Quoted Text

Most fallout from Rotterdam‘s reval had to do with politics

    Re May 22 editorial, “Schenectady’s ‘4 percent solution’ won’t solve assessment problem”: I applaud the clarity regarding the ineffectiveness of simply reducing all assessments by 4 percent. The real problem of correcting the inequities will not be addressed by this type of across-the-board reduction.
    The editorial indicated that the former Schenectady assessor performed the previous revaluation “in-house.” That is really not the case. He did hire subcontractors to perform the data collection. I believe he also hired a “consultant” to assist with the valuation process. In addition, what about overtime and/or comp time costs, which increase the cost of retirement for the city. So to say he did the revaluation “in-house” is a bit misleading. It would have been a good idea to calculate the total cost of the “in-house” revaluation.
    In reference to the Rotterdam revaluation, in fairness, more information should have been provided regarding the successes of that revaluation. The revaluation was a monumental project for Rotterdam, with better-thanexpected results. The total fi xed price contract for Rotterdam was $752,500, approximately $58 per parcel. Where can anyone get an appraisal of their property for $58 per parcel, including commercial-type properties?
    There were record-low grievances.
    In Rotterdam, there had been no previous revaluation. Schenectady has a history of performing many reassessment projects — the most recent in 2009 came after a project in 2003.
    Educating property owners on fullvalue (100 percent) assessment, coming from a less-than-5-percent equalization rate, was extremely challenging in Rotterdam. The Rotterdam project included the creation of a transparent environment throughout, including an online website posting all data. Property owners consistently had access to any public information they wanted, a telephone help line provided information by trained staff, and a total of over 20 public information workshops were held.
With any revaluation, not every taxpayer will be “happy” with the results. Typically the taxpayers who were underassessed and not paying their fair share of the tax burden are the unhappy ones. Those that were overpaying are happy. If you look beyond the Rotterdam reassessment project, you will fi nd similar reactions.
If your negative reference to the Rotterdam project was in regard to the “post”-project political fallout, that is another story.

F. CINDY BAIRE
Amherst
The writer is vice president and partner of GAR Associates, Inc.

http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r03204&AppName=1

please ! It was a joke!!!

They're STILL trying to use the media to defend the fiasco in Rotterdam?  Unbelievable.

It is part of the rejuvenation of the John Napoleon Paulino brand that the cop brass and sundry other hacks want to revive.