The Case for Maryland's Property Assessment and Tax Reform

7/29/2019 The Case for Maryland's Property Assessment and Tax Reform

1/45

1

MarylandersMarylandersMarylandersMarylandersForForForFor

Fair Property TaxationFair Property TaxationFair Property TaxationFair Property Taxation

PresentsPresentsPresentsPresents

The Case for MarylandsThe Case for MarylandsThe Case for MarylandsThe Case for Marylands

PropertyPropertyPropertyProperty TaxTaxTaxTax AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment

AAAAndndndnd

Appeals ProcessAppeals ProcessAppeals ProcessAppeals Process ReformReformReformReform

November 1, 2012

516 Walters Mill Road

Forest Hill, Maryland 21050-1428


2/45

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Bulleted Summary 3

Preface 4

The Existing Property Tax Assessment System 6

The Appeals System 10

First Level Assessor or Supervisor Appeal 10

Second Level The Property Tax Assessment Appeals Board (PTAAB) 11

Third Level Maryland Tax Court 13

Additional Concerns about the Appeals Process 13

The Sales Versus Assessment Value Debacle 15

Past Legislative Efforts 31

Former SB 395,458,498 & HB 881 Task Force to Review Property TaxAssessment Procedure and the Tax Assessment Appeals Process 31

Former SB 482 State Commission of Real Estate Appraisers andHome Inspectors 33

Former HB 1519 Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal System Performance Audit 34

Former SB 724 Bill of Rights for Taxpayers 34

Former SB 190 Senior Property Tax Relief 35

Former SB Property Tax Appeals Ombudsman 35

Former SB 215 & HB 789 Internet Access to Property Worksheets 35

Former SB Sufficient Notice of Appeal 36

Noteworthy News Items 37

Suggested Legislation 40


3/45

3

BULLETED SUMMARY

THE PROBLEM

Assessment system is archaic, biased, convoluted, corrupt, inaccurate, incomprehensible,

inequitable, non-uniform, subjective, unfair, and not in concert with current fair market values. Present construction cost based assessment system in place basically since 1977 inception. Assessment system updated without public input or methodology change. Assessor staff down from 280 to 158. Assessor staff unable to make physical inspections, or update market value data base and

indices. Assessor staff competency questionable with no mandatory continuing education required. Assessor staff education and skills less than Licensed Real Estate Appraisers taxpayers often

forced to hire to challenge inaccurate and unfair assessments. Large percentage of assessments incorrect due to lack of up-to-date record keeping. Millions of potential assessable tax base dollars lost and unaccounted for. Triennial assessments assure at least 2/3 of 2 million taxpayers assessments at least 2 years

out of date. Property assessment worksheets unavailable to taxpayers on line BUT SDAT website

promotes private firm, SpecPrint, who purchased said worksheet records and profits by resalenegating privacy concerns touted by SDAT Director.

Assessment system based on construction cost BUT can only be taxpayer challenged basedon fair market value sales.

Assessor hearings waste of time, primarily fishing expedition with little accomplished. Property Tax Assessment Appeals Board (PTAAB) and assessment offices housed and

staffed together eliminating any separation of function or separation from possible collusion. PTAAB staffed with politically connected citizens with questionable property value knowledge. PTAAB staff qualifications unknown to taxpayers. Tax Court inconvenient, time consuming, unfair to taxpayer who must prove State wrong rather

than each side proving their case.

THE SOLUTIONS

Create task force to study system to develop a fair, equitable property tax assessment andappeals system.

In lieu of creating a task force, enact legislation as suggested herein to modify the assessmentsystem to a fair market value sale based, automatically index upgraded, assessment system

by the nationally recognized Case Shiller Home Price index


4/45

4

Marylanders For Fair Property TMarylanders For Fair Property TMarylanders For Fair Property TMarylanders For Fair Property Taxationaxationaxationaxation516 Walters Mill Road Forest Hill, Maryland 21050-1428

[email protected] www.marylandersforfairpropertytaxation.com

THE CASE FOR MARYLANDS PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT

AND APPEALS PROCESS REFORM

H. LeRoy Whiteley, Jr., Founder

*******************************************************************

PREFACE

For over forty years, my father, my brothers, and I, literally ever year, have appealed ourMaryland property tax assessments for a Sassafras River waterfront property we own in Kent Countybecause of archaic, biased, convoluted, corrupt, inaccurate, inequitable, non-uniform, subjective

unfair assessments which have been exorbitantly high and not in concert with current fair marketvalues. We win some appeals, lose others. We taxpayers are unfortunately placed in the untenableposition that, as far as we know, does not exist in any other court of law --- the taxpayer has the soleburden of proving the State is wrong in its establishment of our tax assessment. In analogous termsyou are deemed guilty until you prove yourself innocent (correct). The assessment values areprimarily based on construction data adjusted with incomplete, seldom current market analyses andindices BUT the taxpayer is specifically limited to arguing the validity of a so-called fair market valuebased solely on comparable market sales values unless definitive mistakes are found in thepropertys site data worksheet for items such as size, construction or amenities.

We have endured the unfair practice of being assessed by incompetent assessors with onlyhigh school educations. They testify us against and are being accepted by Property Tax AssessmentAppeals Boards and the Maryland Tax Court as equals to Maryland Licensed Real Estate Appraisers(who by law must comply with Maryland Real Estate Commission regulations completing a bachelorscollege degree, 90 to 180 specific Commission defined credit course hours, 2000 to 3000 supervisedwork experience hours within 2 years and pass each credit course examination plus a final writtenexamination). Unlike the State employed assessor, the Licensed Real Estate Appraisers workexperience may NOT be substituted for education and education may NOT be substituted for workexperience. Hows that for fairness and equality?

We have been the victims of vindictive actions by an assessor who lost his case to us in TaxCourt and was heard by several witnesses to vow to get even. He did by nearly doubling ourassessment at the next triennial re-evaluation. It took us eight years fighting through each of the

States three appeals bureaucracy levels to rectify that matter. A formal complaint of the assessorsactions resulted in a mere slap on the wrist by the Attorney General with said assessor remaining asour assessor of record.

The property referred to herein consists of two contiguous lots, 50 and 100 feet wide, totaling0.86 acre. It is improved by three summer cottages built in 1940, 1961, and 1972. Two are one storyframe bungalows on concrete piers. The other is a one story slab on grade masonry block dwelling.The property is serviced by a single well and septic system on the larger, higher elevated, of the twolots. The smallest lot having two houses grandfathered on its 11,500 square feet does not percolateand is therefore incapable of standing alone. Current septic regulations require a 10,000 square foot


5/45

5

disposal system with an equal sized reserve system a physical impossibility! The gravel entranceroad has a grade in excess of 10% to descend from the 90 foot high Sassafras River hills to thewaterfront lots at elevation 3 above river level. The lots and houses are subject to flooding at leastonce per year from either the river or from a 100 acre farm drainage area runoff during high frequencyrain events which are exacerbated by no-till farm practices. A combination masonry blockgarage/storage shed and a small well/pump house complete the improvements. While the property

has excellent recreational seasonal value for our family even with the aforementioned drawbacks, ithas little value to anyone else. Current regulations prohibit any further development or improvement ifthe property could even be sold, in-part or whole. Recent assessments set the value of this propertypictured herein (copy attached) at $607,800 before our 2011 Tax Court ruling corrected the valuecloser to but not equal to market conditions at $357,900.

As a result of these cited egregious assessment practices as well as with similar conditions wehave with other family owned properties, we embarked on an effort to seek property tax assessmentand appeals reforms to a broken, flawed system. We established MarylandersMarylandersMarylandersMarylanders For FairFor FairFor FairFor FairProperty TaxationProperty TaxationProperty TaxationProperty Taxation to educate the public as to their rights, the process of property assessmentsand appeals, and the laws that affect the process. Through the Internet and public meetings, we

provide a direct interface with our fellow suffering property taxpayers and in turn, with our legislators,to influence the creation, enactment, and fair use of property tax laws.

