End assessment issues and prevent the problems of the past.
the plan
place all 12,871 properties in the town in to the bucket and have a lottery as to which year of the six year cycle for which a property will be assessed this tag shall forever be assigned to a property(1-6)
1/6th of all properties in the town will reassessed every year forever approx. 9 properties a day all new property creations will be added to the sequence in the year of their creation(1-6)
no more reassessments on building permits thus giving a reward to home improvement with this plan there will be no surprise when your property will be assessed
no more reassessments based on title transfer giving our town a welcome stranger policy
NYS pays $5 per reassessed parcel pulling in $10725 in state aid per year
having lived in Rotterdam nearly all my life I have been under taxed(owned old) and over taxed(purchased new) and reassessed for every building permit
Our town needs to take advantage of the state law for the betterment of our community not the destruction of it.
a plan such as this would have the.pope's blessing!
your constructive comments are welcome, especially those running for office
below is article 1573 of NYS RPT Law for reference
§ 1573. State assistance for the maintenance of a system of improved real property tax administration. 1. State assistance shall be paid to an assessing unit or a county assessing on behalf of an assessing unit, upon determination by the state board that: (a) the assessing unit has satisfied standards of quality assessment administration, as established by the state board pursuant to regulations promulgated by the state board, subject to the approval of the director of the budget. Such rules shall be based upon but not limited to the following criteria: (i) quality and maintenance of valuation data; (ii) presentation of public information and data; (iii) administration of exemptions; (iv) an acceptable level of assessment uniformity as measured annually by the state board; and (v) compliance with statutes and rules. (b) any revaluation or update of assessments, implemented on an assessment roll finalized after the first day of January, nineteen hundred ninety-six, is at one hundred percent of value; however, in special assessing units the revaluation or update of assessments must be at a uniform percentage of value for each class; (c) the assessing unit has published, on the tentative assessment roll, the uniform percentage of value at which all real property is assessed, or in special assessing units, the uniform percentage of value at which each class of property is assessed; (d) the assessing unit has adopted a taxable status date subject to the provisions of section three hundred two of this chapter, and has adopted a valuation date subject to the provisions of section three hundred one of this chapter; (e) the assessing unit has provided a set of supporting valuation documents and files to the state board; and (f) the assessing unit has provided a computer copy of assessment, inventory and sales files in a standardized format to the state board. 2. State assistance pursuant to subdivision one of this section shall be payable as follows in an amount not to exceed five dollars per parcel for each separately assessed parcel appearing on the applicable assessment roll, excluding parcels which are wholly exempt or assessed by the state board: (a) Triennial aid shall be payable when the state board determines that the assessing unit has implemented a revaluation or update that includes the reinspection and reappraisal of all locally assessed properties. However, no assessing unit may qualify for this payment more than once in a three year period, and no aid may be paid pursuant to this paragraph with respect to any assessment roll filed after the year two thousand eleven. (b) (i) Annual aid shall be payable when the state board determines that the assessing unit has maintained an equitable assessment roll. Such determination shall be made in accordance with standards established pursuant to regulations promulgated by the state board, subject to the approval of the director of the budget, and shall be based upon criteria including but not limited to: (A) annually maintaining assessments at the percentage of value specified in subdivision one of this section; (B) annually conducting a systematic analysis of all locally assessed properties using a methodology specified in such regulations; (C) annually revising assessments as necessary to maintain the stated uniform percentage of value; and (D) implementing a local program for physically inspecting and reappraising each parcel at least once every six years. (E) Such standards shall contain ranges of acceptable performance as determined by the state board in accordance with nationally recognized assessment methods. (ii) No aid shall be paid pursuant to this paragraph with respect to any assessment roll which receives triennial aid pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subdivision. (iii) No grant awarded to any individual assessing unit in any given year pursuant to this subdivision shall exceed five hundred thousand dollars. 3. Consolidated, coordinated and county assessment programs. (a) State assistance shall be payable in a one-time payment of up to seven dollars per parcel to each constituent municipality of a consolidated assessing unit created pursuant to section one thousand six hundred two of this chapter, to each assessing unit participating in a coordinated assessment program pursuant to section five hundred seventy-nine of this chapter, and to each assessing unit constituting an entire county that is first established after April first, nineteen hundred ninety-six. State assistance shall also be payable in a one-time payment of up to two dollars per parcel to each assessing unit constituting an entire county that was first established before April first, nineteen hundred ninety-six and that has completed a revaluation or an update implemented on an assessment roll having assessments at one hundred percent of value and finalized subsequent to the nineteen hundred ninety-six calendar year. However, no constituent municipality of a consolidated assessing unit or assessing unit participating in a coordinated assessment program shall be eligible for aid pursuant to this paragraph in excess of one hundred forty thousand dollars, and no county assessing unit shall be eligible to receive payments in excess of the sum of all payments that would otherwise be payable to its municipalities if they were constituent municipalities of a consolidated assessing unit. Upon completion of the first assessment roll produced pursuant to either section five hundred seventy-nine or section one thousand six hundred two of this chapter, produced by a county assessing unit first established before April first, nineteen hundred ninety-six and that has