Me thinks Giza has more on his mind than the basic fairness/unfairness of the way this state's assesment system works. I think if he supports a full reval, he'll lose votes -- except in Depew, his base. The few blocks of loyal voters in Depew who helped him narrowly get re-elected over a nobody named Hammer.

I think Giza will "study" the issue until the election is over.......



Speakupwny.com
Western New York Residents
Live Forums! | Onlinebuffalo.com | Erie County | City of Buffalo


Assessment fairness: Part II: To reval or not to reval?
By Lee Chowaniec
Sep 3, 2007, 10:34


Resident Mike Fronczak asked the Lancaster Town Board at their recent meeting whether they were going to go through with the reval (reassessment) program they were considering. “If we are not doing it, why is the town taking bids from firms to do a study?”

“We are in the investigative stage, lets put it that way,” responded Supervisor Robert Giza.

“We would like to see how much it would cost, that’s why we are entertaining proposals to do the full-scale study”, added Town Attorney Richard Sherwood. That would be the costs involved in having an outside firm gather all the data, analyze the data and put out documentation.

According to Sherwood, If the study was too costly, then the town may not consider doing another reval. “Right now we are undecided."

When the study was performed in 2004-05, at least half the data collection and analysis was performed by the town Assessor’s office. GAR Associates was hired to help complete the study at a cost of $150,000.

The town receives $5 per parcel per year from the state for assessing properties at 100% market value. The town received $83,000 for the 16,000+ parcels analyzed for the 2005 and 2006 fiscal years, offsetting the costs from GAR Associates.

The town did not feel the need to do a 2007 assessment study as sale prices indicated there was stabilization and parody, so they lowered the equalization rate to 95%, bumping up the value of all properties 5 percent. This time around the study will performed in total by an outside appraisal firm and will be much more costly.

Study need and enactment?

Lancaster received a correspondence from the NYS Office of Real Property Services (ORPS) advising them of the benefit of assessing property at 100 percent market value. Wanting more information, Town Assessor Christine Fusco contacted ORPS and had a representative address the board at a recent Town Board meeting.

Patricia Valvo, Real Property Analyst from the New York State Office of Real Property Services addressed the board on the benefit of returning to assessing property at full market value (100%).

Supervisor Robert Giza asked Valvo whether going to 100 percent market value assessment had any impact on county taxes or school district revenues and state aid, as he was led to believe.

Valco answered that to her knowledge there were no impacts to either. “It is what it is, namely, an attempt to get every property owner to pay his or her fair share of property taxes.”

Fusco interjected that she was unaware of any impacts to the school district; “whether we are at 100 percent or at 95 percent, as we are this year.” “ By being at 100 percent, you distribute the tax burden fairly among all taxpayers.”

“We don’t want to go back to the 80 percent level as we were in 2005. That’s when the disparity becomes the greatest, where some properties appreciate more than others and some get hit with a big tax increase if you delay going to 100 percent market value.”

Town Attorney Richard Sherwood then interjected: ‘So you want to be at 100 percent so that everyone pays their fair share…because some properties appreciate faster than others, and some depreciate. Some will appreciate at 5 percent, some at 10 percent and others stay the same or even decrease in value.”

Valvo cautioned the board that they didn’t want to have happen what occurred in 2005, where there was long period of time when properties were not assessed and where some properties appreciated significantly. “You were at a 78 percent equalization rate. The change was dramatic for some property owners when you went to 100 percent. The change would not be so dramatic if reassessment were done now. Furthermore, an equalization rate does not reflect true market value.”

Once again it was asked whether it would be easier for a school managing a budget and better for receiving state aid if the town assessed at 100 percent market value. As no definitive answer was forthcoming, there will be a future meeting with all vested parties present for the purpose of coming to an understanding and a determination.

Supervisor Giza declared: “You know what it (problem) is? The public hears we are going to do this and they get all upset. They don’t understand the hypothetical issues involved in the planning. They think we are hiding something, playing a shell game. If they would just settle down.”