In the following report we show how the current system is structured, how it fails towork, and how we know it can be changed for the betterment of the State and its propertytaxpayers. Bringing about change to the current broken property assessment taxation andappeals system will result in greater overall property assessment totals AND will also result inlower tax rates and many attendant individual taxes, while still producing sufficient revenue tomeet societys needs.

We invite your scrutiny and questions, but more importantly your support in convincingour legislators that there is nothing to fear but much to be gained in reviewing the assembledmaterials and evaluating the system. The goal of this effort and its mission is the setting offair property market values with automated assessment methodology to obtain the taxrevenues required to meet societys needs.

H. LeRoy Whiteley, Jr., Founder

November 1, 2012


6/45

6

THE EXISTING PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

Prior to recent (2011-2012) format changes, individual property assessment worksheetsdepicted assessment values in a structured, step by step, format (copy attached) showing asomewhat detailed trail of how SDAT (The Department of Assessments and Taxation) supposedlyarrived at their fair market value of each property. The current new format (copy attached) no longer

shows this road map of derivation leaving the taxpayer to wonder how all of the factors are derivedand applied. In our following dissertation we have followed the previously used methodology todescribe how values were calculated and to address some of the problems found with saidcalculations and derivations.

The State of Maryland created the Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT) andcharged it with establishing the fair market value of over 2 million property accounts. Annuareassessments are supposed to be conducted resulting in one third of the States property beingreassessed triennially. Assessments are certified by SDAT to all local governments who in turnconvert the assessments into property tax bills by applying the appropriate local property tax rates.State law specifically requires that all taxable property be assessed based on its fair market

value. Although all properties are supposed to be assessed every three years to keep them current;this requirement is not being met.***Article 15 of the Declaration of Rights of Marylands Constitutionrequires that all property be assessed and taxed uniformly. Courts have interpreted this to mean thaassessments must be based on the fair market value of the property*** *** SDAT brochure AHomeowners Guide to Property Taxes and Assessments.

Two appraisal approaches (sales and cost) are generally used by appraisers (assessorsactually since SDAT claims it does not perform appraisals, yet its literature is replete with the use ofthe terms "appraiser and appraisal) to establish fair market values. Maryland property assessmentsare basically developed via a Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) technique originallydeveloped in 1977 with only one known major update in recent years. Said update appears to havebeen accomplished without any public taxpayer input. No significant improvements have been

observed. In fact, our observations, internal reports, and conversations with friendly insiders indicatemajor problems with the system and general chaos, some even describing the system to be inshambles. A former Director of the Department stated in a personal interview that were he in officetoday with the current state of the Department he would feel compelled to resign in disgrace. Thats adamning stated status position.

The premise of the sales approach is that the fair market value of a given property may bedetermined by examining the sales prices of comparable properties. The key to the sales approach isTRUE comparability and the availability of sufficient data within the same geographic assessmentarea. Said area should not go beyond the same postal zip code but the Appeals Boards and TaxCourt allow comparables to be used from any and all parts of the State. This approach defies any

logic of having consistency in the comparables being equal in age, construction type, demographicdiversity, economic equality, environmental congruity, location, zoning or other value influencingfeatures.

The premise of the cost approach is that the fair market value of a given property equals thetotal of the cost to construct a similar improvement, less depreciation of age and condition, plus theland price. A major fallacy to the cost approach is the fact that SDAT uses a blend of heterogeneousdata in establishing the unit price data used to calculate dwelling values. For instance, the system isincapable of distinguishing whether a frame structure is constructed with a specific thickness ofsiding, the spacing or thickness of studding, insulated or not, or finished interior surfaces. Likewise,


7/45

7

masonry structures are not valued based on brick or stone veneer over framing or of solid masonrybackup which could easily be varying in thickness from 4 to 12 inches or more. There is nomethodology to compensate for such differences immediately producing a large possible disparity inactual value.

Property assessments are calculated, tabulated, and depicted on an assessment worksheet

which is available free of charge to the property owner for review and recordkeeping. The worksheetproduced by the CAMA system gave the following information prior to the aforesaid formattingchange:

1. The General Administrative Data -- i.e. location information, name, address, grade, conditiondwelling type, foundation area, enclosed area, year built , land use , and identity of assessor.

2. Dwelling Cost Calculation number of stories, generic construction type, dimensions, squarefootage, unit price, and total calculated cost. The fallacies noted hereinbefore in the ability of thesystem to properly estimate the unit prices of indeterminate construction to the penny as used bySDAT is absurd. It is equally absurd to base the value of an improvement on these questionable

construction unit prices and then limit the taxpayer to challenging the construction cost derived valuesolely based on sales data as the Property Tax Assessment Appeals Boards and Tax Court do.

Another fallacy to this construction pricing scenario is the methodology used to arrive at thesquare foot rate for this section. The pricing begins with a figure designated as the Constant Rate, anill defined estimate supposedly for one bath, one kitchen, one hot water heater, all stairs present inthe model and one electric box. There are 9 grades of dwellings in the SDAT system. How is itpossible to even think that each of these grades will each have, or even be assumed to have, nearlyequal construction of the identified components? For instance, does each graded bath have the samesize, same fixtures and quality? Does each graded kitchen have the same size, same fixtures andquality? Is each graded hot water heater the same size and powered by the same source? Are algraded stairs the same size with an equal number of risers or treads? What is the size of the graded

electric boxes, i.e. number of circuits, size of main, size of circuits? There is no equality, noconsistency and certainly no comparability, except implied. We have never been able to have SDATaccurately define these parameters.

Next SDAT develops to the precision of one cent, square foot rates for each type of indentifiedconstruction. Most of the data, we understand, is obtained from an estimating service known asMarshall & Swift used throughout the construction and real estate industry. How SDAT uses andadjusts the data is questionable. In the current new worksheet format, little or almost none of thesquare foot data is given, leaving the taxpayer with only a questionable lump sum value of unknownorigin or source.

SDAT then derives a Perimeter Rate for Construction which is actually double calculating thecost of the dwelling since a square foot rate normally includes ALL costs for the basic structure.Adding in the Perimeter Rate is double dipping

These questionably derived figures are then assembled by taking the:Constant Rate

PlusThe Square Foot Rate times the Square Footage of the Dwelling

PlusThe Perimeter Rate for Construction times the Dwelling Perimeter


8/45

8

Divided by the Area of the DwellingTo equal the Square Foot Rate to be multiplied by the dwellings Square Footage to obtain the

Dwelling Square Foot Cost.

To this nebulous Dwelling Square Foot Cost, SDAT then calculates a series of Other Chargessuch as roof composition and fireplaces. These items are normally included within a Dwelling Square

Foot Cost since a roof is an integral component, commensurate with construction grade ranging fromeconomy to luxury. These items are logically part of the basic dwelling and fireplaces especially alongexterior walls are an integral part of the basic wall system. They are therefore normally costed as partof the basic dwelling package. SDAT is again double dipping Legitimate Other Charges such asextra baths, heating and cooling systems, finished basements or attics, porches, patios, built-ingarages and dwelling amenities are sized and calculated on a unit basis and cost. These are addedto the Dwelling Square Foot Cost to become the Total Dwelling Base Cost. The new formaeliminates all definition of these items and the derivation of their values.

This Total Dwelling Base Cost is then adjusted by SDAT using a Cost Index defined as anindex which updates historical figures to the current time and location. A January 29, 2012

Sunpapers article quoted SDAT Director Robert Young as being unable to keep this data (i.e.assessments) current due to loss of staff. Lack of up-to date data that supposedly is used to developthese cost indices obviously produces inaccurate and incorrect assessment values. The CAMAmanual lists nine geographic areas within the State assigning each area with its own statistical indexvalue. We have found these values ranging from 0.86 to 1.32 or higher. Not since the 2002 CAMAmanual have we ever seen a CAMA area with a value of 1.0 which would indicate the benchmark forall cost data actually matched all construction costs in that geographic area. ( i.e. Area I, MontgomeryCounty and Area IV, Prince Georges County, the two most expensive construction areas of theState) Since then, SDAT has not ever defined the location of such an area where such indexproducing conditions exist. Nonetheless, SDAT blithely multiplies this Cost Index by the TotaDwelling Base Cost to arrive at a new value called Replacement Cost New (RCN). This issupposedly the value of a new dwelling equal to a newly constructed replacement of the origina

dwelling. It is NOT the value of an exact reproduction of the original dwelling.

