On reassessment, the ONLY dem councilperson that said anything was Porterfield and she really just asked a question to confirm something.

NOT ONE uttered a word.   Of course when the whole city is reassessed down, the tax rate increases and it's quite embarrassing to own a house in Schenectady with a value of $50,000 and paying $7,000 in taxes when you can go to Albany and own a $125,000 house probably just pay $7,000 or go to Saratoga and have a $200,000 house with a $7,000 tax bill AND the house is increasing in value besides!

The mayor is blaming it on "distressed properties."   Oh give me a break.

The DEMS started increasing the taxes on the homeowners, making them pay the taxes of the millionaires and billionaires downtown and so people could not afford to pay the downtown taxes so the homeowners get behind on the taxes and the city has to foreclose and take the house, wow, now the city has distressed properties.   That's what the mayor blames it on.  Well, does Mc THIEF have a clue that there would not be so many distressed properties if people could afford to pay the taxes?  People cannot hold a gun to the heads of their employers to force the employers to give them a raise.   Homeowners can't hold a gun to the US government to force them to give them a Soc Sec raise big enough to cover the increased taxes hat the DEMS make homeowners pay to cover the tax bills of the downtown millionaires

So there are distressed properties.

Then McTHIEF is talking about the building inspector doesn't have assorted pieces of information, if there is a fire the fire dept does not know who the homeowner is and he is spewing babble about the lack of sharing information between departments.   That has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the market value of houses which is why a reassessment is needed!  

But Vince Riggi, the ONLY representative of the taxpayers CORRECTLY STATES that just ONE tax certiorari that they have to settle throw the whole city out of whack.   And is the TRUTH.  

And the mayor has no clue that two identical houses, one owner successfully grieves and the other can't afford an attorney to do it, works to jobs and so doesn't have time to do it themselves, etc. and that owner who did not grieve is paying too much in taxes.  

But the mayor REFUSES to make things fair for the homeowners, just as long as he can tax the homeowners to pay for downtown.

Hell, given that this was on the agenda, you would think that tbe mayor, assessor, and law department would have annual numbers broken down of the number of grievances submitted, how many won at the board level, how many won at the SCAR level, and how many were at the certiorari level.   But Coucilman Riggi asked the question about he number of grievances.   THE UNPREPARED JACK a** CITY LEADERS HAD NO CLUE.  

Was talking to my brother today, he owns a nice house in Albany County, it's assessed at app. $200,000 and his taxes are app. $4,900.

Told him some of the examples that have been posted here of homes and taxes and he was like WOW  

The reassessment was their loophole against the governor's tax increase cap.

He can't allow a reassessment.

They can't legally raise the tax rate higher.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

The reassessment was their loophole against the governor's tax increase cap.

He can't allow a reassessment.

They can't legally raise the tax rate higher.

Sure they can...There are ways around the cap...

Quoted from 55tbird

Sure they can...There are ways around the cap...

The trash fees and the reassessment were their way around it.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

The trash fees and the reassessment were their way around it.

water meters are probably next...but without reducing the water/sewer taxes that are currently collected

Quoted from Libertarian4life

The reassessment was their loophole against the governor's tax increase cap.

He can't allow a reassessment.

They can't legally raise the tax rate higher.

The tax cap is on the percent increase of the tax LEVY.   I don't think the LEVY is limited by the home values.  

Once again, the mayor has absolutely no intelligence whatsoever:

Quoted Text

"Scheduling reassessments is a function of the City Council, according to Mayor McCarthy. He proposed some funding for the process in next year's budget. "

This is from Ch 6 news.   "some funding."  

What is "some funding" going to do?   The mayor CANNOT just plan on "some funding" because he CANNOT choose only to do a partial reassessment.   That is against state law!

Quoted from mikechristine1

The tax cap is on the percent increase of the tax LEVY.   I don't think the LEVY is limited by the home values.  

Correct, the tax cap is the maximum they can raise the tax rate.

If properties get reassessed and the home values are lower than current assessed values,
their will be a budget deficit that must be made up from new taxes.

That was the whole point of reevaluation.

Because they are already at the tax limit every year, they fabricated more value, thereby netting more cash from the same homes.

Quoted from Libertarian4life

Correct, the tax cap is the maximum they can raise the tax rate.

NO.   The tax cap is the maximum percent they can raise the tax LEVY.   If the LEVY is increased (within the cap) by 1.5%  but that causes the resulting tax RATE to increase by 30%, then that is OK.   There is no cap on the increase in the tax RATE nor a cap on the increase in the tax BILL

I have said this once and I will say it again.  The city will not be doing a reassessment in the near future.  The city completed a reassessment because they were capped out on the amount of debt they could have per the NY State Constitiution.  The only time you will see a reassessment is if the city cuts down on its long term liabilities.  Otherwise it wont happen.  YES IT IS NEEDED TO CORRECT THE IMBALANCE CAUSED BY THE GRIEVANCES.  WILL IT HAPPEN? NO.  

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/finreporting/cdl.htm


Local Government and School Accountability
Required Reporting: Constitutional Debt Limit
In New York State, Constitutional debt limits exist that impose constraints on the amount of debt that a local government can incur. Debt limits for counties, cities, towns, villages and school districts in cities (except for the Big 5 school districts) are percentages of the five-year average full valuation of taxable property within a municipality. The limit for school districts outside cities is a percentage of the current full valuation. Debt issued for the purpose of water supply and distribution and certain types of short term borrowings are excluded from the debt limit for counties, cities, towns and villages. In addition, a municipality can apply for exclusions from the limit for debt related to sewer projects and for certain types of self-liquidating debt.

Quoted from TakingItBack

I have said this once and I will say it again.  The city will not be doing a reassessment in the near future.  The city completed a reassessment because they were capped out on the amount of debt they could have per the NY State Constitiution.  The only time you will see a reassessment is if the city cuts down on its long term liabilities.  Otherwise it wont happen.  YES IT IS NEEDED TO CORRECT THE IMBALANCE CAUSED BY THE GRIEVANCES.  WILL IT HAPPEN? NO.  

https://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/finreporting/cdl.htm


Local Government and School Accountability
Required Reporting: Constitutional Debt Limit
In New York State, Constitutional debt limits exist that impose constraints on the amount of debt that a local government can incur. Debt limits for counties, cities, towns, villages and school districts in cities (except for the Big 5 school districts) are percentages of the five-year average full valuation of taxable property within a municipality. The limit for school districts outside cities is a percentage of the current full valuation. Debt issued for the purpose of water supply and distribution and certain types of short term borrowings are excluded from the debt limit for counties, cities, towns and villages. In addition, a municipality can apply for exclusions from the limit for debt related to sewer projects and for certain types of self-liquidating debt.

Enlightening.   Thank you.

Now the "five year average full valuation of taxable property."  Question about that.  "Full Valuation"  = 100% of market value.  The equalization rate is pretty much an average of the assessed value to full value.   Since the equalization rate is now 123%, does that mean the debt limit is based on the presumed 100% value (full market value as shown on the assessment roll) or still calculated as the assessed value?

Another thing that is most interesting and yet another reason these dem leaders are stupid.  I'm not saying it's good to increase the debt limit, but notice it says "...five year average full valuation of taxable property"   The FACT that downtown is NOT TAXABLE property, that reduces that average.

Now, about your initial comment that the city will not due a reassessment "because...." I'd like to ask, isn't that a stupid reason because if 90% of all property owners grieved and did SCAR appeals or Tax certiorari, then the value of the taxable property would be reduced so that would reduce that "five year.....property" right?   So reduced assessment values that occur by virtue of the property owners taking the initiative and winning vs those that occur because the city does a citywide reassessment winds up with the same end result, does it not?

Quoted from mikechristine1

Enlightening.   Thank you.

Now the "five year average full valuation of taxable property."  Question about that.  "Full Valuation"  = 100% of market value.  The equalization rate is pretty much an average of the assessed value to full value.   Since the equalization rate is now 123%, does that mean the debt limit is based on the presumed 100% value (full market value as shown on the assessment roll) or still calculated as the assessed value?

Another thing that is most interesting and yet another reason these dem leaders are stupid.  I'm not saying it's good to increase the debt limit, but notice it says "...five year average full valuation of taxable property"   The FACT that downtown is NOT TAXABLE property, that reduces that average.

Now, about your initial comment that the city will not due a reassessment "because...." I'd like to ask, isn't that a stupid reason because if 90% of all property owners grieved and did SCAR appeals or Tax certiorari, then the value of the taxable property would be reduced so that would reduce that "five year.....property" right?   So reduced assessment values that occur by virtue of the property owners taking the initiative and winning vs those that occur because the city does a citywide reassessment winds up with the same end result, does it not?

I dont think it takes into account the tax exemptions.   It is based upon the total overall assessed value.    

Yes the grievances would reduce, but that is why the city kicks that can down the road.  That causes many not to even try to grieve, causes many to give up during the process and these are finallized sometimes 5 years down the road.  The other thing they did is they pumped up the property assessments for these tax exempt properties.  This inflated the total overall assessed value. In other words they put in plenty of cushion to aborb some of these reductions like all the churches and non profits they incorrectly hit th past years.

I think that when this was first started things were more consolidated.  Now the city has separated out the water and sewer departmnets which are exempt from this constitutional law.  Another workaround.  

it's ALWAYS about the LEVY....ALWAYS........

when the levy breaks................................................................

Quoted from TakingItBack

I have said this once and I will say it again.  The city will not be doing a reassessment in the near future.  

Agree!