Property tax assessments in Star Prairie Township, St. Croix County, Wisconsin are handled in some very questionable ways.  Innacuracies and inequities are common, as evidenced by statistical data comparing market values and assessments.

Property tax assessment laws are intended to insure that all assessments are reasonably accurate/fair for everybody.  Unfortunately, these assessment laws are sometimes ignored and/or disregarded.   Property tax laws are found in Chapter 70 of the State Statutes (https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/70).

The State Legislature has required the Dept. of Revenue to make their official Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual (WPAM) available online, so Volumes 1 and 2 of that publication are available. These contain lots of detailed assessment information: http://www.revenue.wi.gov/slf/wpam/wpam.pdf (for Volume 1), and: http://www.revenue.wi.gov/slf/wpam/wpamvol2.pdf (for Volume 2).

Property tax assessments are supposed to precisely estimate each parcel’s value, so that the assessments are within 10% of market value. Since market values are changeable, assessments are legally required to be done every five (5) years. These mandatory “revaluations”, or “reassessments” are supposed to provide for accurate adjustments of value for each individual property.

The most recent revaluation of assessments happened in this township in 2011. That’s when property tax assessments should have been adjusted to reflect market values, as those values were established by recent sales in the area. Instead, the revaluation was mostly just a simplistic, arithmetic, formulaic adjustment of previously-existing assessment values—not anything that was indexed at all to actual market values.

Real Estate Transfer Return (RETR)

Whenever real estate is sold—anywhere in the state— a Real Estate Transfer Return (RETR) form is required. These RETR’s are now filed electronically, and they’re public record information, so it’s easy to find out just how much money was paid for ANY property, and by whom. The state Dept. of Revenue makes this information available on their web site: https://propertyinfo.revenue.wi.gov/iasWorld/Search/Disclaimer2.aspx?FromUrl=../Search/GenericSearch.aspx?mode=owner
A RETR search for sales of properties in “Star Prairie” turns up transactions for both the Village and the Township, but it’s easy to focus on either one.

Property tax assessments are also public record information that’s easily available, so comparing the sale prices of individual properties to their tax assessments is a simple matter. St. Croix County’s web site includes property tax assessment information on their web site: http://stcroixcowi.wgxtreme.com/

There’s an interactive map of the entire county that can be used to find “Land/tax information online”, but you’ll need to use the “advanced map”, instead of the “General map” (tabs in the upper left-hand side of the screen), to get parcel information on each individual property.

Even though lots of assessment information is now available, though, local government officials and assessors are not accustomed to having taxpayers who are well-informed about tax assessment procedures/requirements. Authorities don’t always react well to being questioned about assessments or procedures.

comparing “Appraisals” to “Assessments”

For property tax assessments, practices are quite different from those that would be used for a formal appraisal of an individual parcel’s value. A formal appraisal is often required by a bank or mortgage lender for financing the purchase of property, and such an expensive study is referred to as a “fee appraisal”.

When we’re dealing with property tax assessments, however, it’s acceptable to make use of “mass appraisal” procedures, for these ad valorum assessments. This means that an assessor is required to construct, maintain, and monitor the accuracy of his economic value “model” for a municipality, so that the “unit values” of various types of property have a sound, verifiable, and credible basis—since they’re applied to so many individual parcels in a municipality. There are over two thousand (2,000) parcels in Star Prairie Twp.

To construct an accurate economic assessment “model” of unit values for various types of properties, an assessor is required to regularly perform “ratio studies” that compare sale prices of parcels with their assessed valuations. The detailed requirements of such ratio studies are mentioned and described in the WPAM, in Chapter 4 (page 6), and in greater detail in Chapter 14.

Instead of performing such difficult, time-consuming tasks, however, our local Star Prairie assessors simply make use of arbitrary, convenient “unit values” for assessing various types of properties. These overly simplistic “unit values” are dramatically flawed, however. They’re contradicted by actual open-market, “arm’s length” sales of dozens of parcels in the township, involving many different types of acreage.

Perhaps most dramatic in illustrating the flaws of the local assessment model is the obvious failure of the recent 2011 revaluation to achieve substantial compliance between market values and assessment values.

Many local properties have been sold recently at less than half of their assessed values. These recent sales figures have been ignored by the assessors, however, who have instead simply modified previous assessment values arbitrarily, by use of round-number percentages.

