Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 64

Thread: Reassessment and the egregious Condominium Law

  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by mark blazejewski View Post
    Ah, Councilman Ruffino, the living embodiment of ego and hypocrisy.

    And such an actor!

    Remember last year's nine or ten month ZBA fandango? Quite a magic show, when he pulled a politically opportunistic rabbit out of his illusory conservative hat.

    Kind of like watching the Great Houdini in another dramatic moment.
    Don't get me started on this guys, it was a dark moment for Ron Ruffino, his true colors came out. I call him a chameleon.

  2. #47
    Member mark blazejewski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,307
    Quote Originally Posted by shortstuff View Post
    Don't get me started on this guys, it was a dark moment for Ron Ruffino, his true colors came out. I call him a chameleon.
    Not quite a chameleon Shortstuff. A chameleon only displays colors indigenous to its own natural physiology; Ruffino displayed synthetic, antithetical camouflage.

    But chameleon is a relevant comparison, a lizard by any other name.

  3. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    At the June 4th Lancaster Town Board meeting Council member Ronald Ruffino withdrew a resolution he sponsored to hire GAR Associates, LLC, Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants, to assist with the town’s 2020 Assessment Equity Project (reassessment) for a fee not to exceed $282,000.00.

    He stated that he withdrew the resolution because he was disappointed to learn there was only one agency that was solicited for the project. He expressed his concern that there were other appraising agencies that were equally qualified to assist in the project but that no information was provided in the resolution to compare costs and services. It appears he did not pen the resolution but was asked to sponsor it.

    The same resolution will be sponsored by Council member Matt Walter this coming town board meeting. The only difference in the resolutions language is found in the following paragraphs:

    A) WHEREAS, the Town of Lancaster Assessor, Rebecca Baker, obtained a proposal for Professional services from GAR Associates, LLC, in accordance with the Town of Lancaster’s Procurement Policy (Ruffino resolution of June 4th)

    B) WHEREAS, the Town of Lancaster Assessor, Rebecca Baker solicited proposals for professional services from (2) agencies to ensure the Town’s resources were adequately utilized (Walter June 18th resolution)

    There is no concern here that GAR is not a respected agency and is qualified for assisting the town in performing appraisals, et al. It is clear the town assessor’s choice is GAR and we will know Monday night whether the town council is of the same mind.

    That said, the resolution language again provides no information on the other agency solicited, whether there was a formal RFP bidding process followed, the scope of what services will be provided by GAR, or what services will be provided by Lancaster; as the Assessor’s office is currently staffed by a part-time Assessor and one appraiser.

    I believe the taxpayers have the right to know:

    • What process was followed that led to the town’s considering GAR as the most cost effective and qualified agency – RFP’s or simple verbal soliciting by the Assessor?

    • The scope of the project and the roles of the town and GAR – what services will GAR provide to earn $282,000?

    • How many total parcels will be appraised?

    • What parcels will GAR be appraising; residential or commercial?

    • What will GAR be paid for parcel?

    • What are the chances of the town receiving a State Grant for performing the reassessment (reval)?

    I hope some of those questions will be asked and answered Monday evening.

  4. #49
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    At the June 4th Lancaster Town Board meeting Council member Ronald Ruffino withdrew a resolution he sponsored to hire GAR Associates, LLC, Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants, to assist with the town’s 2020 Assessment Equity Project (reassessment) for a fee not to exceed $282,000.00.

    He stated that he withdrew the resolution because he was disappointed to learn there was only one agency that was solicited for the project. He expressed his concern that there were other appraising agencies that were equally qualified to assist in the project but that no information was provided in the resolution to compare costs and services. It appears he did not pen the resolution but was asked to sponsor it.