The Replacement Cost New value is then adjusted by SDAT to allow depreciation of thedwelling based on its age. Although we can find no published data available to the taxpayer, SDAThas reported to us that depreciation is calculated on the basis of a 1% per year for the first ten yearsof age and thence 1% for each two years of age thereafter. We have observed inconsistency in theapplication of this described methodology. A subtotaled depreciated Replacement Cost New value isderived by subtracting the calculated depreciation percentage times the Replacement Cost Newvalue from the said Replacement Cost New figure.

Next, SDAT makes yet another adjustment known as the Market Value Index. This is a

multiplier used to link the cost and sales approaches to market values. It is applied to the value by thecost approach supposedly to adjust for market conditions. Unfortunately, as noted hereinbefore, themarket data has not been kept current due to lack of sufficient staff so therefore the application ofinaccurate cost data indicated to questionably reliable sales or market condition data can onlyproduce a highly suspect adjusted value called the Dwelling Value.

To complete the improvement picture of the property, SDAT creates a series of AccessoryStructures with attendant unit price values. Items like boat houses, gazebos, garages, greenhousespiers, pools, pool/pump houses, and sheds are sized and valued. Condition and depreciation is oftenignored. The total value of accessory structures on the property is added to the Dwelling Value to


9/45

9

produce the Total Improvement Value. This is the taxpayers assessment improvement value uponwhich the dwelling and improvements portion of his property taxes will be based. The new formatapparently lumps these items into a new category labeled Outbuilding Data.

Next SDAT adds a Land Valuation to the property. This is the most nebulous of figures withinthe SDAT stable of values to be conjured up. At a meeting in our home some years ago, then Director

C. John Sullivan and Deputy Henry Sikorski offered the comment We have so many numbers to playwith we can make them come out any way we want them to. Thats exactly what they do.Responses to freedom of information requests to define Land Type resulted in a conglomerate ofanswers such as There is no generic definition of Land Type. That term represents a computefield that must be filled in when using the Departments CAMA software The Land Type is a codeassigned to a specific area, for use in calculating the appropriate land value. This land type mayapply to a rather specific location, such as a subdivision, or it may cover a large area. Markeconditions determine the usage. Accompanying these vague definitions from numerous areasupervisors were square foot Land Type numbers literally numbering in the hundreds for several ofthe County Supervisors that responded. The land types are inconsistent in value and so calleddescription from county to county. Complicating the issue are added descriptions which label property

as primary, secondary, tertiary, excess, waterfront, waterview and on and on ad infinitum. The landvaluation appears to be the catch all which allows SDAT to select any figure it decides to use to addto the property to attain the Total Land Value SDAT desires to establish. SDAT then addsquestionable Total Land Value to the aforementioned Total Improvement Value thereby producingthe Total Property Value upon which the taxpayers property is assessed and taxed. We have seenmuch waterfront property in Kent County arbitrarily valued at $50/sf or $ 2,178,000/acre fromGeorgetown to Rock Hall with nary a shred of evidence of any property ever selling for such value inthe history of Kent County. Whenever questioned about this exorbitant value and the non-existence ofany backup of the value, the standard answer is ALWAYS, Well, that's what we THINK the land isworth! Therein lays one of the greatest fallacies and inconsistencies in arriving at a fair market valuefor any property. This less than well derived or documented valuation methodology really instillsconfidence in the validity of the valuation

In summary, this system of assessments is a heterogeneous, piece meal, attempt atderiving a construction reproduction cost of an ill defined construction model. It is impossiblefor said system to match actual construction techniques and conditions to any subjectproperty making every assessment a one size fits all inaccurate approximation of the realthing. Instead of trying to devise a simple uniform, equitable system that meets a set ofequalizing conditions, SDAT has gone out of its way to complicate a system that defiesuniform, equitable values for like properties. SDAT instead argues that its system is one ofmass appraisals and therefore average conditions of the masses are acceptable. We donot accept that premise

To make matters worse, SDAT has now modified its worksheets eliminating all of the abovedefined calculations. The new worksheets are devoid of any indication of how any of the valuescontained thereon were derived thereby denying the taxpayer of any individual analyses of the bottomline only figures shown. This new format with its total lack of transparency reinforces our positionregarding SDATs blatant attempt to hide its valuation methodology, confuse the taxpayer, and makethe system harder to comprehend or appeal.


10/45

10

THE APPEALS SYSTEM

First Level Assessor or Supervisor Appeal

Upon receipt of a triennial assessment notice in January, the taxpayer has 45 days to file awritten appeal of his assessed value. This first level appeal can be conducted by phone, in writing, or

in person usually at the office of and with the assessor who was responsible for the originaassessment value. The assessors supervisor may sit in on the hearing or actually conduct it.Alternate sites and times are generally available to the taxpayer so that taxpayers schedules canpossibly be accommodated without added inconvenience to address the questionable assessmentTaxpayers are not limited to just this triennial assessor appeal. The taxpayer may file a petition forreview of his assessment every year if he so desires by filing a SDAT petition form before December31 of the current year for review of the assessment for the next year.

Assessors today need only a bachelors degree from an accredited college or universitywith zero experience to be your assessor of record setting your property value and testifyingagainst you at any appeals level. Many assessors are grandfathered into their current

positions and therefore have a lesser or more limited education with equally limitedexperience, since their daily work is merely a repeat of the previous days efforts. Theirtouting of multiple years of experience is actually reduced to one years experience multipletimes Continuing education is not mandated. Therefore, the taxpayer is dealing withindividuals using a system, each with limited credibility, flexibility and experience.This is theroot of the States flawed system. When faced with a court appearance to refute assessmentsset by these individuals, the taxpayer is often forced to hire a licensed Real Estate Appraiserat considerable expense to evaluate his property to prove the assessor to be in error. Bycomparison, the State licensed appraiser must have at least 90 to 180 classroom credit hoursin specified courses approved by the Maryland Real Estate Appraisers Commission and 2000to 3000 hours of appraisal work experience over a required time period of 24 to 30 months andpass a written examination for each course plus a written licensing examination before

becoming licensed and being allowed to work as a qualified licensed Real Estate Appraiser.While the State employee can substitute hours worked for education experience the licensedappraiser cannot in the qualification process. Less than 25% of State assessors today holdReal Estate Appraisers licenses or have the qualifications to be so licensed.

Most assessors we have encountered have not had the education nor experience to addressthe items such as construction details and variances noted herein and therefore do not address themin their evaluations or in the input data they robotically enter into the computerized CAMA appraisalsystem assuring us of the old axiom GIGO -- Garbage In Garbage Out

At the assessor hearing the taxpayer can address any items found on the worksheet and

present any information regarding the construction, condition, and value affecting items regarding theproperty. Generally, we have observed that sales figures are not as a limiting discussion factor asthey are at the second and third appeals levels. Sales values certainly carry the most convincingarguments if good comparables are available and are presented.