For example, the local assessment figure for Productive Forest acreage (one of several official statutory “classifications” of property—– under s. 70.32 (2) (a) 6)—– was $5,000/acre before the 2011 revaluation of township properties. For the revaluation, this figure was reduced by 40%, to $3,000/acre.

Other types of acreage were similarly reduced by simple percentage figures, even though numerous sales of properties in each of these classification types indicated that such simplistic revaluations were inaccurate, unrealistic, and unreliable.

The following compilations, tabulations, and statistical calculations of sales/assessment data indicate just how inaccurate the local township assessments are.

RATIO STUDIES AND ANALYSES

Star Prairie Twp., St. Croix County, WI

Arm’s length sales/assessments 2009-2012

These ratio analyses of sales/assessment data involve statistical calculation of 123 sales. Excluded are those family sales that didn’t involve appraisals, trust sales, foreclosures, strictly ag. lands, and other sales that are non-qualifying for ratio purposes, based on the “reject” code standards of the WPAM.
Included in these analyses :
1) cumulative totals/ratios of both sales and assessments,
2) deviations of individual sales from their own assessments.
3) Average deviation of all sales from their individual assessments (using the arithmetic mean)
4) Effects of 2011 revaluation on early sale properties’ assessments (2009-2010)

1) Cumulative sales and assessment calculations
The limitation of this approach is that assessments that are vastly deviant
from sale amounts—either much too high, or much too low—will cancel each other out statistically. This can produce an appearance of overall assessment accuracy that may be misleading, and that may not actually exist.
All this approach really indicates is how balanced the over-assessments are with the under-assessments. It doesn’t indicate the accuracy of individual assessments at all.
The disparity between over-assessments and under-assessments is, however, clearly indicated by the use of this approach.
It is the prevalence of over-assessment in this municipal district that allows for meaningful use of this approach. Since so many more recently-sold properties are over-assessed—rather than under-assessed—the cumulative deviation of sales-from-assessments is apparent.

Total sales (cumulative value) $17,268,910
≡≡ 16% deviation
Assessed values (cumulative) $ 19,974,000

This produces an assmt-to-sales ratio of 1.16, or a sales-to-assmt. ratio .86

2) Range of assessment deviations from sale amounts
From this calculation, we see that only a very small number of recently-sold properties was actually assessed within the 10% deviation range that is legally specified as acceptable.
Only 37 of the study’s 123 sales (less than a third) fell within the mandatory range of 10% maximum variation from its assessed value. Many others were wildly outside of the acceptable 10% valuation range—not even close to that magic figure.
This dismal assessment inaccuracy was not significantly improved following the 2011 revaluation of the district’s properties. Instead, only arithmetic, formulaic adjustments were made to most assessments for the revaluation, even when recent sale figures were available.
While recent sale figures could have been made use of— to accurately establish market values on which to base assessments— the local assessors instead simply lowered most previous assessments by their own convenient, unsubstantiated, arbitrary, and uniform percentages (which varied according to classification types of acreage)— while ignoring the actual sales of properties. This practice of using uniformly “adjusted” unit values produced extremely inaccurate new assessments.
The revalued assessments should have been based on recent sale prices—not inaccurate, outdated assessment information that was merely “adjusted”, not substantially based on established, observable reality.

Sales/assessment disparities for all sales 2009-2012
Table 1
Sales-Assessment deviation
All property sales 2009-2012 —-# Over-assessed—-# Under Assessed

0%-10% deviation——————- 21——————-16
11%-20% deviation——————-14——————-10
21%-30% deviation——————-11——————-5
31%-40% deviation——————5——————–1
41%-50% deviation——————-4——————–1
51% + deviation———————22——————-3
100% + deviation——————–10——————-0

Total # of properties————–87 sales————–36 sales–123 sales total
——————————over-assessed———-under-assessed

Average of individual sale deviations from assessments—56%
This 56% deviation statistic is a calculation of the average ( arithmetic mean) of the individual sales’ deviations from their property tax assessments at the time of their sales.

This is simply an addition of the individual sales’ deviations from their individual assessed valuations (in percentage values–%), divided by the number of total sales (123).

The deviations are not classified by over-assessment (+), versus under-assessment (-), but are instead simply measured in real-number terms, as individual deviation figures representing disparities between:
1) recent sale figures, and
2) the assessments of those recently-sold individual properties.

Effects of 2011 revaluation on assessments of parcels sold in 2009 and 2010

The statutorily-mandated revaluation of all parcels within Star Prairie Twp. was supposed to correct flawed assessments, by adjusting them to better reflect market value changes within the taxation district.