    The same resolution will be sponsored by Council member Matt Walter this coming town board meeting. The only difference in the resolutions language is found in the following paragraphs:

    A) WHEREAS, the Town of Lancaster Assessor, Rebecca Baker, obtained a proposal for Professional services from GAR Associates, LLC, in accordance with the Town of Lancaster’s Procurement Policy (Ruffino resolution of June 4th)

    B) WHEREAS, the Town of Lancaster Assessor, Rebecca Baker solicited proposals for professional services from (2) agencies to ensure the Town’s resources were adequately utilized (Walter June 18th resolution)

    There is no concern here that GAR is not a respected agency and is qualified for assisting the town in performing appraisals, et al. It is clear the town assessor’s choice is GAR and we will know Monday night whether the town council is of the same mind.

    That said, the resolution language again provides no information on the other agency solicited, whether there was a formal RFP bidding process followed, the scope of what services will be provided by GAR, or what services will be provided by Lancaster; as the Assessor’s office is currently staffed by a part-time Assessor and one appraiser.

    I believe the taxpayers have the right to know:

    • What process was followed that led to the town’s considering GAR as the most cost effective and qualified agency – RFP’s or simple verbal soliciting by the Assessor?

    • The scope of the project and the roles of the town and GAR – what services will GAR provide to earn $282,000?

    • How many total parcels will be appraised?

    • What parcels will GAR be appraising; residential or commercial?

    • What will GAR be paid for parcel?

    • What are the chances of the town receiving a State Grant for performing the reassessment (reval)?

    I hope some of those questions will be asked and answered Monday evening.
    GAR will be assessing

    10,000 residential parcels
    All commercial parcels
    All vacant land
    All town owned land

    The town will be assessing 5,000 residential parcels

    This will include the two villages

    Georgia L Schlager

  5. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    GAR will be assessing

    10,000 residential parcels
    All commercial parcels
    All vacant land
    All town owned land

    The town will be assessing 5,000 residential parcels

    This will include the two villages

    Thank you Gorga. It appears you were at the meeting and got the board to reveal the posted information.


    It will be interesting to listen to the town's recording of the meeting to learn of the process used in choosing GAR and why Councilman Ruffino voted 'no' to the sponsored resolution.


    It was disappointing to not hear how many commercial properties GAR will assess; especially considering the Villages are involved in the assessment project.

  6. #51
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Thank you Gorga. It appears you were at the meeting and got the board to reveal the posted information.


    It will be interesting to listen to the town's recording of the meeting to learn of the process used in choosing GAR and why Councilman Ruffino voted 'no' to the sponsored resolution.


    It was disappointing to not hear how many commercial properties GAR will assess; especially considering the Villages are involved in the assessment project.
    This is the 2017 parcel count from the ORPTS site

    Georgia L Schlager

  7. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    A difference in perception – he says, she says

    Upon questioning the scope and process used to determine that GAR was the town’s choice in assisting the Town Assessor in its reassessment project, resolution sponsor Council member Matt Walter informed Gorga on the following:

    • There are only three companies available to assist a town of our size and the scope involved to do what was required of them.
    • No RFP bid process was involved. All three were solicited by the assessor. The one agency was not equipped to perform the work.
    • Of the other two solicited they were both within a few thousand dollars of each other in cost.
    • GAR was chosen because they responded in greater detail and was found to be easier to work with.
    • The same guidelines will be used for assessing residential and commercial properties.

    At the time of resolution approval, Council member Ron Ruffino interjected that this was the same resolution as he was asked to sponsor on June 4th. As then, he was again voting ‘no’ based on the following:

    • He is not in favor of handing out a $282,000 contract without due diligence being done.
    • He stated he went to the New York State Transportation of Finance website and found a list of contractors throughout the state who provide the same services. Some are even local.
    • Ruffino recommends a formal RFP (request for proposals) process instated where the full scope of the work to be done is published and you get the best project bid. “Who says this project can’t come in at $175,000, $200,000; for less than the $282,000” declared Ruffino. “This averages out to something like $18 per parcel.”