Probably the most discouraging part of this hearing level is knowing you may be dealing with atotally incompetent individual who is limited in being able to understand the total picture, is incapableof making more than cursory adjustments and is limited to providing only stock responses andapplying data blindly to an inflexible computer system. Equally discouraging perhaps is the fact thatthe assessors may not really understand their own SDAT system they are working with. A case in


11/45

11

point, we have had an assessor disallow certain previously allowed value adjustments when newinformation would dictate additional value adjustments be applied. However, when it turned out thatsaid adjustments when just added together would total 100% said assessor would not permit theirapplication. The assessors flawed reasoning occurred because of failure to understand the propeapplication of simple mathematics to the assessors own SDAT system that would multiply theadjustments rather that just add them. In this case, a 50% adjustment to one item plus another

companion 50% adjustment to a second item equated 100% in the assessors mind set instead of thecorrectly applied 75%. The assessor steadfastly defended the 100% position and sadly a 3 personProperty Tax Assessment Appeals Board agreed with and affirmed the assessors faulty arithmeticIncompetence personified

We have never reached agreement with an assessor during a hearing and seldom have weheard of decisions ever being rendered on the spot except in the case of obvious errors in things likedimensions or construction materials where photos or construction drawings obviated correction to bemade. The process is obviously easier for assessors to reject the taxpayers arguments via mail thanin person. When the taxpayer receives an unsatisfactory result from a hearing, an appeal can be filedwithin 30 days to the next, second or Property Tax Assessment Appeals Board level.

Second Level -- The Property Tax Assessment Appeals Board

This second level of appeal is before a three member board of members appointed by theGovernor from a list of qualified citizens nominated by the head of the local governing body. We havebeen repeatedly told that the Property Tax Assessment Appeals Board is in fact a quasi taxpayeradvocacy board, supposedly protecting the taxpayers rights. If the Boards are truly taxpayersadvocates they should be separated from the assessment offices and personnel. The presentconfigurations do not promote a true, physical or philosophical, separation of the two entities, sincemost assessment offices and County PTAAB boards share the same offices and staff. Thereapparently are no specific qualifications listed for appointment. However, the right politicaconnections obviously have its benefits. (We obviously do not meet that criterion since we have twice

been nominated for appointment but failed to gain appointment) We have advocated that if thissystem remains in place certain changes should be made to enhance the quality of the members andits effectiveness on the taxpayer.

This leads us to the fact that presently the taxpayer is totally unfamiliar with thequalifications/background of the Board members. The taxpayer therefore is faced with trying to makea presentation, to an audience acting as judge and jury, without the benefit of knowing who he isaddressing and what their qualifications might be. Having biographical sketches of Board membersavailable to the taxpayer in board offices and via the Internet at all times especially prior to a PTAABappeal would be beneficial to the taxpayer. It might help the taxpayer prepare his facts in a mannermore pertinent and meaningful to one or more Board members without talking down or in a

condescending manner. Or the opposite might be true, as has been pointed out to us, that because ofour technical background and training, this taxpayer might be presenting material too technical andcomplex for the members to fully understand and comprehend. Knowing ones audience can onlyimprove ones presentation.

This naturally leads to the makeup and qualifications of the Boards. Most commissionscouncils, advisory boards, and agencies have their attorney, engineer, accountant or technicaadvisor present at meetings. These advisory people interject pertinent comments to clarify theposition being presented by any party. The most compelling reason to have such a person availableto the Boards is to be able to impose an impartial response to material presented which may be


12/45

12

beyond the scope of any members purview, education, training, experience, knowledge or area ofexpertise. It might help clarify the official position being presented by the testifier.

Further to this Board makeup question, we feel that consideration should be given to havingspecific educational and experience requirements for an enlarged Board. For instance, a five memberBoard might consist of someone from the real estate field, another from the construction industry

architectural or engineering area, another from commercial business, and another from agricultureand a fifth from any other field of endeavor. Such a makeup would be consistent with Boards we areassociated with like our own Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors Boards where engineersfrom several disciplines (i.e. Civil, electrical, mechanical, structural, etc) plus a non-registeredordinary citizen sit in judgment of engineer licensing and disciplinary matters. To preclude placingmembers in a possible position of potential conflict of interest while hearing appeals, members couldbe required to be retired or currently inactive in the field they would represent.

We have witnessed assessors being allowed to remain in conversation related to an appeawith Board members following the apparent hearing conclusion and departure of a taxpayer. This iscontrary to all legal procedures we are familiar with. We understand the former PTAAB Administrator

addressed this matter to all Board members but we have reason to believe the practice still goes onin some counties.

On numerous occasions we have been advised that contrary to the item clearly published inthe State of Maryland Rules of the Property Tax Assessment Appeal Boards brochure wherein it isstated (2) Exhibits such as maps, plats, photographs, and comparable sales are encouraged andpermitted, we have had such materials summarily rejected by one Board. The PTAAB Administratorhas apparently addressed this matter with the Board in question, since our latest presentations wereaccepted. But we soon thereafter learned they were promptly discarded as no written records arekept.

At a meeting with Delegate Sossi, we were enlightened by the Administrators revelation that

since we were obviously experiencing personal animosity problems with one of our currentassessors, we could request a peer review of our disputed case by an assessor from anotherjurisdiction. Similarly, another Board from outside the area of the property in question could addressdissatisfaction with conditions and/or personnel at the PTAAB level through a hearing. When werequested such a peer review soon thereafter, our request was denied. Assistant Attorney GeneraDavid Lyon representing the Department of Assessments and Taxation informed us that such rightsare not available to the taxpayer. We learned from the former PTAAB boards Administrator that he athis discretion routinely allowed such alternate assessor and site reviews to be conducted. Wequestion why this right is not allowed and why if allowed the information is not made widely public byinclusion in the aforementioned rules brochure handed out to taxpayers when filing for a PTAABappeal along with the procedures necessary to effect such a change in hearing venue. If the taxpayerwere to investigate those options to learn more about the areas and personnel available theaforementioned biographical sketches of the Boards members could become invaluable in makingthe selection for a relocated hearing in adjacent counties. It should be noted that the States PropertyOwners Bill of Rights lists the following as one of the taxpayers rights - i.e. To be provided with theoption of an assessment office, alternate site, evening, or Saturday assessment appeal hearing Tothis layman, that clearly seems to allow alternate site or assessor or Board locations to be requestedand used.

Like most agencies and businesses, the State assumes that everyone has Internet access andtherefore all contact is directed to an Internet address. Nothing could be further from the truth sincecurrent statistics indicate that over 50% of computer owners do not subscribe to an Internet service. It


13/45

13

is therefore imperative that a postal mailing address and a telephone number, both toll free and TDYaccessible be displayed on agency documents such as the aforementioned brochure to enable thetaxpayer to utilize the postal or telephone system to contact the agency, Administrator or his staff.This address exclusion has been explained as being omitted due to apparent frequent addresschanges for this agency. Over-stamping, reprinting or insertion of an addenda flyer easily overcomesthis lack of information.

Third Level Maryland Tax Court

The Maryland Tax Court is probably the best opportunity for the taxpayer to obtain a fairassessment evaluation if appropriate facts are presented. We have been before most of the judgesassigned to the Court and find; in general, they are knowledgeable and fair. There have beenexceptions where we witnessed what we believe is collusion, actually occurred and sadly, leaves thespecter of possible corruption being a part of the system.

The hearing before the Court is usually quite informal with both parties, State and taxpayersitting around a table with a judge at the head, presiding. Each side makes its presentation

accompanied by exhibits, if desired, and expert witnesses such as Realtors or Real EstateAppraisers. Each side can question the other. Final arguments are presented and if the case is nottoo complicated, the judge often takes a break to review the evidence in private and then returns torender a decision. For complicated cases, decisions are generally rendered in writing within thirty toforty-five days.

The Court is headquartered in downtown Baltimore, where parking, cost of travel, need fomeals, loss of work, and general inconvenience coupled with the ever present idea that you cant beatcity hall so why bother, prevails. This discourages most taxpayers from ever advancing to this level.We also understand additional court cases are regularly held in Annapolis, Centreville, and Rockville.If case loads warrant, cases can be scheduled in any county.