Instead of indexing the assessments to actual sales of area properties/parcels, however, most assessments were simply adjusted by formulaic, arithmetic percentages of their previous values, to come up with revalued assessments.

Many parcels’ assessments (11 of them) were rendered non-compliant (outside of the 10% tolerance range allowed between market value and assessed value), by this revaluation procedure that often disregarded their recent sales values.

Some assessments (24), however, were actually brought into compliance by the 2011 revaluation. These were usually assessments that had been slightly outside of the 10% spec., but whose adjusted assessments coincidentally brought them within the broad 20% range allowed by law (10% in each direction from market value—an easy target).

There were 22 sales where the 2011 revaluation still failed to bring the new assessments within 10% of the market values of the parcels. These properties were non-compliant in their assessments both before and after the revaluation. There were only 2 sale properties from 2009-2010 that had their newly revalued assessments properly remain compliant— within 10% of their actual, sale-established market values.

Table 2
2009, 2010 sale properties’ assessment compliance that CHANGED as a result of the 2011 revaluation
———————-#rendered compliant—-# rendered non-compliant
—————————–24———————–11

2009-2010 sale parcels that saw their assessment compliance UNCHANGED by the 2011 revaluation:
———————-2 remaining compliant—-22 remaining non-compliant

The Average Deviation (arithmetic mean) of non-compliant 2009-2010 sale properties’ assessments, following the 2011 revaluation— 25%

2 parcels omitted (changes in use makes
Assessment comparisons impossible)

_____________________________________________________

The following table (3) shows the number of sales within each designated range of deviation, for the 2009-2010 sale parcels’ assessed valuations, following the revaluation in 2011. The average sale/assessment deviation, as calculated by arithmetic mean, for the sales that had non-compliant assessments, is approx. 25%— well over the acceptable standards, even though it’s more accurate than the 57% average deviation between sales and assessments of the 2009-2010 sale properties that existed before the 2011 revaluation.

While the revaluation of 2011 was to provide improved, updated accuracy to the assessments, the new numbers resulting from the revaluation aren’t anywhere close to what’s required.

It’s apparent from this evidence that the assessor has merely made use of slightly better new numbers— but still not properly accurate ones, when assessing township properties.

Table 3
All Non-Compliant assessments (over 10% deviation)
Sales-Ass. deviations, BEFORE 2011 revaluation
Early sales 2009-2010 57% average deviation from assessments

All property sales 2009-2010 —-# Over-assessed—-# Under Assessed
11%-20% deviation——————-11——————-2
21%-30% deviation——————-7——————–1
31%-40% deviation——————4——————–0
41%-50% deviation——————-2——————–0
51% + deviation———————12——————-1
100% + deviation——————–6——————–0

Total # of properties————–42 sales————–4 sales–46 sales total
——————————over-assessed———-under-assessed

57% average deviation between sales and assessments, for non-compliant assessments before revaluation
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 4
All Non-Compliant assessments (over 10% deviation)
Range and distribution of Sales-Ass. deviations, AFTER 2011 revaluation
For sales 2009-2010
25% average deviation from assessments

All property sales 2009-2010 —-# Over-assessed—-# Under Assessed
11%-20% deviation——————-4——————–6
21%-30% deviation——————-3——————–4
31%-40% deviation——————5——————–1
41%-50% deviation——————-1——————–2
51% + deviation———————3——————–2
100% + deviation——————–2——————–0

Total # of properties————–18 sales————–15 sales–33 sales total
——————————over-assessed———-under-assessed
25% average deviation between sales and assessments, for non-compliant assessments AFTER revaluation

>

These analyses of the sales/assessment data included in the tables above identify, illustrate, and quantify the enormous non-compliance between assessments and sale prices. The raw data from each sold property is included below. Its accuracy and credibility is easily verified, substantiated, and corroborated by use of various public records source materials.

The abbreviation “dev.” stands for the deviation of market value (sale price) from assessment valuation.

The abbreviation “C.A.R.” stands for Compliant After Revaluation—a rather rare status that occurred in less than half the “early” property sales (2009 and 2010). The revaluation referred to is the township-wide assessment procedure that took place in 2011.

It is sale prices— establishing market values— that are supposed to determine assessed valuations. This occurred very rarely, however, as indicated by the data tabulated in Tables 1-4.

