Monday, May 29th

Last updateThu, 25 May 2017 11am

You are here: Home Entertainment Recent Sales Data Shows That Ryan Model is Closer to Market Value than Tyler
first
  
last
 
 
start
stop
first
  
last
 
 
start
stop

Recent Sales Data Shows That Ryan Model is Closer to Market Value than Tyler

Ihome-valuest appears that critics who excoriated Scarsdale Village Trustees and Village Managers about the results of a 2016 real estate tax revaluation may have protested too much. A group led by Mayra Kirkendall-Rodriguez called the Scarsdale Committee for Fair Assessments claimed that the 2016 revaluation shifted the tax burden from the larger estate-like properties to Scarsdale's more modest homes. They spent months building their case and ultimately filed a lawsuit – called an Article 78 – against the Village, asking them to void the "flawed" revaluation or pay reparations to petitioners.

However an analysis of recent sales data from the Village shows that this second revaluation – called the "Ryan" revaluation for the man who built the model, yielded assessments that are actually closer to market value than the previous model built by Tyler Technologies for the 2014 and 2015 tax rolls.  This report confirms an analysis posted on Scarsdale10583 in October that showed that assessments were in line with 2016 sale prices.

Brian Nottage, a Scarsdale resident who holds a PhD in economics and works in commercial real estate asset management analyzed 185 sales* from January 1, 2016 to February 21, 2017 and found that both models under-assessed the value of Scarsdale homes but overall, the Ryan numbers were closer to market value than the Tyler values.

Using data from the Assessor's office during the period, Nottage compared sales prices to 2015 and 2016 assessed values. After analyzing the data, Nottage said, "Bottom line, both the Tyler and Ryan rolls have underassessment for the Village overall and that rises by price tier. However whether looking at average error, average absolute error or R-square, Ryan is considerably more accurate at each price tier."

The data shows that overall Ryan's R-Square value or correlation co-efficient is 96% as compared to the Tyler model that yields an 85% value. The analysis also shows that homes valued at between $500,000 to $1,000,000 were assessed at closest to market value, disproving the notion that owners of more modestly priced homes were over-assessed to make up for decreases for the wealthiest homeowners.assessments

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is true that Ryan's reval under-assessed homes priced at $2 million and above but homes in other price ranges were also equally under-assessed. See the summary chart here and view the entire analysis here.

The petitioners also claimed that the NYS equalization rate applied to the 2016 revaluation proved how far off it was from actual market value. However, if Scarsdale had instead stuck with the Tyler assessments, the state would have also had to apply an equalization rate to Scarsdale.

We asked Scarsdale Assessor Nanette Albanese to explain and she said, "Market conditions after the 2014 revaluation were showing that those assessments were not reflective of subsequent sales (that will always be the case and is another reason that assessments need to continually be updated using a new sales base.) As such, we expected that the 'overall' appreciating market conditions (not for the high-end, however) would cause a calculated 2016 equalization rate below 100%. This was one of the various factors that was considered when making the decision to perform revaluation in 2016."

*Note: 87 sales were excluded as they were properties with "condition codes" that might make them non-arms length, vacant land or commercial properties or ones that had been renovated post-Tyler.

scattercharts

Comments   

+4 #68 Phil Maresco 2017-03-16 17:58
Compromise is the best way to solve the current disastrous situation the Ryan revaluation has put our Village into. Compromise can only be reached through honest and open communication. Please ask our Trustees to engage in an honest and open effort to solve the problems Ryan has put us through and not to avoid confronting them squarely by seeking a dismissal on technicalities. Restore trust- don't demonized those who saw the inequities of Ryan's methodology. It really sounds like "alternative- facts" to say his work wasn't that bad after all -at this point. If that's true then let the Village and the Assessor defend it before an unbiased Judge in the Article 78 action. Prove it. Get out and vote on Tuesday! Vote for those you believe can lead towards healing the wounds from Ryan. We need the cure not extra strength, hide the pain medicine.
Quote
-3 #67 Fairand Balanced 2017-03-15 20:04
Is there a reason Ms. Wallenstein that you did not mention that Nottage is a member of the Citizens' Nominating Commitee which selects the Citizen Non-Partisan Party candidates? Why did you leave out that his assessment declined by 9%? He and you should have disclosed all this information to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Quoting To FairAndBalanced:
Not a single word of your comment has any relevance to the conversation. Who cares that the data was shown two weeks before the election? It sounds like you agree with the findings and just want to change the subject.
Quote
-4 #66 Josh Frankel 2017-03-15 14:13
So, Mr. Nottage is a member of the Citizens Nominating Committee.

