Complaints continue regarding reval project

NORTH EAST — The sticky subject of property reassessments was once again part of the Town Board’s focus at its business meeting on Thursday, May 12, after it was raised during public comments and again during the assessor’s monthly report. The property owners who spoke out were not happy.Public commentsRob Cooper, who owns Associate Lightning Rod and a few other properties in town, said his holdings have jumped in value: in one case 245 percent and in another 879 percent.“I’m afraid of what it will do to my taxes,” he said. “Some of the land is worthless swampland and old rail beds. Is it an option to donate it back to the town? I don’t know.”Cooper asked for his options, stating one thing he was certain of was that he was heading to Grievance Day on Wednesday, May 25.“That is your option,” town Supervisor Dave Sherman said. “Also, you can talk to the assessor. Katherine [Johnson] said she will talk to [property owners] and certainly I would recommend you would avail yourself of that opportunity.”Johnson, sitting in the audience, handed Cooper her card and suggested he gather his paperwork and give her a call.The next public comment was made by Millerton resident Pamela Michaud, a frequent critic of the town. This time, in her prepared statement, Michaud said it was “not right” that “some are even particularly blaming the very board members who have been most steadfast in standing up for the interests of their community.”However, that statement clearly did not apply to the entire board.“[Town Supervisor Dave] Sherman has advanced farmland protection not, I believe, to help farmers, but to acquire land for open space preservation or greenbelts, as stated in the report he helped produce almost 10 years ago,” Michaud claimed. “Somehow, the plan to conduct a fair revaluation to correct real inequities seems to have morphed into a crusade against landowners and farmers, some of whose families have worked this land for generations.”Sherman took exception to that accusation, and said so days later.“Whenever I’ve been involved in larger planning activities I’ve been there to protect the town’s interest,” he said. “Most of the things reflected elsewhere are copying over what we already had as far as our planning. I think she was essentially trying to sieze on an issue of public concern that people are upset about and trying to mix up facts and smear the efforts of other people who have faithfully served our community.”Following on the heels of Michaud’s statement was dairy farmer John Perotti, he said like Michaud, he, too, believed the farmland protection plan benefits the rich rather than the farmers. He had other complaints to voice as well.“My belief is it was the Town Board’s responsibility to hire someone to revaluate properties to correct the problems of the past,” Perotti said, referring to the previous property reval that ended with the project being canceled halfway through due to the town’s displeasure with the contractor and his methodology. “From what I’m hearing and seeing, I believe the individuals you hired did not understand what a rural area was like, they more understand urban areas. I feel there should be a review and the board should stick to its guns and hold these ladies responsible.“I think they did a lousy job and if they haven’t been fully paid I think the board should hold [their pay] until [they clean up the matter] or someone comes in and addresses it,” he added.The assessor’s sideThe assessor had the opportunity to respond during her report, which she presented to the Town Board following public comments. She said there were 135 formal reviews between property owners and her consultant in April. Everything that was corrected and updated was placed on the tentative roll, she said, which was filed with the county on the May 1 deadline. Johnson added she’s still available to property owners with complaints until May 24, the day before Grievance Day on Wednesday, May 25. She also added property owners do not have to appear before the Board of Assessment Review (BAR) in person; as long as their paperwork in submitted by the May 25 deadline, it will be reviewed.A peek inside the processThe Town Board then asked Johnson what the outcome of some of her meetings with property owners have been like.“Some changes have been made,” she said, “usually of internal things like bedrooms and bathrooms. I would say it was 50/50 with reductions [to property values being required].”“The 50 percent that didn’t get a reduction, where do they go?” asked Councilman Tim Shaffer.“Fifteen of those people came back to me and said they want to go to grievance,” Johnson said. “The others realized they don’t have a claim.”“That’s a lot,” said Councilman Carl Stahovec.“It’s less than 10 percent,” Johnson said. “That’s outstandingly low for a reval.”A last requestThe assessor then asked the board to withdraw the resolution it passed in April requesting the assessor not file this year’s assessment roll but rather use last year’s roll; she made the same request two weeks earlier.“I stand by my original decision [to support that resolution],” Councilman Steve Merwin said.“It’s important to let the people know we are going forward and we are all going forward together,” Johnson said.“I’m just not very happy with the open land assessments and I know a lot of people with open land reassessments that just went up and down. In this day and age, we’re just not selling in this area,” Merwin said. “I don’t understand how farmland can be so differently assessed. I’ve had a lot of complaints about open farmland and how it’s been assessed. I want people to get answers and be satisfied, or at least to get answers.”“I do not like to see you blame the consultant as an outsider,” Johnson said in response to previous such statements. “Primarily I worked on land values. I know the values came out right. We knew they were not right the last time around.”Getting neutral inputFarmer Chip Barrett raised an important point, according to the Town Board, asking if the New York State Farm Bureau and or the Office of Real Property Services (ORPS) could get involved in the issue as a “go-between” to help settle the matter.“Do we have somebody we can go to as a third party?” Barrett asked. “Maybe that’s what we need. We need some representation and clarification on the law. I’m not personally saying anything about Katherine, that’s not what this is about.”The town supervisor said he would look into the issue, and then the conversation closed and the meeting turned to different matters.