Instead of indexing assessments to the recently-established market values of district properties, however, arithmetically formulaic adjustments were generally made to the parcels’ pre-existing assessments. These adjustments rarely brought non-compliant assessments into statutory compliance with market values, and they often rendered previously accurate assessments non-compliant.

 

Taxpayers who are interested in adding their signatures to a s. 70.75 petition for reassessment can download this petition, sign it, and forward it to me by mail: Warren Slocum, 2220 122nd St. New Richmond, Wisconsin, 54017

My new place is 2203 122nd St., but my mailbox is still at my old place, just up the road.
petition to re-assess

 

Dozens of additional real estate sales have taken place since this data was tabulated.  Their dramatic deviations between market values and assessments are consistent with these earlier sales that have been statistically tabulated here.

0____________(this first riverfront sale was not included in the statistically tabulated calculations for assessment/sales ratio, though it closely conforms to—and actually exceeds— those statistical averages)
parcel # 038-1092-40-000 Sold for $ 4,000 Sept. 2012, assessed at market value $8,600
Doc. 964715 115% dev.
Sale #1___________________
038-1165-50-000 Sold for $113,000 on November 2012 , assessed $76,200 49% dev. doc. 966801
2__________________________________________
038-1156-80-000 Sold for $185,500 Oct. 2012 assessed $179,800 3% dev.
doc. 966739
3_________________________________________________
038-1221-35-000 sold over $125,000 Jan. 2012, assessed over $200,000 60% dev.
doc. 965098
4_______________________________
038-1214-30-000 sold Oct. 2012 for $193,000, assessed $170,000 14% dev.
doc. 965506
5____________________________________________________
038-1158-10-000 Sold for $75,000 Sept. 2012, assessed $113,000 51% deviation
doc. 963064
6________________
038-1039-20-000 Sold for $100,000 Aug. 2012, assessed $102,000 2% dev.
doc. 961503
7_________________________
038-1215-80-000 sold for $73,100, July 2012 assessed $72,700 2% dev.
doc. 961424
8______________
038-1055-60-100 Sold for $ 75,000 , August 2012 assessed $121,700 63% dev.
doc. 961271
9__________________________________
038-1078-10-200 Sold for $195,000 Aug, 2012 assessed $167,900 16% dev.
doc. 960982
10__________________________________
038-1148-45-100 Sold for $260,000 assessed $321,000 July 2012 23% dev.
doc. 960231
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬11________________________
038-1166-50-000 Sold for $228,500 assessed $235,000 July 2012 2% dev.
doc. 960089
12____________________
038-1114-70-200 Sold for $60,000 assessed $115,000 July 2012 92% dev.
doc. 959876
13____________________________________________
038-1184-00-000 Sold for $97,000 assessed for $118, 000, June 2012 22% dev.
doc. 958689
14_______________________________
038-1072-90-000 Sold for $120,000 assessed for $127,000 June 2012 5% dev.
doc. 958541
15__________________________
038-1084-40-000 Sold for $38,000 June 2012 assessed for $28,000 36% dev.
doc. 958506
16_____________________________
038-1084-20-000 Sold for $20,000 June 2012 assessed for $16,700 20% dev.
doc 958170
17___________________________________
038-1067-30-000 Sold for 43,500 assessed $73,300 June 2012 68% dev.
doc. 957668
18____________________________________
038-1119-90-000 Sold for $227,900 assessed $181,000 June 2012 26% dev.
doc. 957554
19__________________________________________
038-1089-50-000 Sold for $35,000 assessed $73,200 may 2012 109% dev.
doc. 956293
20______________________________
038-1078-10-100, 038-1078-10-200
Sold for $360,000 May 2012 assessed $512,000 total assessment 42% dev.
(assessed $344,000 and $167,900) doc. 955983
21__________________________________
038-1191-50-000 Sold $165,500 May 2012 assessed $172,900 4% dev.
doc. 955486
22________________
038-1092-10-100 Sold $145,000 assd. market val. (some Und.) $118,000 23% dev.
April 2012 doc. 954420
23_________________
038-1055-60-060 Sold for $179,900 assessed $195,700 4% dev.
March 2012 doc. 953210
24_________________________________
038-1005-20-000 Sold $185,000 assessed $265,500 march 2012 43% dev.
doc. 952784
25___________________________________
038-1075-30-100 Sold $235,000 assessed $302,000 march 2012 29% dev.
