State Awards Grants to Counties to “Study”
Elimination of Town Assessors
Local Assessors Fight State Pressure
to “Consolidate”
Elected Assessors to be the First Victims of Spitzer Commission
The state government is applying pressure to eliminate local elected assessors, as a first step toward wiping out the office of town assessors and absorbing it into each county Office of Real Property Tax Services. Local elected assessors around New York State have gotten the picture and are up in arms.
For a number of years, taxpayers have been whipsawed by the State’s policy of giving grant incentives to local government to perform town-wide reassessments of properties at one-year or three-year intervals. This has almost no practical function, and is actually a source of inaccuracy in a falling market. But the practice has effectively served to keep the local assessors in the hot seat, as it has been impossible to do a systematic reassessment without raising many of the properties, while also dropping some.
The reaction in the town of Warrensburg in Warren County is typical of the ire directed at the assessor after one of the revaluations. The Adirondack Journal carried an article on March 22 entitled “Townspeople air anger over new assessments.” Journalist Thom Randall wrote:
“A standing room only crowd of town residents worried about their taxes confronted the Warrensburg Town Board March 12, venting their anger and frustration over their soaring property assessments.”
The article continued with a number of comments by property owners, with a general comment that seemed to show the “good guy” image of the town board officials vs. the “villain” image of the local assessor.
“After listening to the complaints, town board members unanimously agreed with the public they weren’t happy with the lack of fairness in many of the figures cited. During the lengthy meeting, Town Assessor Roger Langworthy tried to answer how he’d arrived at the new figures.”
Apparently, nobody got the picture. At the end of the article, a member of the public was noted to request that assessments be done annually because property values were declining. “You’re absolutely right,” Town Supervisor Kevin Geraghty responded.
In addition to the grant system to shorten the time frame between reassessments, the state has established an assessment policy that is not workable for any but the most uniform properties. The assessment method currently pushed by the state Office of Real Property Services is known as the “comparable sales” technique, which has been replacing the “replacement cost” technique. The comparable sales technique can only work when properties are extremely similar and are located in extremely similar situations, but, lacking statistically significant samples, assessors are forced to apply subjective judgement to use a minimal number of sample properties that have just a few similarities to the property being assessed. In rural areas, the method is almost impossible to apply with any rigor that is explicable to the taxpayer, and so, when complaints arise, the assessor is left pointing to irrelevant samples, such as a property in a dissimilar neighborhood or a house of double the size, rather than to a replacement cost calculation involving a piece by piece analysis of the construction. To add insult to injury, the taxpayer has no right to view the computer’s full selection of comparable sales, because these are considered the assessor’s work product, exempt from the state Freedom of Information Law or from access during assessment appeals.
The local implementation of the combustible combination of state policies of 100 percent assessments, the constant stream of reassessments, and the system of assessing by using comparable sales has put the assessors on the firing line.
News articles, written by reporters who have relatively little background knowledge of how property is taxed, routinely blame assessments for increased tax bills, when it is the fiscal mandates of New York State government passing increased costs such as Medicaid to localities, high local school budgets (where mandates are also a major factor), and local government itself that cause tax increases. Assessments distribute taxes, and do not increase taxes overall.
Assembly Member Blames High Taxes on Assessors
But you would not think this if you read a legislative bulletin from one Assembly member representing counties in northeastern New York. In her September newsletter, Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward (R - Willsboro, Essex County) appeared to blame increased assessments for increasing taxes. Her opening words were:
“In the last few years, home values have increased dramatically, resulting in sharply increased Real Property Taxes.”
In October, the Warren County Assessors Association sent a letter signed by their president Ann Deppe, the Town of Johnsburg Assessor, protesting the Assemblywoman’s newsletter:
“You state: ‘in the last few years home values have increased dramatically, resulting in sharply increased Real Property Taxes.’
“This is not true, increased tax levies increase taxes. Increased tax levies come from increases in school, town and county budgets as well as unfunded mandates and from other shifts from state to local support.”