  8. #53
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    From the NYS Taxation & Finance site

    Contractors - Data collection/Reassessment
    Sample Request-for-Proposals (RFP) and Cover Memo Contains comments to assist local governments in tailoring the RFP to their specific needs

    Disclaimer: Please note - this contractor list is provided as a resource for reassessment projects, marketplace analysis, LOA determinations or assistance in maintaining equitable assessment rolls. The list contains names of contractors who have asked ORPTS to provide their company name to localities that ask about assistance. It is the locality's responsibility to check contractor references and prior clients before retaining any contractor. ORPTS staff are not endorsing any contractors, nor will they make a recommendation if asked. There may be other contractors available that have not asked to be placed on this list.


    Contractors - Data collection/Reassessment
    APPRAISAL CONSULTANTS
    32 Ripplewood Drive
    Rochester, NY 14616-1502
    Attn: Mr. Robert D. Hilbert
    (585) 613-5011
    Email: rhilbert@rochester.rr.com

    ASSESSMENT & APPRAISAL INFO SYSTEMS, INC.
    1111 Earl Avenue
    Schenectady, NY 12309
    Attn: Mr. Robert J. Benedict, IAO
    (518) 423-5757
    Email: asapinfosystemsinc@gmail.com

    ASSESSMENT & VALUATION SERVICES
    P.O. Box 428
    North Chili, NY 14514
    Attn: Mr. David P. Miller, Consultant
    (585) 889-9772 (Voice&Fax)
    Email: avs@rochester.rr.com

    BRIGGS APPRAISAL SERVICE
    13 Church Street
    Cortland, NY 13045
    Attn: Mr. David W. Briggs
    (607) 753-1232
    (607) 756-0726 (FAX)

    GEORGE CADE, SRA, CRA
    269 County Highway 34A
    Cherry Valley, NY 13320
    Attn: Mr. George Cade
    (607) 264-3183
    Email: gcade@localnet.com

    COLES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
    P.O. Box 4141
    Ithaca, NY 14852-2141
    Attn: Mr. Michael G. Coles
    (607) 737-9626
    (607) 215-4427 (FAX)
    Email: mcoles@colesandassociates.com
    Or visit http://www.colesandassociates.com/

    MICHAEL DUNHAM
    PO Box 3203
    Kingston, NY 12402
    Attn: Mr. Michael Dunham
    (845) 339-8805
    Email: mdtax40@aol.com

    ENPM - EMMINGER, NEWTON, PIGEON & MAGYAR, INC.
    60 Lakefront Blvd. Suite 120
    Buffalo, NY 14202
    Attn: John Zukowski MAI, SRA, IAO
    (716) 685-0500
    (716) 558-2825 (FAX)
    Email: enpm@enpmappraisers.com


    EQUALITY
    121 Mattatuck Heights Road
    Waterbury, CT 06705
    Attn: Mr. Chris Kerin
    (203) 841-2308
    Email: leo@qds.biz
    EQUITABLE ASSESSMENT SERVICES
    46 Chenango Avenue
    Sherburne, NY 13460-9756
    Attn: Mr. Stephen R. Harris
    (607) 316-4574
    email: equity1@hotmail.com

    EQUITABLE ASSESSMENTS, LLC
    2503 Sylvan Loop
    Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
    Attn: Ms Deborah Whitton or Gene DeMarco
    (845) 392-4072
    Email: equitableassessments@gmail.com
    FITTS APPRAISAL COMPANY
    PO Box 315
    Homer, NY 13077
    Attn: Mr. Larry E. Fitts
    (607) 749-3473
    Email: Lfitts06@yahoo.com

    GAR ASSOCIATES
    2399 Sweet Home Road
    Amherst, NY 14228-2326
    Attn: Ms. Cindy Baire
    (716) 691-7100
    (716) 689-7700 (FAX)
    Email: cbaire@garappraisal.com

    GENERATIONS APPRAISAL SERVICE
    1115 Oak Lane
    Hinsdale, NY 14743
    Attn: Ms. Bobbi Elderkin, Owner
    (716) 557-2384
    (716) 408-8949 (FAX)
    Email: GenerationsAppraisal@gmail.com