doc. 952105
26_________________________________
038-1168-60-000 Sold $221,000 assessed $224,000 march 2012 1.4% dev.
doc. 951985
27__________________________________________
038-1114-10-225
Sold for $27,000, assessed at $22,500 Jan. 2012 20% dev.
doc. 949393
28_____________________
038-1114-10-250 for $175,000 , assessed $274,000 Jan. 2012 57% dev.
Doc. 949425
29______________________
038-1109-50-000, and 038-1109-60-000
Sold for $240,000 December 2011, assessed at $154,000 (total) 56% dev.
( $72,000 (market value) , and $78,800 (market value) Productive forest acreage (2 ac.) ass. @ $1500/acre. Doc. 949153
30_______________________________
038-1089-50-000 Sold for $35,000 Jan. 8, 2012, assessed $73,200 109% dev.
doc. 948882
31_________________________
038-1080-30-200 Sold for $237,500, Jan. 2012, assessed $224,500 6% dev.
doc. 948469
32____________________________________
038-1221-09-000 Sold for $160,650 Dec. 2011 assessed $156,300 2.5% dev.
doc. 947355
33__________________________________
038-1059-10-000 Sold for $51,500 Dec. 2011, assessed $100,000 94% dev.
doc. 947047
34__________________________________
038-1193-60-000 Sold for $145,000 November 2011, assessed $165,000 14% dev.
doc. 946108
35___________________
038-1112-30-000 Sold for $ 229,000 Oct 2011 assessed $226,300 1.3% dev.*
doc. 944255
36____________________
038-1112-40-200 Sold for $1,000 Oct. 2011 assessed at $25,400 2400% dev.
doc. 944000
37__________
038-1213-80-000 Sold for $228,000 Oct. 2011 assessed at same 0%dev.
doc. 943753
38_______________________
038-1030-70-000 Sold for $59,900 assessed $95,600 58% dev.
doc. 942844
39_________________________
038-1010-30-000 Sold for $165,000 Oct. 2011 assessed mkt. value $154,000 7% dev.
doc. 942789
40_____________________________
038-1021-60-100 Sold $137,000 Oct 2011, assessed $133,000 3% dev.
doc. 942658
41__________________________________
038-1120-30-085 Sold $86,500 Oct 2011 assessed $118,700 36% dev.
doc. 942323
42________________________________
038-1126-60-000 Sold $220,000 Sept 2011 assessed $189,400 16% dev.
942054
43_______________________
038-1221-09-000 Sold $14,500 Sept. 2011 assessed $30,600 114% dev.
doc. 941148
44__________________________
038-1132-30-100 Sold for $115,360 Aug. 2011 assessed $137,300 19% dev.
doc. 940798
45__________________________________________
038-1169-20-000 Sold for $154,000 July 2011 assessed $166,500 8% dev.
doc. 939477
46__________________________
038-1031-70-000 Sold $107,500 July 2011 assessed $85,000 26% dev.
doc. 938927
47____________________________
038-1203-70-000 Sold $18,000 July 2011 assessed $13,800 29% dev.
Doc. 938756
48_________________
038-1079-40-100 Sold for $32,500 July 2011 assessed $34,000 5% dev.
doc. 938599
49_______________________________
038-1239-22-000 Sold for $30,000 July 2011 assessed $36,000 20% dev.
Doc. 938346
50____________________________
038-1205-50-000 Sold for $132,000 June 2011 assessed $143,000 8% dev.
doc. 937912
51______________________________
038-1089-40-000 Sold for $118,000 June 2011 Assed $126,800 8% dev.
l doc. 937371
52______________________________
038-1112-40-200 Sold for $15,000 May 2011 assessed $25,000 67% dev.
doc. 937038
53____________________________
038-1031-40-200 Sold for $171,900 may 2011 assessed $ 218,600 27% dev.
doc. 936767
54___________________________________
038-1216-00-000 Sold for $435,000 May 2011 assessed $387,600 11% dev.
doc. 936630
55_____________________________
038-1164-70-000 Sold for $240,600, april 2011 assessed $223,100 8% dev.
doc. 935560
56______________________________________
038-1176-40-000
Sold for $137,500 april 2011 assessed $170,000 23% dev.
doc. 934605
57___________________________________
038-1173-60-000 Sold for $142,000 April 2011 assessed $164,800 16% dev.
doc. 934594
58______________________________
038-1217-30-400 Sold for $170,000 March 2011 assessed $174,000 2% dev.
doc. 934024
59________________________________________
038-1237-10-000 Sold for $117,000 March 2011 assessed $124,000 6% dev.
Doc. 933678
60__________________________________
038-1149-32-100 Sold for $150,000 Feb. 2011 assessed $231,800 55% dev.
doc. 931843
61__________________________________
038-1012-90-100 Sold for $133,000 feb. 2011 Assessed $133,900 0% dev.
doc. 931698
62________________________________
