Association of Towns of the State of New York meeting

[Lee Chowaniec]

Residents in the town ask every year for an accounting of what took place at the annual Association of Towns of the State of New York meeting – regarding the itinerary of the town officials who attended, the cost and whether the attending had value.

Upon request, I was presented a copy of the itinerary, and documents presented at the meeting by Town of Lancaster Highway Superintendent Dan Amatura and will share the following:

The Association of Towns of the State of New York meets annually. Its membership is open to every town in the state of New York and its purpose is to act as an agency of the towns in devising practical ways for obtaining greater economy and efficiency in governance.

According to the Association Constitution and Buy-Laws they do this by:

(a) Collecting, compiling, distributing and publishing information relative to town government;
(b) Suggesting and developing improved methods for the administration of town functions;
(c) Aiding in training town officers for the better performance of their duties;
(d) Providing a means whereby town officers may exchange ideas and experiences;
(e) Take all the necessary proper actions to preserve strong and effective town government in New York State;
(f) And to do any and all things necessary and proper to effect such economy and efficiency in government for the benefit of the towns of New York State and their inhabitants.


The Association has a committee that works on putting together proposals that are in the best interest of the towns, proposes such suggestions to the general body and where in turn resolutions are presented to the Governor and Legislature for consideration. Fifteen (15) such resolutions were submitted this year. They included:

1) Preserve and strengthen Home Rule
2) Mandate relief
3) Publication of Legal Notices
4) Reform Community College Chargebacks
5) Road preservation securities and road use agreements
6) Reinstatement of funding for school tax relief exemption administration
7) Reform rent property tax system
8) Waiver of asbestos notification fees with municipality owned properties
9) Highway, Bridge and Transportation funding
10) Increase Justice Court funding
11) Authority to charge gross receipts taxes on utility bills
12) Funding local costs associated with gas extraction
13) Preserve dedicated funds for local purposes
14) Preserve Real Property Taxes, State Income Tax and Mortgage Interest Federal Income Tax Deductions
15) Preserve Federal Income Tax Exemption for interest earned on Municipal Bonds.

I found Resolution No. 7 of interest and will share its contents. Resolution was requested by the Resolution Committee and read:

New Yorkers pay amongst the highest real property taxes in the nation. One reason New Yorkers pay high real property taxes is due to the method of real property taxation and assessment. NYS Law provides favored status to certain properties to the detriment of others. There are hundreds of real property exemptions enacted into New York State Law, taking 33 percent of all real property in New York State off the tax rolls. According to the Office of Real Property Tax Services, the state approved over 40 special exemption bills in 2012.

Rather than reducing property taxes for everyone, property tax exemptions merely shift the burden to fund town services to a smaller pool of taxpayers. Attempts have been made to address the issues brought on by real property tax exemptions. There have been numerous reports and recommendations offered to address the problems in our real property tax system including:

1. Making all future exemptions optional
2. Reforming condominium assessments
3. Tax base sharing
4. Compensating local governments for state land
5. State reimbursements to offset local tax shifting
6. Service charges for special districts
7. Defining the term eligible for purposes of exemptions
8. Income tax circuit breakers

This resolution calls for the state to finally address the inequities in the exemption system.

Resolved: that the Association of Towns calls upon the Governor and the Legislature to define and enact a uniform, well-defined approach to exemption and taxable status date legislation and provide state funding for any state mandated or encouraged exemption programs and protect local property tax revenues.

Other

It was also interesting, and disturbing as well, to read a document published by the Office of the State Comptroller titled “Growing Cracks in the Foundation: Local governments are losing ground on addressing vital infrastructure needs”.

The following excerpts from the OSC publication speak on the issues we face today:

While some local government officials should be credited for continuing to invest in infrastructure during these difficult times, there are some harsh economic realities hindering their efforts. Construction and energy-related costs have increased significantly over the past ten years, far outpacing the rate of inflation and growth in capital spending. Fuel and asphalt costs almost doubled over the period, while costs for highway and road construction materials have increased by nearly 60 percent through June 2010 (latest data available). As a result, future capital expenditures will not repair as much infrastructure as they once did because available revenues have not kept pace with increasing costs. Local government officials have confirmed these trends, telling us that they have undertaken fewer capital projects than planned because of inadequate funding and rising costs.

Local government spending on roads and bridges grew by more than 24 percent during the period, faster than the general rate of inflation. Spending rose from almost $780 million in 2002 to more than $974 million in 2010, increasing the most in towns and counties. However, growth in capital spending has lagged behind increase in fuel and other construction related costs. Over the ten year period cost of fuel and asphalt have risen by 190 and 206 percent, respectively. In addition the cost of materials for road and highway construction rose by more than 57 percent from January 2002 to June 2010.