The assessors’ group asked the Assemblywoman to retract her statement:
“To represent, as you have done, that increased values increase taxes sets back any effort Assessors have made to explain the tax system. Public officials should present a uniform and accurate set of facts to the public. Distorted and misleading statements about taxes serve only to undermine the efforts of assessors in explaining the tax system. This leads to distrust of assessors, and of the system as a whole. Our association, in its unanimous vote, appeal to you to correct the record.”
But the Assemblywoman beat around the bush in her reply to the county assessors’ association in October.
“I have been working for fair and equitable property tax reform since my days on the Essex County Board of Supervisors,” she pointed out. “…I state that there are many facets to the problem and that it will take extraordinary vision to bring about a successful solution.”
Most noteworthy, she did not retract the statements she had made in the newsletter.
“Learning that municipalities across the state do not have to follow the same assessment procedures leads to an assumption of unfairness by many taxpayers. Often this unfairness cannot be denied. It is up to the Legislature to reform the process by which public services and schools are funded.”
Closing her long letter, she seemed to waltz around her earlier assertions.
“It is my hope that property assessments will be deleted from the equation, or made a minor factor. The flyer my office recently sent to constituents in the 113th Assembly District in no way defames assessors or the work they accomplish.”
Remarks like those of Assemblywoman Sayward fit into what appears to be a campaign to discredit local assessors, making them an easy first target to be eliminated under the wave of consolidation being promoted within the legislature and the Administration.
Local Assessors under Multiple State Attacks
The state policies foisted on local assessors during recent years are working effectively to make it less pleasant and more time-consuming to hold these modestly compensated elective or appointive posts and, at times, to even make local assessors who toe the state line into villains. Contrary to the image cultivated by the state officials, local assessors are often motivated to hold the posts by a commitment of service to the community. Also contrary to stereotypes cultivated by the state, they are mainly very conscientious and take many training courses.
At one course attended by local assessors at the annual New York State Association of Towns convention at the New York Hilton in February, an official from the New York State Office of Real Property Services, which is known as ORPS, told the assessors that all elected local assessors, both single elected assessors and three-person boards, would be eliminated soon. One elected rural assessor in the meeting room commented outright, “I thought that I was doing a good job.”
The state’s goal of eliminating the local assessors became public during the fall of 2007 when the state announced a system of grants payable to the counties to study how local town, village and city assessment functions could be consolidated at the county level. The grants are offered by the New York State Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness and resulted from legislation supported by both parties in the legislature. In October, the Hamilton County News, briefly summarized the program:
“The NYS Centralized Property Tax Administration Program is providing $25,000 to develop a study for implementation of county assessing for all municipalities in the county. Another $25,000 will be awarded following presentation of the study to the Board of Supervisors and ORPS. Other incentives would be provided if the county implements either option.”
In February 2008, the Genesee County Assessor’s Association sent to the town and city council members a bulletin signed by local assessors of all thirteen towns; the single city, Batavia; and the director and deputy director of the Real Property Tax Services of Genesee County.
Pointing out that “Genesee County has been in the forefront of excellent assessment practices in New York State,” they stated:
“…Under the new proposal, everything moves to a ‘central location,’ basically the county seat, and if a town refuses to contract with the county, the county can pass a law to force the town/city assessor to follow the rules adopted by the county with the county overruling the town/city assessor on assessments. The new proposal would of course mean hiring staff at the county level on a full-time basis and losing the majority part-time town assessor.
“New York State has been a ‘home rule’ state since its inception. The governor’s proposed budget is a drastic change for our taxpayers. A thoughtful decision by our town/city county members is necessary to carefully balance the needs of constituents versus what is perceived to be ‘cost-saving’ by the State of New York.”
Writing in their January-February 2008 Bulletin, Lawrence Quinn, IAO, president of the New York State Assessors’ Association, responded directly to the state pressure to eliminate the local assessors and consolidate their functions at the county level:
“Much has been made, in recent months, over the advantages of county-wide assessment. There are a few individuals that believe assessments are a contributing factor, if not the primary cause, of run-away property taxes. There is a belief, among these few, that consolidation of the assessment function at the county level will somehow tame the ‘savage beast.’”