038-1223-07-000 Sold for $100,000 Jan 2011 assessed $71,000 55% dev.
Doc. 930659
63_____________________________________
038-1164-95-000, and 038-1165-10-000
Sold for $250,000 Jan. 2011 total assessed $222,400 12% dev.
($31,000 and $191,400 individual assessments) doc. 930078
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬64______________________________
038-1031-70-000 Sold for $20,000 Dec. 2010 assessed $100,000 400% dev.
doc. 929751 (2011 ass. $85,300) still non-compliant ( 327 % dev.)
65____________________________________________
038-1181-30-000 Sold for $140,000 Dec. 2010 assessed $196,600 41% dev.
doc. 928829 (2011 ass. $159,700) still non-compliant ( 14 % dev. ) after revaluation
66______________________________________
038-1010-30-000 Sold Dec. 2010, for $116,000 , ass. $180,000 market value (ex. 7 ac. Ag.) 55% dev.
doc. 928407 (2011 ass. $154,000) still non-compliant ( 33 % dev.) after revaluation
67____________
038-1207-80-000 Sold $212,000 Dec. 2010 assessed $281,000 31% dev.
Doc. 928189 (2011 assessment $224,000) compliant after revaluation (C.A.R.)
68___________________________________
038-1018-95-000 Sold $90,000 November 2010 assessed $143,400 59% dev.
doc. 926444 (2011 assessment $91,200 ) compliant after revaluation
69_______________________________________
038-1018-80-200, and 038-1016-30-300, and 038-1019-70-000
Sold for $250,000 November 2010 assessed $207,000 21% dev.
($139,000, and $68,000 market values)—, parcel #2 went ag., ), doc. 925954
(2011 ass. $109,000 mkt. value—parcel #1) under-assessed, still non-compliant after revaluation. 28% dev.
70______________________________
038-1011-30-000 Sold for $135,000 Oct. 2010 assessed $161,900 20% dev.
doc. 925471 (2011 ass. $135,400) compliant after revaluation
71____________________________________________
038-1201-80-000 Sold for $156,000 Sept. 2010 assessed $193,000, 24% dev. doc. 923510 (2011 ass.$161,400 ) compliant after revaluation
72________________________________
038-1012-30-000 Sold for $233,000 Aug. 2010 assessed $271,000 16% dev.
doc. 921716 ( 2011 ass. $228,500) compliant after revaluation
73______________________________
038-1066-70-200 Sold for $40,000 Aug. 2010 assessed $136,200 240% dev.
(2011 assessment $61,200) doc. 921124 still non-compliant after revaluation 53% dev.
74_____________________
038-1221-17-000 Sold for $150,000 July 2010 assessed $170,600 13% dev.
doc. 920205 (2011 ass. $149,800) compliant after revaluation
75______________________________
038-1239-39-000 Sold for $21,000 July 2010, assessed $47,200 124% dev.
doc. 920041 (2011 ass. $14,600) still non-compliant after revaluation 43% dev.
76__________________________
038-1239-30-000 Sold for $67,000 July 2010, assessed $118,000 76% dev.
doc. 919813 (2011 ass. $27,000) still non-compliant after revaluation 67% dev.
77_____________________________
038-1221-11-000, and 038-1221-12-000 Both lots together sold for a combined price of
$34,000 July 2010 total assessed $59,500 ( $29,500, and $30,000) 74% dev.
Doc. 919811 ($23,600 in 2011 and ($24,200 in 2011) still non-compliant after revaluation 41% dev.
78__________________________
038-1174-80-100 Sold for $55,000 July 2010 assessed $91,000 65% dev.
(2011 ass. $134,900—new house construction doc. 919094 cannot calculate dev.—new const.
79____________________
038-1175-10-000 Sold for $214,000 July 2010 assessed $239,600 12% dev.
doc. 918796 (2011 ass. $201,500) compliant after revaluation
80_______________________________________
038-1186-40-000 Sold for $140,000 July 2010 assessed $141,800 1% dev.
doc. 918758 (2011 ass. $117,900) rendered non-compliant by revaluation 19% dev.
81___________________________________
038-1168-50-000 Sold $94,900 July 2010 assessed $176,100 86% dev.
doc. 918751 (2011 ass. $115,900) still non-compliant after revaluation 22% dev.
82____________________________
038-1239-18-000 Sold for $18,000 July 2010, assessed $47,000 161% dev.
doc. 918560
(2011 $28,600) still non-compliant after revaluation 59% dev.
83______________________
038-1047-10-000 Sold $78,000 June 2010 ass $55,400 60% dev.
doc. 918401 ( $54,500 for 2011) still non-compliant after revaluation 43% dev.
84_________________________________
038-1191-20-000 Sold $143,500 June 2010 assessed $151,100 4% dev.
( 2011 $141,600) doc. 917654 still compliant after revaluation.
85______________________________