    GIRASOLE-PENALE APPRAISAL, LLC
    225 Old Falls Street, Suite M
    Niagara Falls, NY 14303
    (716) 371-2037
    (716) 371-2041 (FAX)
    Email: girasole.penaleappraisal@gmail.com
    Or visit www.girasoleappraisals.com


    MICHAEL HABERMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
    Real Estate Appraisers & Consultants
    125 Front Street
    Mineola, NY 11501
    Attn: Mr. Michael Haberman
    Mr. Thomas Donato
    (516) 739-8080
    (516) 739-1810 (FAX)
    Email: mh@mhabermanassoc.com or
    tdonato@mhabermanassoc.com

    INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL SERVICE, INC.
    3407 Delaware Avenue
    Kenmore, NY 14217
    Attn: Mr. Dale S. Kadish or
    Mr. Richard A. VanDette
    (716) 871-9495
    (716) 871-2421 (FAX)


    THE KLW GROUP
    247 Cayuga Road
    Buffalo, NY 14225
    Attn: Mr. Robert E. Koszarek
    (716) 632-2100
    (716) 632-1062 (FAX)
    (716) 913-5278 (CELL)
    Email: Rkoszarek@KLWGroup.com


    LESTER APPRAISAL COMPANY
    145 Glen Avenue
    Williamsville, NY 14221
    Attn: Mr. Eric Lester
    (716) 989-5010
    (716) 989-5008 (FAX)
    (716) 913-3295 (CELL)
    Email: eric@lesterappraisal.com
    Or visit www.lesterappraisal.com


    MANATRON, INC
    510 E. Milham Avenue
    Portage, MI 49002
    (800) 776-7227
    (269) 567-2930 (FAX)
    Email: info@manatron.com

    MAXWELL APPRAISAL SERVICES
    PO Box 3002
    Syracuse, NY 13220-3002
    Attn: Mr. Michael Maxwell
    Toll Free: 1-866-727-2650
    (315) 458-0365 (FAX)
    Email: maxappraisal@hotmail.com

    MBA CONSULTING AND VALUATION
    300 International Drive
    Williamsville, New York 14221
    Attn: Mr. Robert P. Strell
    (716) 856-3900
    (716) 634-6121 (FAX)
    Email: rstrellmba@yahoo.com


    METROPOLITAN ASSESSMENT SERVICES
    116 BonAire Circle
    Suffern, NY 10901
    Attn: Ms. JoAnn Soules, President
    (845) 354-6633
    (845) 354-6866 (FAX)
    Email: josoules@aol.com

    MJW CONSULTING, INC.
    33-33 161 Street
    Flushing, NY 11358
    Attn: Mr. John M. Watch or
    Mr. James Thimgan
    (718) 321-7114
    (718) 461-1310
    (718) 939-4006 (FAX)
    Email: john@uspdr.com or
    russ@uspdr.com

    MUNICIPAL APPRAISAL & REVALUATION CO.
    4511 Parker Road
    Hamburg, NY 14075
    Attn: Mr. Eugene Kusmierz, Jr.
    (888) 561-6272
    (888) 649-0163 (FAX)
    Email: jkusmierz@verizon.net


    MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT SERVICES
    PO Box 16366
    Albany, NY 12205
    Attn: Mr. John Bonanno, Program Specialist
    (518) 852-8513
    Email: masllc05@gmail.com

    MUNICIPAL REVAL INC.
    Attn: Angel Lallis
    (845) 988-8800
    Email: munireval@gmail.com

    RESCOM CONSULTING LLC
    481A Heritage Hills Drive
    Somers, NY 10589
    Attn: Mr. William J. Ford, IAO
    (914) 617-2072
    Email: rburkejr@att.net

    J.F. RYAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
    3 Longview Lane
    Newbury, MA 01951
    Attn: Mr. John Ryan, CAE
    (978) 462-0036
    (978) 463-0011 (FAX)
    Email: jfryan@comset.net

    RZ CONSULTING
    341 Hidley Road
    Wynantskill, NY 12198
    Attn: Mr. Robert Zandri
    (518) 283-0157
    Email: rzc8291@yahoo.com