“The reality is that the assessor’s office usually constitutes one of the smallest portions of the local budget. The reality is that assessments are a reflection of the market place, something the assessor doesn’t control. The reality is that increases in taxes are a result of increases in the tax levy. The reality is much of the local tax burden can be traced back to unfunded state mandates. The reality is not too many people understand the assessment process, nor do they have an appreciation of the benefits of leaving the assessment process at the town/city/village level.”
Mr. Quinn noted that the assessors’ association was in the process of completing a comprehensive review and updating of their “prized publication, ‘Understanding Assessments and Property Taxes.’” He stated,
“At the same time that this updating was underway, the Office of Real Property Services (ORPS) and the Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness released a publication espousing the advantages of county-wide assessment. It is truly regrettable that the Commission saw fit to release such a one-sided publication even before they sat down to do what they were charged to do — study and then recommend.” (emphasis in original)
The state drive to eliminate the local assessors is part of a general movement to erase direct local voter control over government. One insidious change was enacted quietly in 2006 when the legislature inserted the words “or not subject to a referendum” in Article 3 of the Real Property Tax Law so that a city or town would not have to go to the voters when deciding to change from an elected assessor (either a three-person board or a single elected assessor) to a single appointed assessor. Previously, the local voters could petition the governing body if that body decided to change to an appointed assessor and the ultimate decision would be made by referendum in November.
The provision for the referendum protected the directly elected local assessors from having their offices abolished because of political interests of the members of the town board or city council. It helped keep the office of local assessor directly responsive to the people. This legislation promoting the sole assessor option was sponsored by Senator Elizabeth Little (R, Queensbury) and Assemblyman Charles Lavine (D, Glen Cove).
Another enactment by the legislature was to allow consolidated assessing districts under Article 16. This statute facilitates tying together assessment offices of several towns, creating a more powerful unit, to the detriment of the remaining towns in the taxing jurisdiction, such as the school district, thereby putting pressure on the remaining towns to bring their assessment into the consolidated district for protection.
The insidious Albany assault on the office of local assessor was dramatically crystallized in April 2007, as a result of former Governor Eliot Spitzer’s executive order establishing the Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness. One of the assumptions stated in the executive order was:
“…the sheer number of such taxing jurisdictions and their overlapping multi-layered nature cause public services to be excessively expensive, and provided in a manner that is inefficient and reduces the competitiveness of New York’s localities and the job and business opportunities for New Yorkers.”
The governor called the taxing jurisdictions outdated, and called on the commission to recommend ways to implement smart growth and consolidate and eliminate taxing jurisdictions, special districts and other local government entitles “where doing so would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of local government.” His final recommendation was for the commission to recommend ways to regionalize government.
The Spitzer Commission chose the subject of local assessors in its preliminary recommendations issued on February 8, 2008. The commission attacked elected assessors be implying that getting rid of them would professionalize assessment, although all local assessors are currently required to take state-administered courses in order to continue in office. Tax collection had to be modernized, implying that it somehow lacked efficiency as now constituted. With these implied rationales, the commission recommended that the elected office of local assessors and tax collectors be eliminated:
“Assessing – Increased aid will be available for areas that assess uniformly countywide using modern professional standards. Elective offices for assessors will be phased out in nearly 150 communities where they still exist (including 135 3-person ‘boards of assessing’) to support consolidation and professionalization of the function…”
“Tax collection – Consolidated and modernized local property tax collection operations will be encouraged, including the elimination of elective positions for ‘Receiver of Taxes.’”
Following these recommendations, the legislature established the system of grants to each county to study the perceived benefits of elimination of local assessors and transfer their work to the county level.