038-1174-60-000 Sold for $190,000 June 2010 assessed $312,000 64% dev.
doc. 917630 ( 2011 $264,000) still non-compliant after revaluation 39% dev.
86________________________________________
038-1237-01-000, 038-1237-02-000, 038-1237-03-000, 038-1237-06-000, 038-1237-07-000, 038-1237-08-000
6 lots sold for $85,000 June 2010, assessed $191,000 124% dev.
doc. 917539 (2011 land ass. $151,800) 79% dev.
87__________________________________
038-1019-70-200, 038-1041-10-000 sold for $260,000 June 2010 . assessed $335,900 w/o ag., or Und. adjustments 29% dev. (2011 ass. $309,000) still non-compliant after revaluation 19% dev.
88____________________
038-1080-60-060 Sold for $29,900 May 2010, assessed $37,900 27% dev.
doc. 916719 ($28,500 for 2011) compliant after revaluation
89____________________________________________
038-1193-80-000 Sold $182,000 May 2010 assessed $183,000 .5% dev.
doc. 916229 (2011 $161,800) now noncompliant after revaluation 12% dev.
90_______________________________
038-1007-50-100 Sold $139,500 May 2010 assessed $213,000 52% dev.
doc. 915966 ( 2011 ass. $167,400) still non-compliant after revaluation 12% dev.
91__________________________________
038-1171-20-000 Sold $142,000 May 2010 assessed $187,300 32% dev.
doc. 915634 (2011 $152,700) compliant after revaluation
92_____________________________
038-1009-90-100 Sold $ 130,000 May 2010 assessed $ 145,900 (w/3 ac. Ag) 12% dev.
(2011 $122,600 ) doc. 915417 compliant after revaluation
93______________________________
038-1114-80-000 Sold $75,000 April 2010 assessed $80,000 7% dev.
doc. 915233 (2011 $48,200) now non-compliant after revaluation 56% dev.
94_____________________________
038-1239-34-000 Sold $186,300 April 2010 assessed $241,000 30% dev.
doc. 91518 ( 2011 $196,000) compliant after revaluation
95________________________________________
038-1150-60-000 Sold $282,900 March 2010 assessed $258,600 9% dev.
(2011 $227,600) doc. 913407 Now non-compliant after revaluation 24% dev.
96________________________________________________
038-1046-20-300 Sold $217,000 March 2010 assessed $263,900 22% dev.
doc. 913016 (2011 $229,300) “C.A.R”
97___________________________________________
038-1221-19-000 Sold $135,000 Jan. 2010 assessed $174,000 29% dev.
(2011 $146,700) doc. 910920 “C.A.R”
98__________________________________
038-1089-20-000 Sold $37,000 Jan. 2010 assessed $62,000 68% dev.
(2011 $34,500) doc. 910666 “C.A.R”
99_________________________________________________
038-1147-10-100 Sold $255,500 Jan 2010 assessed $253,700 0% dev.
doc. 910213 (2011 $219,600) now non-compliant after revaluation 16% dev.
100_____________________
038-1221-22-000 Sold for $130,000 December 2009 assessed $174,600 34% dev.
doc. 909135 (2011 ass. $157,000) still non-compliant after revaluation 21% dev,
101__________________________
038-1174-90-300 Sold $170,000 November 2009 assessed $236,600 39% dev.
doc. 907652
(2011 ass. $157,000) compliant after revaluation
102_________________________________
038-1054-70-300 Sold $100,000 November 2009 assessed $152,800 53% dev.
doc. 907371 (2011 ass. $131,200) still non-compliant after revaluation 31% dev.
103____________________________________________
038-1221-23-000 Sold $159,000 November 2009 assessed $172,700 9% dev.
doc. 906470 (2011 ass. $145,900) compliant after revaluation
104____________________________
038-1239-40-000 Sold $240,000 Oct. 2009 assessed $271,600 13% dev.
doc. 906156 (2011 ass. $227,900) “C.A.R.”
105__________________________________________
038-1185-40-000 Sold $200,000 Oct. 2009 assessed $225,500 13% dev.
doc. 906010 (2011 ass. $190,400) “C.A.R.”
106_________________________________________
038-1215-10-000 Sold $232,000 Oct. 2009 assessed $253,000 9% dev.
doc. 905678 ($219,800 in 2011) “C.A.R.”
107______________________________________________
038-1197-60-000 Sold $140,000 Oct. 2009 assessed $159,900 14% dev.
doc. 905589 (2011 ass. $138,300) “C.A.R.”
108__________________________________
038-1056-30-100 Sold $145,000 Oct. 2009 assessed $217,000 49% dev.
doc. 905475
(2011 ass. $185,200) still non-compliant after revaluation 28% dev.
109_________________________
038-1046-20-500, and 038-1046-20-400, and 038-1046-70-001
Sold for $275,000 Oct. 2009 assessed $232,500, 18% dev.
doc. 905384 ( 2011 ass. $229,000) still non-compliant after revaluation 20% dev.