    CRAIG SURPRISE, IAO
    382 Old Road
    Cropseyville, NY 12052
    Attn: Mr. Craig Surprise
    (518) 279-3298
    (518) 279-3298 (FAX)
    Email: newlebanon@aol.com

    TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
    Appraisal and Tax Division
    4100 Miller-Valentine Court
    Morine, Ohio 45439
    Attn: Mr. Robert N. Marshall
    (937) 276-5261
    (800) 800-2581
    (937) 278-3711(FAX)
    Email: info@tylertech.com
    Or visit www.tylertech.com

    VISION GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS
    44 Bearfoot Road
    Northboro, MA 01532
    Attn: Mr. Jay Taranto
    (800) 628-1013
    (508) 351-3798 (FAX)
    Email: marketing@vgsi.com
    www.vgsi.com


    https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/prop...ontractors.htm

    Georgia L Schlager

  9. #54
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Maybe some of these contractors are contractors that a homeowner would use to fight their assessment not necessarily a large company that can assess thousands of parcels. Just my thought

    Georgia L Schlager

  10. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Maybe some of these contractors are contractors that a homeowner would use to fight their assessment not necessarily a large company that can assess thousands of parcels. Just my thought

    A good assumption and we will never know. It would have helped had Walter or Ruffino mentioned who the other two agencies were that were solicited besides GAR. It is obvious the town wanted GAR from the get-go.

    That said, I have no problem with GAR being qualified to do the project. What I was pleased to learn was of the scope of the project and whose doing what.

    Have you heard anything regarding a starting date?

  11. #56
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    Have you heard anything regarding a starting date?
    I don't believe that I heard a starting date. But the way they pushed to get the resolution through, it must be soon. IMHO

    Georgia L Schlager

  12. #57
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    13,150
    One would think that there would have been extreme transparency regarding this transaction considering the town appraiser's husband is an Executive Associate Certified General Appraiser for GAR. In the link I provided in post #53
    https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/prop...ontractors.htm

    There is a link for an RFP template at the top of the page which is encouraged to be used in detailing a project such as this in a RFP.

    They created an appearance of a Conflict of interest, IMO by not utilizing a formal RFP to 4 or 5 vendors.

    Georgia L Schlager

  13. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    One would think that there would have been extreme transparency regarding this transaction considering the town appraiser's husband is an Executive Associate Certified General Appraiser for GAR. In the link I provided in post #53
    https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/prop...ontractors.htm

    There is a link for an RFP template at the top of the page which is encouraged to be used in detailing a project such as this in a RFP.

    They created an appearance of a Conflict of interest, IMO by not utilizing a formal RFP to 4 or 5 vendors.
    Ah, the plot thickens!

    Standard practice on any professional services contract is an RFP process. While the awarding agency is under no requirement to go with lowest bidder, the process should be followed. Matt Walter’s comments at the board meeting about limited vendors are disingenuous. There are 4-5 vendors right in the WNY area that can be considered. When the City of Buffalo did their project RFP a couple of years ago, they actually received responses from some out of town vendors.

    As someone who is an advocate of a reassessment as the best method to level the playing field for taxpayers and in establishing the tax levy, that believe is premised on process transparency and credibility. The town has stumbled badly in its first step to establish either and that causes not only residents who already rail against the process, but others as well to mistrust the town’s mantra of ‘everyone gets to pay their fair share in taxes’.

  14. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,675
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    One would think that there would have been extreme transparency regarding this transaction considering the town appraiser's husband is an Executive Associate Certified General Appraiser for GAR. In the link I provided in post #53
    https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/prop...ontractors.htm

    There is a link for an RFP template at the top of the page which is encouraged to be used in detailing a project such as this in a RFP.

    They created an appearance of a Conflict of interest, IMO by not utilizing a formal RFP to 4 or 5 vendors.
    You are so astute gorja:

    Under the Division of Local Governance and School Accountability
    Office of the State Comptroller:

    As a municipal officer or *employee* your job by its very nature places you in a position of *public trust*You are responsible for ensuring that public resources are used in the best interests of the public.

