The pros and cons of cyclical reassessments

NORTH EAST — Last month town Assessor Katherine Johnson presented a report to the Town Board about a new statewide property reassessment aid program. At this month’s Town Board meeting she recapped that presentation in a written report, which concluded with a request to the board to permit her to take action.

“The new program gives us the flexibility to choose a reassessment cycle that is best for our town,� she stated in her report. “It also does not require annual updates.�

The Aid for Cyclical Reassessments (ACR) program, sponsored by the state’s Office of Real Property Tax Services (ORPS), is a result of the revised 2010-11 state budget and aims to protect the initial investment in a sound assessment roll.

According to ORPS, on average, roughly 100 municipalities conduct reassessments annually in New York, without plans to keep assessments at market value for future years. Under the ACR program, plans for future reassessments are required, and more frequent updates anticipated.

What’s different

under the new program

• The Triennial and Annual Aid programs have been repealed and replaced by ACR

• The new program requires periodic reassessments — including full reappraisals — according to a planned schedule

• Up to $5 per parcel is available in reappraisal years (maximum $500,000)

• Up to $2 per parcel in non-reappraisal years (maximum $500,000)

Why has the aid

program changed?

• ACR encourages cyclical reassessments, rather than “one-shot� reassessments

• Two-dollar payments in non-reappraisal years will assist with the cost of the next reappraisal

• The reappraisal requirements will result in more accurate and equitable assessments

“The most important point to make is that if we do not submit a plan by Jan. 1, 2011, we will not be eligible to collect our ‘up to $5 per parcel’ offered by the state to support our current reassessment project,� stated Johnson, who added that the town is still given the opportunity to earn up to $5 per parcel in the year of a reassessment and now also up to $2 per parcel in a non-reassessment year, even if it does not choose to update or stay at a 100 percent equalization rate.

“If we submit a general plan now, we will have all of next year to get through our reassessment project and re-evaluate our options going forward,� Johnson wrote to the board. “Then we will have until Jan. 1, 2012, to submit a revised plan. That is, if we submit a plan now, we still have the flexibility to revise or withdraw from the plan without penalty.�

With that statement the assessor made the following recommendations: For 2011 to be a reassessment year, with a return from the state for the town’s current reassessment project of $5 per parcel; for 2012 to be a non-reassessment year, with a return from the state for the town’s current reassessment project of $2 per parcel; for 2013 to be a non-reassessment year, with a return from the state for the town’s current reassessment project of $2 per parcel; and for 2014 to be a reassessment year, with a return from the state for the town’s current reassessment project of $5 per parcel.

Johnson finished her report with a request to the Town Board to authorize her to prepare a plan with the proposed reassessment schedule. The Town Board discussed the issue briefly before voting.

“I’m looking at this and I don’t like it,� Councilman Dave McGhee said. “It’s too close … and we don’t want to get stuck with it. We don’t want to go through it and then have it come up in another three years.�

“It would make more sense if the term of assessments was six years,� said Councilman Carl Stahovec. “Then I might go for it.�

“I think they call this the four-year plan,� said town Supervisor Dave Sherman. “I call it the three-year plan. I think there is a five-year plan, a longer term than this that I would be in favor of because it’s another set of options.�

“I could approve that plan of action if it guaranteed $5 per parcel,� Stahovec said, to which the other board members agreed.

“I’ll make the motion we accept the reassessment schedule with the addition of longer years, if available [with the $5 per parcel reimbursement],� McGhee said.

The board voted unanimously in favor of McGhee’s motion, with the exception of Councilman Tim Shaffer, who was absent from the Dec. 9 meeting.