110_____________________________________
038-1189-70-000 Sold for $125,800 Oct. 2009 assessed $141,800 13% dev.
doc. 905255 (2011 ass. $124,400) “C.A.R.”
111__________________________________
038-1028-90-000 Sold for $45,000 Sept. 2009 assessed $115,400 156% dev. doc. 904489 (2011 ass. $113,200) still non-compliant after revaluation 152% dev.
112_______________________________
038-1089-30-120 Sold for $168,000 Sept. 2009 assessed $199,700 19% dev.
doc. 904214 (2011 ass. $163,100) “C.A.R.”
113_________________________________________
038-1124-80-050 Sold for $105,900 Sept. 2009 assessed $162,700 54% dev.
doc. 904003 (2011 ass. $138,100) still non-compliant after revaluation 30% dev.
114___________________________
038-1045-40-000 Sold $119,900 Sept. 2009 assessed $112,800 6% dev.
doc. 903628
(2011 ass. $93,500) now non-compliant after revaluation 28% dev.
115_______________________________________________
038-1069-50-000 Sold for $149,900 Sept 2009 assessed $153,900 3% dev.
Doc. 903024 (2011 ass. $134,600) now non-compliant after revaluation 11% dev.
116_________________________________________
038-1196-20-000 Sold for $181,000 Aug. 2009 assessed $172,500 5% dev.
doc. 902910 (2011 ass. $150,800) now non-compliant after revaluation 20% dev.
117_________________________________________
038-1124-80-000 Sold for $105,000 Aug. 2009 assessed $92,200 14 % dev.
doc. 902725 (2011 ass. $74,400) now non-compliant after revaluation 41 % dev.
118________________________________________
038-1201-60-000 Sold for $137,000 Aug. 2009 assessed $167,200 22% ‘dev.
doc. 902498 (2011 ass. $146,400) “C.A.R.”
119__________________________________
038-1000-30-000 Sold for $89,900 Aug. 2009 assessed $108,500 20% dev.
doc. 901702 (2011 $92,300) “C.A.R.”
120_________________________________
038-1196-30-000 Sold for $184,000 Aug. 2009 assessed $171,900 7% dev.
doc. 901603 (2011 ass. $144,900) now non-compliant after revaluation 27% dev.
121_________________________________
038-1061-70-500 Sold for $154,900 July 2009 assessed $169,800 9.7% dev.
doc. 900551 (2011 ass. $142,200) 8.3 dev.
122________________________________
038-1173-30-000 Sold for $117,000 July 2009 assessed $189,500 62% dev.
doc. 900185 (2011 ass. $155,100) still non-compliant after revaluation 33% dev.
123___________________________________________
038-1030-10-000 Sold $303,700 July 2009 assessed $298,000 market value 2% dev. doc. 900178 ( 2011 ass. $240,000) now non-compliant after revaluation 27% dev.

Advertisements