Additional Concerns about the Appeals System

We are continually astonished that the taxpayer is placed in the untenable position ofhaving to hire a licensed Real Estate Appraiser when pursuing an appeal to the Tax Courtlevel to receive creditable recognition of the taxpayers evaluation of his property. Thequalifications of the licensed individual far exceed the qualifications of the States assessmentpersonnel. We likened our argument to the condition in our engineering/surveying professionwhere governmental agencies routinely employed non-registered engineering personnel inagencies like public works to review, comment upon and approve the works of registeredprofessionals. Our Boards ultimately were successful in obtaining legislation that nowgenerally requires at least supervisory personnel in such roles to be registered

engineers/surveyors just as the plan submitting, approval-seeking engineer/surveyor isrequired to be. This is a no-brainer situation where the State needs to upgrade the quality ofits personnel to provide the taxpayer with better quality work and service and place theirpersonnel on equal professional status with the appraisers who may be challenging them for ataxpayer. Many professions today, like this writer's, require continuing education programs toimprove and maintain proficiency. Why not require the same of assessors? One assessorconstantly reminds us that he has 24 years of experience; to which we reply that he hasone years experience, 24 times!! since he has not improved his educational status nor hashe performed any work different from any of his past years.


14/45

14

Assessors are testifying far beyond the scope of their expertise and with total acceptance byreviewing authorities such as supervisors, PTAAB board and Tax Court simply because theseindividuals are viewed as authority figures. When challenged in such instances we have found theCourt loath to dismiss the testimony of such assessors. The same conditions apply when they testifybefore PTAAB boards.

Similarly, the qualifications of PTAAB board members are unknown to the taxpayer.Their backgrounds and qualifications should be public information published and distributedto the taxpayer upon appeal of his property. These appointed citizens may or may not haveenough knowledge to render proper decisions regarding fair market value. Appeals we haveobserved that resulted in the Board questioning or disagreeing with the assessors resulted inthe Board remanding the case back to the assessment office for re-evaluation. This places thedecision-making process right back to the same individual that created the need for theappeal in the first place. If the Board were perhaps increased in size and constituted ofdesignated members with specific backgrounds from construction, economics, real estate,engineering, business, agriculture, and the general public, then decisions could be renderedby said Board much like the Tax Court does without remand to the assessment office.

Comparables specifically ruled as being not comparable by a Tax Court have been presentedto a PTAAB Board by assessors when those assessors were part of the Court hearing and knew theCourt ruling. The assessor appears not to have learned from the experience and the Board allowssaid comparables to be entered into evidence for their consideration. This makes one wonder howmuch the Board really understands the process.

When technical evidence is presented and simple explanations are offered, the Boardsquestions often lead to the obvious conclusion that they do not understand one iota of the materialpresented. Two recent examples come from our experiences. One of our properties is restricted byCOMAR regulations in the placement of on-site water and sewage disposal systems. Said restrictionslimit available land for both utilities to a space 9-feet by 12-feet. When it was explained that a septic

tank is about 7-feet by 11-feet, and therefore the space would almost be totally occupied by said tankthereby precluding any space available for a well or the required two 10,000 square foot disposalareas, members of the Board failed to understand these simple facts or the regulations that governthese facts. They also failed to understand that two 10,000 square feet plots of land are not availablefor sewage disposal on a lot that is only 11,500 square feet in area. We know this because at leastone Board member in a later part of our presentation pointed to the small 9 by 12 available area andasked Why cant you build the systems right here? Still another Board member questioned ourcomparison of State provided comparable property values of properties ranging in size from 10,000 to31,000 square feet in size bracketing our 26,000 square foot parcel. We had equated all of theproperties to a common denominator square foot value. The Board president kept arguing that a largeparcel of say 100 acres (his words) would influence the square foot price radically. We agreed with

him trying to convince him that the comparisons being made were limited to properties of size equato the subject. He never did understand. We feel that a more diversified Board would be likely toexplain such matters during their deliberations or if they had a technical advisor assigned to assistthem in their decision making process.

Similarly, when we questioned our assessment values of $50/square foot and the Statesinability to show one comparable sale of that value no one seemed to understand that fact, butblithely accepted the authority figure assessors statement that thats what we think its worth. Inother words, dont confuse us with facts.


15/45

15

The Legislature is responsible for oversight of the Department of Assessments andTaxation. However, we have seen no indication that such oversight is or ever has been conductedThe system has only been significantly updated once since inception of the current system in 1977.Although the update was performed by the successful bidder after a public bidding; there apparentlywas no taxpayer involvement in any system review or input. No transparency exists and theLegislature is ill equipped or even prone to spend the time or effort to provide any check or even take

the time to investigate the myriads of reports of mismanagement, errors, and taxpayer dissatisfactionsuch as are touched upon herein. With assessments constantly increasing but property valuesactually decreasing without tax rates proportionally being reduced to adhere to the constant yieldtheory, the taxpayer is left without recourse. Senior citizens on fixed incomes are sometimes beingforced to sell old, long held family homesteads because of their inability to meet tax obligations.

A well-defined, highly qualified, technical advisory committee should beimpaneled to annually review the assessment regulations, procedures, methodology, andquality control of the system and assessment department personnel. We urge the legislatureto place this type of tax overview and relief in place.

THE SALES VERSUS ASSESSMENT VALUE DEBACLE

As part of the argument for the use of a sales based assessment system, we offer asampling of ten properties in each of Marylands 24 jurisdictions to show the disparity andunfairness of assessments resulting in a major loss of assessable base affecting tax ratestaxes, and revenues. Note that if all properties were assessed at their sale price, i.e. the actuafair market value if the willing buyer, willing seller concept applies, millions of dollars could beadded to the assessable tax base of each jurisdiction. Doing so would enable saidjurisdictions to lower their respective tax rates, most individual taxes, while maintaining, or ifthey so elect, increasing actual revenues.

SDAT will undoubtedly argue that some of the differences in sales values versus assessed

values are attributable to the phasing in of assessments over a three year period or preferential landtreatment. When one looks at some of the names of the beneficiaries of these assessments whichare significantly lower than the sales price, it could be argued that owner preferential treatment alsooccurred. That fact will vigorously be denied by SDAT. The important fact remains that no matterwhat the reasoning; a significant loss of at least two years of this assessable base is gone forever.

In the tabulation that follows, ten properties were randomly selected from SDATs 2012Internet website property listings in each of the States 24 jurisdictions. These 240 properties wereselected from a total of about 10,600 properties listed in the cited 2012 SDAT sales. Therefore, inthis random 2.3% sampling, these 240 properties produced a grand total of $48,453,263 inpotential lost assessable base. Extrapolating these figures of an average of $201,888 per sample

property and assuming only 1% of the States 2,138,648 residential assessed properties reported inSpecPrints list, are under assessed, then at least $4,317,576,768 in assessable base is not beingrecorded. Think of the effect of incorporating this additional assessable base into the system and itspotential effect of lowering tax rates, most individuals taxes, and not losing any current revenues.TRULY, A WIN-WIN SITUATION.

The sample properties follow for each of Marylands 24 jurisdictions.


16/45

16

ALLEGANY COUNTY

Property Address Sales Price Assessed Value Lost$ $ Assessable

Base $

338 Barnard Street 192,500 157,900 34,60012118 Cash Valley Road 145,500 108,000 37,50011207 Dehaven Road 180,000 161,800 18,200115 Kelley Avenue 149,000 132,000 17,00019014 Kerr Road 215,000 183,700 31,300609 N. Fourth Street 142,000 117,200 24,80010328 Shortest Day Road 245,000 129,600 115,40014514 Valley Road 247,000 175,300 71,70014706 Viewcrest Road 189,000 187,600 1,400160 W. Main Street 133,000 112,280 20,270

Totals 1,838,000 1,465,380 372,170

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 150records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is about 6.69% ofthe total sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 40,797 Public Release Datarecords for Allegany County on their February 20, 2012 website. Complete SpecPrint listings areattached.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 40,797 records or408 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $37,217 underassessment indicated it

is highly probable that Allegany County could be losing at least $15,184,536 in assessable base eachyear! Do the math in each of the following jurisdictions to see what the actual totaconditions might be

ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY


Base $49 Bay Drive 2,750,000 2,046,000 704,000115 Bay Drive 2,875,000 2,133,800 741,200

814 Broadwater Way 1,600,000 1,366,700 233,3004188 Cadle Creek Road 1,125,000 1,062,600 62,40028 Eastern Avenue 1,267,500 851,600 415,900202 Prince George Street 1,300,000 848,300 451,700238 Riverside Road 2,085,000 1,405,100 679,900314 Riverview Avenue 1,500,000 725,200 774,80028 Spa View Circle 2,050,000 1,949,000 101,000238 Westwood Road 4,850,000 4,202,200 647,800

Totals 21,402,500 16,590,500 4,812,000


17/45

17

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced 1868records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 0.5% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 195,488 Public Release Datarecords for Anne Arundel County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that if this 0.5% ratio prevails throughout the Countys195,488 records then 9,774 properties are similarly assessed. With the average of $481,200underassessment indicated it is highly probable that Anne Arundel County could be losing at least$4,703,248,800 in assessable base each year!