completed a revaluation or an update implemented on an assessment roll having assessments at one hundred percent of value and finalized subsequent to the nineteen hundred ninety-six calendar year, or produced by a county assessing unit established after April first, nineteen hundred ninety-six, such assessing unit or assessing units may apply to the state board for assistance pursuant to this paragraph. Any assessing unit or municipality having received state assistance pursuant to this paragraph in one year shall not be eligible to receive such state assistance in another year. (b) Where an assessing unit or assessing units have implemented a revaluation or an update upon the first assessment roll produced pursuant to either section five hundred seventy-nine or one thousand six hundred two of this chapter, or subsequent to becoming a county assessing unit first established after April first, nineteen hundred ninety-six, or in the case of a county assessing unit that was first established before April first, nineteen hundred ninety-six that has completed a revaluation or an update implemented on an assessment roll having assessments at one hundred percent of value and finalized subsequent to the nineteen hundred ninety-six calendar year, such assessing unit or assessing units may also make application and qualify for state assistance as provided in subdivision two of this section. (c) If a consolidated assessing unit or a coordinated assessment program should be expanded after state assistance pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subdivision has been paid to the assessing units participating in the original program, additional state assistance shall be payable only to the assessing unit or units to be added to the program, and only upon satisfactorily producing the first assessment roll or rolls completed after the assessing unit or units have been so added. (d) Termination of or withdrawal from a program. If an assessing unit, after having received state assistance pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subdivision, reverts to separate assessment within ten years after the receipt of such aid, such assessing unit shall remit to the state a prorated portion of the aid received, except that in the case of a county assessing unit, if a city or town therein reverts to separate assessment within ten years after the county's receipt of such aid, the county shall remit to the state a prorated portion of the aid received. 3-a. Optional county services. When a county has entered into an agreement with one or more assessing units pursuant to section fifteen hundred thirty-seven of this chapter to provide appraisal services, exemption services or assessment services to an assessing unit, or pursuant to paragraph (e) of subdivision three of section fifteen hundred thirty-two of this chapter to provide data collection, sales verification, or other assessment-related services to an assessing unit, state assistance may be payable in a one-time payment of up to one dollar per parcel to such county, subject to appropriation by the legislature. 4. Upon approval of an application for state assistance pursuant to this section, the state board shall compute, apportion and certify to the state comptroller the amounts payable. Such state assistance shall be payable on the audit and warrant of the state comptroller on vouchers certified or approved as prescribed by law out of moneys appropriated by the legislature for such purpose. In no event shall aid be granted to an assessing unit which fails to meet the criteria set forth in subdivision one of this section, with respect to the assessment year for which the application is made. However, an assessing unit which implements a revaluation or update of assessments for an assessment roll finalized on or after the first day of January, nineteen hundred ninety-six will be presumed to satisfy the assessment uniformity standards for the year of the implementation of the revaluation or update and the two succeeding years. 5. Valuation data and the assessment, inventory and sales files furnished to the state board pursuant to subdivision one of this section shall become available to the state board for both the improvement of real property tax administration and to fund state and local real property tax administration.
Before any new ideas can or should be implemented, this present mess must be straightened out first. To my understanding there are still properties on the books where their assessments are 'supposedly' still too low and will reflect an increase next year. There are still property owners that are in conflict with the town on their assessments and will be going to court.
So until this reval is settled and finally completed, all new proposals should be considered, but not implemented. It appears that we have a ways to go here!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Not one politician has mentioned doing a new reval because they all know that property values are much lower right now since the market melt down and they don't want to lose any tax revenue so we the people get the shaft while the government gets the gold mine.
so... while we wait, we end where we were before the reval. very consistent with old Rotterdam
The state mandates a regressive program but provides a small method to reduce its effect. we should implement a system to reduce its negative effects. Sooner than later.
Providing property owners a 5 year reward for improvements would work toward this end.
There will always be argument about a value of any object so having a system that consistently checks all properties at regular intervals will be more fair for all ensuring all pay their fair amount for services.
As long as sewer and water are taxed independently based on usage all will be fair over time.
the cost of doing business ie the the town or school budget is a separate process
a reval process just provides a method of figuring out how much of the whole a property owner will pay if the total valuation of the town changes from $2.7 billion to $2.5 billion in assessed value it doesn't change the fact the town needs to raise $11.4 million in taxes
this is a very simple system the (value of your home)/(the sum of all properties)*(tax levy)=your fair share
some rough numbers $255,000/$2,700,000,000*$11,400,000=$1076
these numbers don't take into account exemptions and homestead or school taxes
the state came up with this system as a way to have every property owner pay their fair share
want it to really fair? add enough town employees to reassess(physical inspection) every property every year then we all pay our fair share no benefit for improvement
There will always be argument about a value of any object so having a system that consistently checks all properties at regular intervals will be more fair for all ensuring all pay their fair amount for services.