Local government officials told us that the current financial environment, coupled with rising construction related costs, had caused them to defer need road and bridge maintenance. For example, Officials in Orange County told us that they should repave 10 percent of the 315 County roads annually, but have repaved only about 25 miles of road annually, or 20 percent less miles than needed to keep pace with necessary maintenance.

Local government highways comprise nearly 97,000 centerline miles of roadways and almost 9,000 bridges (which include more than 700 New York City bridges). Travel on the New York State network exceeds 133 billion vehicle miles, with 48 percent of it occurring on local roads. In the last 15 years, travel has increased by over 21.5 million miles per year, or more than 19 percent. A study by the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT) estimated that New York needs to invest $175.2 billion over the next 20 years on its multimodal transportation system.

To better estimate the condition of the roads maintained by local governments, we consulted a 2007 Local Needs Study prepared for the New York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways. It considered 45.9 percent of local roads to be in poor or fair condition. The study estimated that the State’s local roads would require an investment of $3.9 billion over the next 20 years (through 2030).

The DOT inspects and rates the condition of bridges statewide. On a positive note, the average condition of the bridges maintained by local governments has improved slightly over the period. From 2002 to 2010, DOT reported that the number of deficient local bridges decreased by 368, or 4 percent, and the number of closed bridges had declined by 10 (from 86 to 76).

Amatura also attended a HR policy seminar, costs of Workman’s Comp seminar, and a seminar on Disaster Preparedness. Amatura has presented to the Town Board a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that covers the town’s infrastructure needs over the next several years – regarding equipment, bridge/culvert replacement, road paving, ditch clearing, drainage issues, etc.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
I found Resolution No. 7 of interest and will share its contents. Resolution was requested by the Resolution Committee and read:

New Yorkers pay amongst the highest real property taxes in the nation. One reason New Yorkers pay high real property taxes is due to the method of real property taxation and assessment. NYS Law provides favored status to certain properties to the detriment of others. There are hundreds of real property exemptions enacted into New York State Law, taking 33 percent of all real property in New York State off the tax rolls. According to the Office of Real Property Tax Services, the state approved over 40 special exemption bills in 2012.

Rather than reducing property taxes for everyone, property tax exemptions merely shift the burden to fund town services to a smaller pool of taxpayers. Attempts have been made to address the issues brought on by real property tax exemptions. There have been numerous reports and recommendations offered to address the problems in our real property tax system including:

1. Making all future exemptions optional
2. Reforming condominium assessments
3. Tax base sharing
4. Compensating local governments for state land
5. State reimbursements to offset local tax shifting
6. Service charges for special districts
7. Defining the term eligible for purposes of exemptions
8. Income tax circuit breakers

This resolution calls for the state to finally address the inequities in the exemption system.

Here's an example of one of our appointed officials residence which had a purchase price of $319,398
in 2008. Look at its assessed valuation- $206,000 that's 35.5% less than the purchase price.



Were they also requesting to reduce the amount of property tax exemptions from IDa's and the like?

[DMarrano]

Here's an example of one of our appointed officials residence which had a purchase price of $319,398
in 2008. Look at its assessed valuation- $206,000 that's 35.5% less than the purchase price.



Were they also requesting to reduce the amount of property tax exemptions from IDa's and the like?

That property is located in the Pleasant meadows Patio home community. It is assessed differently due to the fact they have 339-y protection with a classification of Condominium. The Assessor must use an income approach in valuing the property, which results in the Assessed value being in the 60-70% range of the Market value.

[Lee Chowaniec]

That property is located in the Pleasant meadows Patio home community. It is assessed differently due to the fact they have 339-y protection with a classification of Condominium. The Assessor must use an income approach in valuing the property, which results in the Assessed value being in the 60-70% range of the Market value.

Of course 339-y and many of the owners of like homes that receive 35-40% tax breaks are the same that help make the 14086 zip code the fourth wealthiest in Western New York. The Town(s) has seen this inequity for years and have memorialized the state to give them an opportunity to opt out with no success. The NYS Association of Towns has once again petitioned the Governor and Legislature to change the 339-y Condo Law by bringing a bill to the floor. It didn't happen under Joe Bruno's watch and still won't happen.

[Irish Rose]

I was informed years ago when I questioned this inconsistency amongst properties ... how did this happen? ... that it was the way the filing for the property was presented. Why some development companies secure the 339-y condo classification and others do not is anybody's guess.

[gorja]

That property is located in the Pleasant meadows Patio home community. It is assessed differently due to the fact they have 339-y protection with a classification of Condominium. The Assessor must use an income approach in valuing the property, which results in the Assessed value being in the 60-70% range of the Market value.

Yes, I know this. I used this example to drive the point home on the unfairness of the 339-y law.