BALTIMORE CITY


Base $

1023 S. Curley Street 1,030,000 448,900 581,000801 Key Highway #712 1,598,000 938,000 660,000801 Key Highway #715 1,898,000 840,000 1,058,000801 Key Highway #773 1,823,000 1,189,333 633,667801 Key Highway #792 1,348,000 756,667 591,333801 Key Highway #795 1,475,000 450,000 1,025,000801 Key Highway #811 998,000 842,800 155,200801 Key Highway #854 725,000 602,000 123,000801 Key Highway # 869,870 & 871 2,189,600 1,803,200 386,4002607 Moorings Court 1,170,018 832,200 337,818

Totals 14,254,618 8,703,100 5,551,518

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced 164records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 6.1% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 233,350 Public Release Datarecords for Baltimore City on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Citys assessable base conditionsthen it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Citys 233,350 records or 23,335properties are similarly assessed; with the average of $555,161 underassessment indicated it is

highly probable that Baltimore City could be losing at least $1,295,724,768 in assessable base eachyear!

BALTIMORE COUNTY


Base $

6502 Abbey View Way 1,274,958 778,800 503,158


18/45

18

28 Caveswood Lane 1,550,000 725,700 824,3004021 Hess Road 2,200,000 509,800 1,690,200800 Hillstead Drive 1,750,000 1,507,600 242,40012413 Hunters Glen 2,200,000 2,144,300 55,700119 Hunts Bluff 945,000 684,800 260,20020 Ivy Reach Court 1,995,000 1,674,000 321,000

6 Meadow Road 1,700,000 1,341,800 358,2001010 Monaghan Court 1,475,000 1,227,500 247,500706 Race Road 1,240,000 862,800 377,200

Totals 16,329,958 11,457,100 4,872,858

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 1820records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 0.5% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 285,517 Public Release Datarecords for Baltimore County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that if this 0.5% ratio prevails throughout the Countys285,517 records, then 14,276 properties are similarly assessed.; with the average of $487,286underassessment indicated it is highly probable that Baltimore County could be losing at least$621,779,936 in assessable base each year!

CALVERT COUNTY


Base $

3339 Cannoncade Court 525,000 393,600 131,400277 Cove Drive 601,000 446,100 154,9006918 Donau Court 426,636 364,000 62,6363713 Grace Street 485,000 458,500 26,5003181 Lawrin Court 456,443 434,800 21,6431915 Matapeake Court 440,000 399,400 40,6007134 Old Bayside Road 870,000 418,700 451,3002765 Spout Lane 969,900 727,600 242,30012017 Steven Lane 599,900 551,200 48,7008615 Thornberry Court 425,000 375,500 49,500

Totals 5,798,879 4,569,400 1,229,479

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 148records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 6.89% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 39,804 Public Release Datarecords for Calvert County on their February 20, 2012 website.


19/45

19

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 39,804 records or398 properties are similarly assessed, then with the average of $122,948 underassessment indicatedit is highly probable that Calvert County could be losing at least $48,933,304 in assessable base eachyear!

CAROLINE COUNTY


Base $

Castle Hall Road 645,000 185,600 459,40015375 Church Lane 269,900 230,300 39,6007904 Clark Road 731,051 477,800 253,25115237 Day Road 334,000 136,500 197,5007439 Dion Road 750,000 275,600 474,400

24652 Long Branch Drive 300,000 280,100 19,90021438 Marsh Creek Road 550,000 274,000 276,00017799 Melville Road 275,000 235,600 39,40023581 Thawley Road 325,000 296,200 28,80024696 Tribbett Circle 278,000 241,400 36,600

Totals 4,457,951 2,633,100 1,824,851

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced 84 recordsfrom which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 11.9% of the totasample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased the MarylandSDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 15,640 Public Release Data records for

Caroline County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 15,640 records or156 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $182,485 underassessment indicatedit is highly probable that Caroline County could be losing at least $28,467,660 in assessable baseeach year!

CARROLL COUNTY

Property Address Sales Price Assessed Value Lost

$ $ AssessableBase $

2222 Cherokee Drive 499,000 474,700 24,3002227 Cherokee Drive 515,000 467,300 47,700385 Chisled Stone Road 499,900 426,900 73,7006823 Fox Sedge Court 480,000 466,800 13,2005553 Livesay Drive 660,000 591,600 68,4007307 Morgan Road 615,000 596,600 18,400881 Moss Creek Drive 560,000 482,700 77,300


20/45

20

3220 Sidetracked Drive 745,000 625,600 119,4006280 Quadratic Drive 584,500 525,600 58,9002407 West Liberty Road 850,000 445,300 404,700

Totals 6,008,400 5,103,100 905,300

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced 476records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 2.1% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 63,341 Public Release Datarecords for Carroll County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 63,341 records or633 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $90,530 underassessment indicated itis highly probable that Carroll County could be losing at least $57,305,490 in assessable base eachyear!

CECIL COUNTY


Base $

152 Antego Drive 438,773 387,000 51,77315 Autumn Woods Drive 440,000 375,000 65,000533 Claiborne Road 414,734 349,900 69,834589 Claiborne Road 406,180 293,500 112,68038 Duck Hollow Lane 650,000 605,400 44,600

Geralds Way 405,000 300,700 104,30050 Rhodes Mountain Drive 468,020 409,900 58,12074 Rhodes Mountain Drive 441,775 390,400 51,3753193 Telegraph Road 460,000 331,400 128,600394 Walnut Lane 520,000 468,300 53,700

Totals 4,644,482 3,911,500 732,982

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 146records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 6.8% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased the

Maryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 44,315 Public Release Datarecords for Cecil County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 44,315 records or443 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $73,298 underassessment indicated itis highly probable that Cecil County could be losing about $32,471,014 in assessable base eachyear!


21/45

21

CHARLES COUNTY


Base $

503 Clarks Run Road 332,000 300,200 31,8001209 East Patuxent Drive 326,000 296,500 29,5005575 Fish Hawk Court 514,820 479,600 35,2206215 Hampstead Court 505,000 469,400 35,60016956 Rivers Beach Lane 439,900 350,500 89,4009392 Stonestreet Road 747,287 588,200 159,0877423 Vision Court 475,000 429,200 45,8003016 Wildflower Drive 426,080 378,900 47,180203 Williamsburg Circle 363,000 358,200 4,80011910 Winged Foot Court 367,740 344,700 23,040

Totals 4,496,827 3,995,400 501,427

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 486records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 2.1% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 55,221 Public Release datarecords for Charles County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 55,221 records or552 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $50,143 underassessment indicated itis highly probable that Charles County could be losing at least $27,678,936 in assessable base each

year!