Wide-ranging State Attacks on Local Government
Other initiatives from the legislature would consolidate or erase local government and move functions from the classical town level of government to the county level. For instance, a state program gives generous grants to municipalities that merge highway departments, share equipment or enter into cooperative service agreements. When the initiative to enter into cooperative service agreements, which originated in the Senate Local Government Committee chaired by Elizabeth Little, was proposed, it was advocated in the absence of any public recognition of the commonplace sharing of services between local towns and between local towns and counties where this is already recognized on the ground. For instance, town highway departments routinely combine their equipment capacity when their annual paving projects are underway. Counties often pay local towns to do work that is more cost-effective on the town level. Only the supposed unreasonableness of so many highway jurisdictions was pointed out during the advocacy for consolidation of highway agencies.
The New York State Department of Health promotes the New York State Department of State’s “Shared Municipal Services Incentive Grant Program.” According to a letter from Edward G. Wronski, Director of the State Bureau of Emergency Medical Services in June 2007 to the EMS county coordinators, “This relatively new grant program is intended to foster collaborative relationships between two or more units of local governments to develop projects that will achieve savings and improve municipal efficiency through shared services, agreements, mergers, etc.”
The consolidation effort being foisted on localities extends to the consolidation of local voluntary emergency services, fire districts, and school districts. Grants have already been issued to facilitate the consolidation of volunteer fire companies in the Village of East Hills, Roslyn Estates and Roslyn Harbor, and the fire departments of the Village and Town of Oswego.
The Spitzer Commission’s initial recommendations focused on municipal structure on Long Island in great detail, especially on special districts in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, using a comparison of special district tax levies in Nassau and Suffolk with other counties in the state as though such a comparison of a densely populated area with areas having a relatively small population density would have relevance. The commission called for the end of pay for commissioners in special districts, as though special districts were corrupt and school districts, where commissioners were unpaid, were clean, a situation not borne out by the embezzlement of $11 million in the Roslyn School District during recent years.
Although the commission’s recommendations were “preliminary” and did not cite any new fiscal analysis, it issued significant recommendations in many areas. Local highway departments, the single most important division of town government, were targeted for consolidation:
“Highway Services - A consolidation incentive will provide a 30 percent aid bonus giving transitional support (phased down over five years) to local governments that functionally consolidate highway operations countywide (including either 90 percent of roads or all of the towns within a county).”
The membership of the Spitzer Commission was set up so that its recommendations would toe the line on the preconceived agenda of promoting consolidation. All of the fifteen commission members were appointed by Spitzer, consistently with his executive order. Among the members were at least five to be appointed from individual recommendations of the comptroller and the majority and minority leaders of the Assembly and Senate. One from each agency was to be selected by the governor from members of the New York State Association of Counties, State Association of Towns, and State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials. The chairman of the commission, also appointed by Spitzer, is former Lieutenant Governor Stan Lundine, who served under Governor Mario Cuomo.
Non-government commissioners are heavily weighted toward a regional government outlook. These include Gerald Benjamin of SUNY New Paltz and the center for Research, Regional Education and Outreach. Commissioner Al DelBello, who was also Lieutenant Governor under Cuomo, is on the board of directors of the Westchester Land Trust and the Westchester County Association. Commissioner Kate Foster is Director of the University at Buffalo Regional Institute, SUNY. Commissioner Jonathan Drapkin is the president and chief executive officer of Pattern for Progress, the regional planning organization in the Hudson River Valley.
The four commissioners selected from recommendations by the powerful legislative leaders include Elizabeth Little, who, although representing a conservative district in the North Country, advocates consolidation of local government as chair of the Senate Committee on Local Government. Commissioner Sam Hoyt (D, Buffalo), who chairs the Assembly Local Government Committee, is the leading long-time proponent of legislation to expand the definition of navigable waters to the detriment of the private property rights of riverine landowners.
In spite of their supposed ability to egregiously dispose of wealth, the local governments have not been effective in espousing their interests and the interests of the local citizens against the high-powered movement toward consolidation. As the organization representing the most immediately threatened branch of local government, the New York State Assessors’ Association has been in the forefront in defending local government-level assessment.
Carol W. LaGrasse, April 2008
| Back to: | ||
 |
 |
|