Wow.
Quote
+10 #65 Data 2017-03-13 09:58
Lee
Both the 2016 tentative and current roll were provided in this data set. Only 16 of the 185 sales used in the analysis had a change as a result of an appeal. Even if you use all pre appeal 2016 values, the conclusion is unchanged.
Quote
+5 #64 Good point 2017-03-12 15:06
Lee makes an important point.

One should not conclude that Ryan did a good job by any means. Nor should the assessor's office be off the hook.

One should ONLY conclude from this analysis that the Village is better off not rolling back the assessments at this point.
Quote
+6 #63 Lee Fischman 2017-03-12 13:20
Brian,

As a fellow member of the Forum reval committee, I thank you for your analysis. It is useful for certain conclusions, such as whether the Village should be compelled to roll back the tax rolls.

I am however concerned that the analysis is being taken out of context. and specifically that Joanne did not provide more specifics about your analysis, such as that the values taken were post-appeal, at added cost to residents. This analysis says nothing about the quality of Ryan's work. In fact, we generally understand that his underlying "square root" model probably badly biased the initial results. We also suspect that he may have manipulated those results using the construction grade setting, in an effort to re-balance answers towards more reasonable values.

Joanne, I call on you to kindly update your editorial with additional facts revealed in this long thread, to provide greater context to Brian's findings.
Quote
+2 #62 Data 2017-03-11 18:00
Jane, Excluding the Morris sale would make Ryan look worse because Tyler has a ridiculously unfair value on it. Keeping the Morris sale but at the 2016 tentative roll amount would be the best, since it would capture Tyler's ridiculousness but not give the 2016 roll all the credit Brian gave it. I think you would agree with this approach.

But as it turns out, it looks like even if you use JUST 2016 tentative values for all homes (and take the grievance question out altogether), the analysis is relatively unchanged: 2016 tentative values are also far more correlated to sales than 2015 final values.
Quote
+3 #61 Jane Curley 2017-03-11 16:42
Quoting Data:
Jane, do you agree?

Quoting Data:
Jane, perhaps using the "tentative" 2016 value for the six transactions you are referring to makes more sense than dropping them totally from the analysis. I didn't look closely at what overall impact this would have but I noticed one stand out: 2 Morris Lane (sold for 2.7m, 2015 = 5.3m, 2016 tentative = 3.2m, 2016 current = 2.7m). Your logic would exclude it, which would make Tyler look better. But there is really no reason to exclude it totally. If anything, just use Ryan's tentative value.


Hi, I didn't respond to this earlier because you can only respond to one post within a certai. Time period.

Excluding the Morris sale would make Ryan look worse because right now this analysis assumes that Ryan assessed several homes perfectly at their exact sale prices when, in fact he assessed them at the values on the tentative roll.

I don't even recall how Tyler valued Morris, so I am not sure whether removing it would help or Tyler's performance, but I assume you are correct.

Just using the tentative role for 2016 to evaluate Ryan and using a final roll to evaluate Tyler would not be apples to apples and arguably unfair Ryan, although I am not sure any analysis that is comparing two sets of assessment from different time periods would ever be appropriate. But you could possible figure something out that would give a reliable indication of which roll is closer to the current market. However, this analysis does not do that.

This analysis is biased, not because some of the data may be questionable or because the excluded sales were not researched (that is a reasonable simplification) . It's biased because including the sales of properties that were grieved based on actual sale prices should not have been included .I don't know for sure exactly how many there were, but I am GUESSING six. But there were certainly some, and they seem to have a material impact.

I see the publisher of this blog has doubled down and despite the questions and comments here, posted an opinion piece (like, they aren't all opinion pieces) refering to this analysis as some kind of "proof." So I am going to try very hard to restrain myself from reading this site or posting anything here. It's just too annnoying.

Sorry for not responding to your interesting question earlier. I was busy handing out flyers to residents of Hamilton Road, reminding them that they are all overassessed by $100k relative to owners of property on Nelson Road. I wonder what most of them think of the claims that the Ryan assessment roll is fine.
Quote
+3 #60 Ryan 2017-03-11 16:25
Any Article 78 petitioner should be furious right now. Did the leaders of the petition share this data with you before asking for your money and signature?
Quote
-9 #59 Data 2017-03-11 11:22
Jane, do you agree?

Quoting Data:
Jane, perhaps using the "tentative" 2016 value for the six transactions you are referring to makes more sense than dropping them totally from the analysis. I didn't look closely at what overall impact this would have but I noticed one stand out: 2 Morris Lane (sold for 2.7m, 2015 = 5.3m, 2016 tentative = 3.2m, 2016 current = 2.7m). Your logic would exclude it, which would make Tyler look better. But there is really no reason to exclude it totally. If anything, just use Ryan's tentative value.
Quote

Add comment

first
  
last
 
 
start
stop