DORCHESTER COUNTY


Base $

15 Bayview Drive 325,000 291,500 33,5001 Court Lane 455,000 325,000 130,0001612 Deep Point Road 475,000 332,600 142,400

1009 Hambrooks Boulevard 350,000 329,900 20,10015 Hatsawap Road 340,000 292,600 47,4005946 Horns Point Road 780,000 599,200 180,8005947 Horns Point Road 579,000 486,100 92,600Lewis Road 350,000 119,700 230,30015 Manito Drive 670,000 658,300 11,70015 Railroad Avenue 350,000 306,100 43,900

Totals 4,674,000 3,740,000 934,000


22/45

22

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 84records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 11.9% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 19,929 Public Release Datarecords for Dorchester County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 19,929 records or199 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $93,400 underassessment indicated itis highly probable that Dorchester County could be losing at least $18,586,600 in assessable baseeach year!

FREDERICK COUNTY


Base $

9132 Belvedere Drive 660,000 539,200 120,8004005 Belvedere Lane 525,000 459,400 65,6004131 Brushfield Drive 435,000 421,700 13,3006826 Cherry Tree Court 460,000 358,100 101,9005204 Fairgreene Way 617,500 518,000 99,50011664 Fairmount Place 530,000 487,000 43,00011113 Innsbrook Way 505,000 412,700 92,3004022 Lomar Drive 450,000 434,700 15,30010406 Regina Court 515,000 368,800 146,2009100 Whitmore Lane 700,000 538,500 161,500

Totals 5,397,500 4,538,100 859,400

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 812records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 1.2% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 86,085 Public Release Datarecords for Frederick County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 86,085 records or861 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $85,940 underassessment indicated it

is highly probable that Frederick County could be losing at least $73,994,340 in assessable baseeach year!


23/45

23

GARRETT COUNTY


Base $

553 Garretts Road 800,000 304,400 495,6001297 Harvey Peninsula Road 695,000 660,000 35,0001931 Lake Shore Drive 1,849,000 1,053,500 795,500187 Markwood Drive 610,000 575,600 34,4002359 Paradise Point Road 1,325,000 1,178,470 146,530865 Penn Point Road 698,000 572,900 125,100106 Red Brush Drive 522,000 475,900 46,1001929 Rock Lodge Road 660,000 574,000 86,000185 Ruta Lane 557,000 504,300 53,5003415 Turkey Point Road 870,000 794,500 75,500

Totals 13,284,000 6,693,570 6,590,430

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 140records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 7.1% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 27,366 Public Release Datarecords for Garrett County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 27,366 records or274 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $659,043 underassessment indicatedit is highly probable that Garrett County could be losing at least $180,577,780 in assessable base

each year!

HARFORD COUNTY


Base $

1603 Copper Gate Court 620,000 564,300 55,700100 Deputed Testamony Place 415,000 359,600 55,400611 Edinshall Trail 425,000 357,800 67,200

1407 Hidden Valley Court 590,000 513,700 76,3001944 Medallion Court 438,000 372,600 65,4001016 Milchling Drive 415,000 354,600 60,4002501 Putnam Road 446,000 364,800 81,2001160 Sparrow Mill Way 629,900 567,900 62,000402 Teresa Marie Court 545,000 469,800 75,2001014 Young Avenue 443,500 392,900 50,600

Totals 4,967,400 4,318,000 649,400


24/45

24

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced 764records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 1.3% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 88,753 Public Release Datarecords for Harford County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 88,753 records or888 properties are similarly assessed; with the average of $64,940 underassessment indicated it ishighly probable that Harford County could be losing at least $57,666,720 in assessable base eachyear!

HOWARD COUNTY


Base $

3788 Church Road 510,000 424,000 86,0005154 Good Memory Lane 615,185 576,100 39,08513779 Lakeside Drive 1,462,500 1,021,400 441,1006199 Lawyers Hill Road 550,000 377,600 172,4002950 New Rover Road 825,000 794,700 30,3006517 Ocean Shore Lane 775,000 679,000 96,00012355 Pleasant View Drive 800,000 715,600 84,4009705 Starling Road 590,000 535,600 54,40013609 West Gilbride Lane 1,700,000 1,191,900 508,1003950 West White Rose Way 1,867,500 1,345,700 521,800

Totals 9,695,185 7,661,600 2,033,585

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 812records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 1.2% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 92,131 Public Release Datarecords for Howard County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 92,131 records or921 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $203,359 underassessment indicatedit is highly probable that Howard County could be losing about $187,293,639 in assessable base

each year!

KENT COUNTY


Base $

11925 Chesterville Road 1,696,590 258,500 1,438,09022430 Creekwood Terrace 650,000 545,800 104,200


25/45

25

13131 Davis Road 1,700,000 266,700 1,433,30013950 Eagles Nest Farm Lane 650,000 329,400 320,60031285 Georgetown Cemetery Road 2,224,235 874,500 1,349,73511128 Green Cove Drive 1,625,000 1,115,600 510,00014010 Hilltop Road 825,000 571,400 253,60012334 Kennedyville Road 2,175,000 314,300 1,860,700

8719 Park Drive 675,000 645,700 29,30012855 Scotts Lane 950,000 661,300 288,700

Totals 13,170,825 5,583,200 7,587,625

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 72records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 13.9% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 12,753 Public Release Datarecords for Kent County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 12,753 records or128 properties are similarly assessed; with the average of $758,763 underassessment indicated it ishighly probable that Kent County could be losing at least $97,121,664 in assessable base eachyear!

MONTGOMERY COUNTY


Base $

14304 Brass Wheel Road 620,000 561,500 58,5004109 Everett Street 785,000 732,600 52,40013320 Foxden Drive 775,000 728,100 46,9008231 Inverness Hollow Terrace 732,000 696,100 35,900336 Oak Knoll Drive 850,000 832,600 17,4005150 Massachusetts Avenue 810,000 765,000 45,0009101 Sligo Creek Parkway 785,000 715,300 69,7004612 Sunflower Drive 635,000 514,400 120,60011407 Swains Creek Court 1,628,000 1,407,800 220,200307 Tschiffely Square Road 799,000 726,700 70,300

Totals 8,419,000 7,680,100 738,900

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 572records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 1.7% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 311,745 Public Release Datarecords for Montgomery County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 311,745 records o


26/45

26

3,117 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $73,890 underassessment indicatedit is highly probable that Montgomery County could be losing at least $230,315,130 in assessablebase each year!

PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY


Base $1723 Albert Drive 312,500 248,400 64,1004016 Danville Drive 375,000 289,700 85,30014414 Dolbrook Lane 290,000 277,600 12,4001607 Fairlakes Place 265,000 252,700 12,3007811 Jacobs Drive 250,000 206,500 43,500408 Jones Falls Court 320,000 303,300 16,70012702 Knowledge Lane 260,000 201,000 59,0009909 Pitman Avenue 300,000 265,300 34,700

3046 Powder Mill Road 350,000 315,700 34,300707 Yarrow Court 376,990 358,660 18,390

Totals 3,099,490 2,718,860 380,630

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 332records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 3.0% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 265,801 Public Release Datarecords for Prince Georges County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable base

conditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 265,801 records o2,658 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $38,063 underassessment indicatedit is highly probable that Prince Georges County could be losing at least $101,171,454 in assessablebase each year!

QUEEN ANNES COUNTY


Base $1606 Calvert Road 580,000 369,800 ` 210,200

236 Evelyne Street 552,250 517,200 35,050240 Evelyne Street 576,784 510,500 6,28417 Greenwood Shoals 580,000 449,600 130,400281 Harvest Court 785,000 778,000 7,000322 Keene Farm Lane 1,700,000 1,694,400 5,600408 Macum Creek Drive 595,000 480,500 134,500214 Mattapex Plantation Lane 2,775,000 2,682,500 92,5001560 Price Station Road 1,030,000 138,200 891,800481 Willow Branch Road 560,000 520,300 39,700Totals 9,734,034 8,191,000 1,543,034


27/45

27

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 144records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 6.9% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 23,766 Public Release Datarecords for Queen Annes County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 23,766 records or238 properties are similarly assessed then with the average of $154,303 underassessment indicatedit is highly probable that Queen Annes County could be losing at least $36,724,114 in assessablebase each year!

