices! Heads UP!

I spoke with Janelle and then with her boss, Ellen Harkness.  Ellen went to great pains to explain the extremely complicated mathematical algorithms involved in setting Just "aka market" Values.  I was on the phone with her for nearly an hour.  It appears to be painstaking process and, while the sales activity in S-bag is claimed to be the only value used, I came to learn that was only a part of a regional basis for setting these values.  S-bag activity is not the only consideration--even though there is an insistence that it is!  This was perplexing and caused us both extra time on the phone to unravel the layers and try to resolve the apparent discrepancy.  There are "weights" put on different elements measured.

Some factors that I would consider "subjective" are also part of the process of setting the values.

I will give you two examples which were discussed.

1-The market values have historically been quite low in S-bag; both Janelle and Ellen mentioned the floods and the impact that had on sales activity.  However, I would discount that influence when considering the current meteoric jump in assessed values; the hurricane and subsequent flooding have been over for nearly a decade!  Why now?  What factors compelled the county to "wake up and make up" the market now?  This is a question which Ellen had no answer for that made any sense to me except to claim some vague duty to the Dept of Revenue. 

2-County "discards" sales that they deem to be distressed sales i.e. if sellers cannot sell their property and "give it away at bargain prices", the County does not consider that to be a true market value.  This would be most sales in SLR because most sales are unassisted and quitclaimed transactions!  The County apparently somehow discounts anything that is not reported by a third party such as a real estate agent or financing institution.  Of course, I disagreed with Ellen; practitioners of real estate and law generally accept the definition of market value to be the "the estimated amount for which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion".  Well, Ellen had a good laugh about that!  But, my point is that if you only decide to accept the "high" selling prices in S-bag--ie--those that you believe are not "distressed", then your value basis is skewed UP and does not truly represent the market in S-bag which is heavily derived from self-help transactions.

I asked Ellen to re-review the sales activity from year-to-year in S-bag in view of the fact that, even though it is trending Very S l o w l y in an upward direction, the prices are still low and the unit sales very modest for current year vs 2013.   I commented that it would be difficult to accept that old 1985 trailers had suddenly appreciated in value to the double digits the county was assigning.   Ellen agreed she would do so and get back with me. 

Of course, the true story about this matter is much more complicated than upwardly "revaluing" old trailers that do not appreciate over time, and I remarked to Ellen was that "the people" must have confidence that the valuations were arrived at from some data-driven, comprehensible and replicable economic model that made sense.  It just does not make sense to see the kind of skyrocking of valuations in S-bag, with accompanying raises in taxable bases, that we are now seeing.  I also observed that this would have unanticipated consequences for both S-bag and the County.

I do believe that I was "heard" by Ellen, but I was also left with the feeling that there is probably very limited remedial measures that Saddlebaggers will be able to do apart from presenting their case on a petition to the Value Adjustment Board by September 12.  Based on Ellen's followup on the promised re-review, I will plan to file a petition (fee $15)  and see what more will be revealed on that St age.