Conejos State Assessed Property

Profile Image for Dave B. Dave
  • Fri, May 15, 2009 1:55 PM

Hi Naomi...as was mentioned, we will be utilizing the collectivex group service to communicate data conversion requests with the jurisdication currently undergoing the conversion process, so here we go. Please also note that such group communications will NEVER include any confidential information!

 I am currently working on your State Assessed data utilizing the data file entitled "PRTFILE112769.txt". I would assume that all other counties can produce a similar State Assessed company report. In parsing this file for import, I noticed that Conejos County, like Costilla County, does your value allocation for State Assessed properties using the same parcel number across multiple tax districts. In our system, we will need to come up with a unique parcel number for each unique company/tax district combination.

For example, parcel 9937021 (TX021) is allocated across 5 tax districts; to work in our system, we will need to assign a unique parcel number to each of the 5 tax districts. For Costilla County, we simply created sequential numbers for the additional parcels, ensuring that the numbers being created did not conflict with any other parcel numbers already in use. Thus the new parcel numbers and tax districts for 9937021 would be as follows:

9937021     txd: 100

9937022     txd: 200

9937023     txd: 300

9937024     txd: 400

9937025     txd: 500.

 

Since the next parcel in sequence was 9937132, I was able to use consecutive numbers in the creation of the new parcel numbers. Once we get the numbers established, you will be able to print out a State Assessed Company report to review all such changes.

 

One more question regarding State Assessed properties...on parcel 9937455 in tax district 101, you have 2 distinct land lines with the same abstract code (8240 local use) with assessed values of 2,465 and 16,510, and two distinct "imp" lines under the same abstract code (8440 local use) with assessed values of 17,418 and 116,636. I just need to know if you would prefer to maintain this type of value split between like abstract codes, or if we could just combine the value under a single 8240 abstract for the land and an 8440 for the "imps"?

Please let us know if these are acceptable action items. If any other county has any other unusual State Assessed data storage devices, we would very much like to hear about them prior to beginning the conversion process on your county; such information can substantially reduce the data analysis required, and help us to ensure the integrity of your data in the conversion process!

Thanks!

Replies to this Topic

Profile Image for Naomi K. Naomi
  • Mon, May 18, 2009 8:43 AM

Dave,

I would prefer that we combine them.  There is no use creating separate schedule numbers.

Naomi

Post Reply

You must be logged in and a member of this Groupsite in order to post a reply to this topic.
To post a reply, contact your group manager(s)


Pueblo County Shared Services
Powered by Groupsite.com

Visibility Public Membership By Invitation Default Profile Professional

Your Status Not Logged-In