Why would all of the properties need to be checked at 'regular intervals'? If someone owns property and they choose to take down or add to it, they need a building permit. Which is recorded at the town. And which involves, most of the time, the building inspector's approval.
And when you mention 'adding town employees' to check properties, are you suggesting that the town hire more people?
May I also suggest, that IF properties were checked yearly, I certainly would suggest people NOT from this area. Independent, if you will! And why...cause this is small town rotterdam, where everyone either knows everyone or knows someone who does. Turning a blind eye and favors would be way too tempting. IMHO
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
the building permit process of assessment is regressive in that if i get a building permit and you don't, we live next to each other and we both finish our basements i get penalized, your house has a fire due to un-inspected work, i get pentalized
building permits are a safety device not a reval device
understand my preference is a six year rotation each property assessed once every six years no reassessment on building permits - give property owners an incentive to improve their property without the penalty of reassessment
allows business to grow without penalty of reassessment
ie
my property would be in the "2" cycle i would be assessed in 2011, 2017, 2023. i could build extra room in 2012 and "ride free for 4ish years" thus the incentive however i know in 2017 i will be reassessed and i must buck up and pay my share and not cry it is unfair
the town gives a little and i give a little
also this method would require a smaller staff than to assess and inventory yearly
This is all very good food for thought. Thank you holy.father whoever you are, for you civic input and rational manner. Anything that makes good common sense is usually illegal in this state (but don't let my cynicism ruin your day.) and unorthodox ideas are usually frowned on because "that isn't the way we have been doing it" around here, sadly enough. Again, thank you.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
ps. My own personal conviction is that there should be two criteria for assessments on residential property- lot size and heated square footage. Brick, stucco, garage storage, wood cabinets, swimming pools, concrete walks, nice shrubs and siding etc (ALL GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE THINGS A HOMEOWNER CAN DO TO MAKE HIS PROPERTY BETTER AND MORE ATTRACTIVE) should NOT be a reason to get penalized. The way I look at it is that owner A gets enjoyment from going on cruises twice a year and living in an unimproved bungalow with a crumbling driveway, ugly paint and 12' tall hedges. Owner B really digs fixing up her place and is a homebody, spending hours and hours and bucks to make the house shine. Owner B gets a screwing under NY assessments. I hate it and think it is twisted at best.
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
NYS ORPS tries to deal with this with the definition of "value" the hard part is getting the humans to see thru the pools, sidewalks, ugly hedges and bad paint
"value" for purposes of real property tax administration, most recently in 10 Op.Counsel SBRPS No. 34, where we stated:
The basic rule of law is that "[t]he 'market value of real property is the amount which one desiring but not compelled to purchase will pay under ordinary conditions to a seller who desires but is not compelled to sell' [citations omitted]" (W.T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 510, 420 N.E.2d 953, 438 N.Y.S.2d 761, 767 (1981); see also, Parklin Operating Corp. v. Miller, 287 N.Y. 126, 38 N.E.2d 465 (1941)).
so looking at my property on the site listed above and dividing by our towns equalization rate (95%) i come up with a price that would be less that i would get for a sale(top dollar) but not so low that i wouldn't sell
i do to like the usable parcel sq footage and livable sq footage for residential but this system works against business
there are also issues with this process, in the late 70's early 80's heated finished/unfinished basements and finished rooms over unheated space were the points of argument
to be fair one would have to add up the total square footage that would be contained by walls and a roof per parcel and then divide this by the town total to get the parcel percentage and avoid "market value" altogether
how do you deal with usable parcel square footage ie pipe lines and wet lands?
how would the square footage method work for business???
NYS ORPS tries to deal with this with the definition of "value" the hard part is getting the humans to see thru the pools, sidewalks, ugly hedges and bad paint
"value" for purposes of real property tax administration, most recently in 10 Op.Counsel SBRPS No. 34, where we stated:
The basic rule of law is that "[t]he 'market value of real property is the amount which one desiring but not compelled to purchase will pay under ordinary conditions to a seller who desires but is not compelled to sell' [citations omitted]" (W.T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 510, 420 N.E.2d 953, 438 N.Y.S.2d 761, 767 (1981); see also, Parklin Operating Corp. v. Miller, 287 N.Y. 126, 38 N.E.2d 465 (1941)).
so looking at my property on the site listed above and dividing by our towns equalization rate (95%) i come up with a price that would be less that i would get for a sale(top dollar) but not so low that i wouldn't sell
i do to like the usable parcel sq footage and livable sq footage for residential but this system works against business
there are also issues with this process, in the late 70's early 80's heated finished/unfinished basements and finished rooms over unheated space were the points of argument
to be fair one would have to add up the total square footage that would be contained by walls and a roof per parcel and then divide this by the town total to get the parcel percentage and avoid "market value" altogether
how do you deal with usable parcel square footage ie pipe lines and wet lands?
how would the square footage method work for business???
Logged