SAINT MARYS COUNTY


Base $

49700 Airedele Road 454,000 427,000 27,00024441 Bateman Court 410,000 396,000 14,00023564 Belmar Drive 430,000 378,300 51,70039814 Claires Drive 421,534 402,900 18,63447935 Fordwick Way 415,000 361,500 53,50021822 Hazeltine Court 445,000 419,200 25,80026283 Jesse Jane Place 403,000 334,900 68,10025080 McIntosh Road 451,000 430,600 20,40041415 West Citation Street 407,000 333,600 73,40017651 Whitestone Drive 519,900 475,000 44,900

Totals 4,356,434 3,959,000 397,434

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 284records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 3.5% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 42,392 Public Release Datarecords for Saint Marys County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 42,392 records or424 properties are similarly assessed then with the average of $39,743 underassessment indicated it

is highly probable that Saint Marys County could be losing at least $16,851,032 in assessable baseeach year!


28/45

28

SOMERSET COUNTY


Base $20971 Caleb Jones Road 230,000 86,300 143,700

13152 Hop Fisher Lane 219,000 163,200 55,80031700 Mitchell Road 885,000 304,400 580,60012300 Palmetto Church Road 1,500,000 744,300 755,70032739 Peach Orchard Road 860,000 489,400 370,6007510 Pocomoke River Road 229,000 205,900 23,10013441 Pruitt Lane 365,000 311,500 53,50010860 Stewart Neck Road 265,000 212,600 52,40027074 St. Peters Church Road 232,000 153,400 78,60032715 West Post Office Road 260,000 70,600 189,400

Totals 5,045,000 2,741,600 2,303,400

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 72records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 13.9% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 16,167 Public Release Datarecords for Somerset County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 16,167 records or162 properties are similarly assessed. With the average of $230,340 underassessment indicated it ishighly probable that Somerset County could be losing at least $37,315,080 in assessable base eachyear!

TALBOT COUNTY


Base $

8990 Bozman Neavitt Road 2,078,300 2,054,100 24,50026890 Double Mills Road 6,000,000 5,867,400 132,60010640 Hiners Lane 350,000 341,800 8,2001961 Ocean Gateway 370,000 331,900 38,100

28719 Outram Street 525,000 471,400 53,6009213 Rockcliff Drive 400,000 343,200 56,800407 S. Aurora Street 310,000 200,000 110,0008678 Spur Lane 443,500 437,000 6,00027638 Villa Road 1,687,500 1,348,800 338,700609 S. Washington Street 495,000 452,300 42,700

Totals 12,659,300 11,847,900 811,400


29/45

29

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced 142records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 7.0% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 19,700 Public Release Datarecords for Talbot County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 19,700 records or197 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $81,400 underassessment indicated itis highly probable that Talbot County could be losing at least $15,984,580 in assessable base eachyear!

WASHINGTON COUNTY


Base $

13019 Cathedral Avenue 310,000 281,200 28,80022330 Durberry Road 284,000 271,500 12,50019238 Jamestown Drive 315,000 303,000 12,00012019 Kemps Mill Road 900,000 457,900 442,100National Pike 425,000 118,100 306,9009750 Old National Pike 750,000 353,700 396,30012435 Pleasant Valley Road 450,000 194,600 255,40010110 Roulette Drive 421,640 389,400 32,24018103 Westbury Court 297,450 260,400 37,0509008 Wildberry Court 620,000 590,700 29,300

Totals 4,773,090 3,220,500 1,552,590

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 284records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 3.5% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 55,404 Public Release Datarecords for Washington County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 55,404 records or554 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $155,259 underassessment indicated

it is highly probable that Washington County could be losing about $86,013,486 in assessable baseeach year!

WICOMICO COUNTY


Base $215 N. Clairmont Drive 220,000 164,500 55,50025323 fairway Drive 228,000 175,300 52,700


30/45

30

34377 Fox Hound Court 250,000 242,900 7.10027206 Loch Lomond Court 319,000 269,100 49,9008574 Middlesex Drive 225,000 160,700 64,3005928 Morgans Way 340,000 234,100 105,9003805 Old Post Road 344,500 255,400 89,100405 Pinehurst Avenue 273,000 190,900 82,100

617 Ridge Road 362,500 350,600 11,9006284 Strawberry Way 298,800 233,300 65,000

Totals 2,860,800 2,276,800 584,000

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced 236records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 4.2% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 43,392 Public Release Datarecords for Wicomico County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 43,392 records or434 properties are similarly assessed; then with the average of $58,400 underassessment indicated itis highly probable that Wicomico County could be losing at least $25,345,600 in assessable baseeach year!

WORCESTOR COUNTY


Base $

6305 Atlantic Avenue 1,067,000 850,000 217,000526 Cedar Hall Road 350,000 265,600 84,40011500 Coastal Highway 335,000 284,100 50,9004601B Coastal Highway 405,000 373,000 32,00013 Clubhouse Drive 325,000 288,700 36,3009823 Golf Course Road 302,500 240,000 62,50022 Windward Court 430,000 377,000 53,000121 70th Street 308,500 305,000 3,500121 81st Street 699,000 697,000 2,0002 48th Street 745,000 602,200 142,800

Totals 4,967,000 4,282,600 684,400

SDAT 2012 sales records for improved, arms length, residential property produced about 476records from which these 10 properties were randomly selected and tabulated. This is 2.1% of thetotal sample available for these parameters. SpecPrint, a private firm, that has purchased theMaryland SDAT assessment records for sale and redistribution reports 59,791 Public Release Datarecords for Worcestor County on their February 20, 2012 website.

IF these figures even remotely represent the status of the Countys assessable baseconditions, then it can logically be projected that even if only 1% of the Countys 59,791 records or


31/45

31

598 properties are similarly assessed; with the average of $68,440 underassessment indicated it ishighly probable that Worcestor County could be losing at least $40,927,120 in assessable base eachyear!

PAST LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS

FORMER SB 395, 458, 498 & HB 204 & 881 Task Force to Review Property Tax AssessmentProcedure and the Tax Assessment Appeals Process

This bill has been submitted numerous times over the past eight years without ever beingallowed out of committee. Somehow, we have to convince the public and our legislators that there isnothing to fear, that the cost of this study by a truly interested group of volunteers looking to solve agrowing problem can only lead to the production of valid ideas that will benefit both the State and itstaxpayers. It is a type of reform and maybe the word Reform or the idea of reforming the flawedsystem needs to be introduced. In the years that this measure has been introduced the onlyarguments against this study ever presented by the Department of Assessments and Taxation(SDAT) and its lobbyist have been (1) size of committee, (2) time it would take to call the committee

roll, (3) SDAT is doing a wonderful job and the study is unnecessary and (4) the Committee is largerthan the Mandel Commission. Not once have we heard that it would be counterproductive or not likelyto produce positive results. That being the case, why oppose it and what are they afraid of ???? Howcan we sell the fact that the SDAT has not offered any real negative arguments?

Changes must be made to give the next version some new material, ideas, approach, andappeal. It is a difficult and dry subject to try to sell but somehow we need to convince the legislatureand the public that it is in everyones best interest to study this situation and come up with amethodology of deriving assessments that are automatic, consistent with current fair market value,equal, fair, without personal subjectivity, uniform, and unbiased. We have repeatedly offeredcomments which may help change some thoughts and wording enough to generate a new look andprovide interest to our most supportive Harford County delegation and other legislators who should be

invited to co-sponsor. In the past, we have had the support of Delegates Dwyer, Fisher, Smigiel,Stein, Stocksdale, Szelgia, Kach as well as Senators Pipkin and Peters. We need to convince othersto step up to the plate for Marylands taxpayers to address this issue.

The committee size having one member of SDAT and one citizen from each of the 24 statejurisdictions insures statewide as well as bipartisan representation with a number of the specificdisciplines required assures good diversification for an excellent potentia

The Case for Maryland's Property Assessment and Tax Reform

Documents

Transcript of The Case for Maryland's Property Assessment and Tax Reform