Comments

Where Giza sees hypothetical issues, the public sees another round of property tax increases that will occur under the guise of “fairness” and for keeping the tax levy rates low for both the town and school district.

As happened in the last reval, residents will be crying foul on basing their property value on home sales and “comparables”. “Until you sell your home, you will never truly know its market value is,” will be rallying cry of those property owners contesting their assessments.

Paragraphs could be spent again deferring to reasons why the public will declare the process is flawed. Comparables are just that comparables. No two homes are alike.

This person believes everyone should pay they’re share of taxes, based on 100 percent market value. This process is defiled when single-family patio homes receive 30-to-35 percent tax rebates because of 339-y condo law consideration, when several dozen Lancaster commercial enterprises receive IDA tax abatements and when businesses in town receive NYS 485-b extension exemptions. The playing field is not level.

Why is the town willing to spend mucho dollars in contracting outside appraisal services when it has an assessor’s office that can handle the brunt of the work – as it did in 2004-2005?

Why did the town opt not to retain the 100 percent market value formula for 2007, which would have eliminated the redoing of the reval program and the costs associated with it?

Why do homeowners believe it is the Assessor’s office that initiates the costly reval program? It is the Town Board that investigates it’s undertaking and makes the decision to move forward.

What advantages are garnered by having assessments based on 100 percent property market value – based on a process many feel is flawed?

What disadvantages are there in not being at 100 percent property market value? When asked that question at a Town Board informational meeting, Patricia Valvo, Real Property Analyst from the New York State Office of Real Property Services answered that to her knowledge there were no impacts. “It is what it is, namely, an attempt to get every property owner to pay his or her fair share of property taxes.” Town Assessor Christine Fusco and town board members were also unable to give justification.

Giza declared that School District Superintendent Edward Myszka informed him it did impact the school in some manner. Fusco said she would check into the matter. No answer has yet been given.

Only nine of twenty-nine Erie County school districts are at 100 percent equalization rate for 2007; ten below 50 percent.

I guess Supervisor Giza is right when he says that, “We (public) don’t understand the hypothetical issues behind the reassessment process.” However, the public does understand the town’s recent spending on hiring three police officers to combat town and school drug abuse, and the school’s hiring three more staff members at high rates of pay. The combined cost between salaries, benefits, pensions, etc. will cost town taxpayers over $600,000.

Town and school budgets are sure to increase. The public will pay added taxes no matter whether we go to 100 percent property market value or not. The public does not want to spend an additional $200,000 to $300,000 for a program that is not warranted, but that would be incorporated to raise town revenues in such manner to reduce the tax levy rate and say, “what good boys are we!”

The 2004-05 reval program was long overdue and was the reason for much of the controversy that ensued. For 2007, Lancaster’s equalization rate was 95 percent. The town’s reasoning for said reval program update and costs involved should be made public and transparent, else suspicion and controversy are sure to be rife!

© Copyright 2006 by Speakupwny.com

Top of Page


Editorials
Latest Headlines
Assessment fairness: Part II: To reval or not to reval?
Lancaster’s Politically Disenfranchised Need to Organize: Part 2
Assessment fairness: Part I: Revision of Condominium Law 339-y remains in limbo
Lancaster’s Politically Disenfranchised Need to Organize: Part 1
Windsor Ridge South, Part 4: Comments on SEQR negative declaration
Cemetery Road Bridge Public Hearing – Part 3, Dale Volker’s Comments
Cemetery Road Bridge Public Hearing – Part 2d, Public Comments
Cemetery Road Bridge Public Hearing – Part 2c, Public Comments
Cemetery Road Bridge Public Hearing – Part 2b, Public Comments
Cemetery Road Bridge Public Hearing – Part 2a, Public Comments



Web hosting By
www.olm1.com

Part of
www.onlinebuffalo.com