    Under Article 18 of General Municipal Law - regulates your business dealings with your municipality. In general it is a conflict of interest when government employees involve family members in these types of transactions (transparency??)

    The law states that relationships with associated employee(s) could give an appearance of a *conflict of interest* This assumption leads us directly to the question *is this ethical?* Due to disclosure regarding $$ - investments-contracts- makes it highly vulnerable and can jeopardize the publics trust.

    Ruffino is spot on when he advocates multiple bids.

  15. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    8,922
    Assembly bill A02874 – condominium law 339-y

    On 6-18-2018 the NYS Assembly overwhelmingly (126 to 15) passed bill A02874 to amend the real property tax law and the real property law, in relation to the taxation of property owned by a cooperative corporation.

    The purpose of this legislation is to allow municipal corporations to value newly constructed and converted cooperative and condominium units as they would for real property to alleviate any negative impacts placed on the locality by the current statute.


    BILL JUSTIFICATION:

    As currently written, the Real Property Tax Law and the Real Property Law does not allow the sum of the assessments of individual cooperative or condominium units to exceed the value of the entire complex if it was valued as a single entity. The restriction tends to reduce condominium and cooperative assessments by preventing the use of sales of units in the assessment process. The Office of Real Property Services, assessors and other local officials generally consider the restrictions an unreasonable state mandate that unfairly limits the revenue-raising abilities of local governments.

    Assessors and appraisers also cite the difficulties they encounter when they are forced to ignore market information--usually the best indicator of value in developing estimates of taxable value. This bill would allow municipal corporations to value newly constructed and converted cooperative and condominium units as they would other real property to alleviate any negative impacts placed on the locality by the current statute.

    The bill was passed onto the NYS Senate on 6-18-2018 for their consideration.

    According to investigative reporter Michelle Breidenbach, Syracuse.com, the New York State Assembly passed a bill that would end tax breaks for condominiums starting in 2021. The bill moves to the Senate in the last days of the session.

    New York State allows single-family homes that look no different than their neighbors to pay lower property taxes because they are designated as condominiums.

    More than 10,000 condos in Upstate New York are cashing in on the tactic. Their owners are taking an average of 36% discount on their assessments, according to a Syracuse.com analysis of thousands of assessment and sales records.

    Upstate condo owners avoid at least $330 million a year in property taxes leaving their neighbors to pick up the slack for schools and local government.

    The new law would give local governments and school districts the option to assess newly built condominiums at market value – the same as other property – starting in 2021.

    A condo unit in Skaneateles recently sold for $2.1 million. It is assessed for about $400,000. (Sounds familiar to what’s taking place in Lancaster).

    Condominiums trace their roots to a 1960 state law that was meant to protect New York City high-rise apartment dwellers as their buildings were converted to units for sale. The law said homeowners who joined together to form a condominium association should be taxed as one unit. That property tax should be based on the unit’s potential rental income rather than the sale value of each home. Nothing in that law prevented other types of houses from becoming condos. Nothing contained it to New York City.

    Unfortunately, the New York State Senate has ended the 2018 session without closing a loophole that gives unintended property tax breaks to condominiums. Legislators have been unwilling to change the law despite decades of complaints from other taxpayers and the local assessors who have to administer the law.

    Comment

    The powerful Builders Association has been a force in lobbying Albany not to change the law as they have been bastardizing the intent of the law as a marketing tool for home sales.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Revenue losses by Condominium Law 339-y
    By Lee Chowaniec in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 25th, 2013, 09:08 AM
  2. Condominium Law 339-y scam continues
    By speakup in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 25th, 2009, 12:10 AM
  3. Is Condominium Law 339-y reform dead in the water-
    By speakup in forum Morning Breakfast - Breaking News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 13th, 2008, 03:20 PM
  4. Condominium Law 339-Why?
    By Foot Fungus in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2008, 04:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •