HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_04_07 Town Board Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN
BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK AND THE BOARD
OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS HELD ON APRIL 7, 1999 AT 8:15
PM IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN CENTER,740 W.
BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK, 10543
PRESENT:
Supervisor Paul A. Ryan
Councilwoman Valerie M. O'Keeffe
Councilwoman Judith A Myers
Councilman Barry Weprin (arrived at 8:40 PM)
ABSENT: Councilwoman Phyllis Wittner
Councilwoman Wittner was in Japan on vacation. The Supervisor said that Councilman
Weprin should be arriving soon.
ALSO PRESENT:
Patricia DiCioccio, Town Clerk
Stephen V.Altieri, Town Administrator
Charlene Indelicato, Town Attorney
CONVENE EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board convened into an Executive Session at 6:30 PM in Conference Room A of the
Town Center to discuss personnel and litigation.
On motion duly made and seconded the Board adjourned at 8:25 PM to the Court Room.
CALL TO ORDER
The Regular meeting of the Town Board was called to order by Supervisor Ryan at 8:30
PM,who then pointed out the location of exits.
8:15 PM-Presentation by Property Revaluation Committee
Supervisor Ryan introduced the Revaluation Committee members: George Roniger,
Chair,Tom Christian,Ann McAndrews, Helen Langerfeld, Dick Mumma, Robert Millar,
James Fleming, Maurice Nalven, Kerry Moelis and Robert Katz. He said the committee
was formed to study the possibility and ramifications of reassessing properties,which
was needed because the values are so out of whack. The Supervisor said that this
report would also be presented at the Board meetings of the Village of Mamaroneck
and the Village of Larchmont,as well as the School Board. If anyone else has
questions of wishes to host a meeting of a neighborhood association,we will attend
and present this there also. He added that this is an initial step,nothing is being
decided yet,many questions have to be answered.
Mr. Roniger,Chair then stated that the Committee had set a goal to identify issues
related to property values,and to find a means to create an understanding with
residents on the issues that would be effecting them should there be a reassessment.
Also,to provide information to residents on why property assessments are inequitable.
Councilman Weprin arrived at this point-8:40 PM.
Anne McAndrews was then introduced and she spoke on issues related to ability to
pay,explaining that moderate rate houses would have the overall tax burden
April 7, 1999
decreased. They had looked at phasing in the changes but concluded that would not
be fair to those homes that are over-assessed and that it would be an administrative
nightmare to staff. She explained the Homestead option and its effect on commercial
and non-commercial properties and that it would not have to be implemented up front,
a choice could be made to use or not to opt into that much later in the process. She
said that condominiums could be categorized commercial if rented and not uses as a
home. There would have to be a closer look throughout the process,monitoring the
figures as they come in,to avail ourselves of the window of time to make the decision.
Condo's could end up revalued based on income stream rather than on true value.
She said the affect on the Village of Larchmont will dovetail that of the Town,but the
Village of Mamaroneck,which is split into two towns and two school districts would
have to choose what they would want to do.
Tom Christian then gave a presentation on the charts(RAR)and showed the overall
affects numerically that are included in the reports.
Mr. Roniger that summed up the report,and said that the Committee would be
presenting the report again at the Villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck meetings.
He said that if the revaluation should happen there would be a period of time that
taxpayers would have to ask for the new assessment to be reviewed.
The Town Administrator said that to initiate the procedure a consultant would be hired,
a request for proposals would be sent out. Once the firm is picked,the inspections
would begin on approximately 8300 Town properties. He said that there might be a
period of amnesty for structures that have been added without permits. The tentative
valuation would be sent to the homeowner,who then would have an opportunity to
disagree at an informal hear. After all is reconciled,a new tentative roll would be
prepared for adoption by the Board,which would not be done until 2001. The cost
would run about$65 to$80 per parcel,with the total cost being anywhere from
$550,000 to$640,000. The State would reimburse us$5 per parcel and is presently
looking at a bill which is proposing a reimbursement of$20 per parcel with an addition
$5 for maintaining the roll.
Councilwoman O'Keeffe asked what the consultant would be paid.
Mr.Altieri replied that it is hard to know that at this point but is looking for proposals
which would have a lump sum amount. She asked if the cost could reach$100,000,to
which he answered yes,from$50,000 to$100,000.
Supervisor Ryan noted that the cost would be spread over two to three years.
Irving Scharf said that there should be a phase in period and asked if there was any
way to estimate the valuation on condominiums. He was told there was no way of
knowing that yet.
Mr.Scharf stated that the law is not correct,certiorari filings point out the inequities.
There should be either a straight land value or cost of construction or income
approach instead. He said that he was not in favor of reassessment based on the law
in Albany.
Councilwoman O'Keeffe said she was confused about the two different values if we opt
into the Homestead option,are we inadvertently picking on a certain class, i.e.:
condo's.
Councilman Weprin said that if we opt not to homestead,would the budget then be
effected.
Councilwoman O'Keeffe asked if one would be better off as a condo or coop?
Mr. Roniger replied that he could not answer that right now. The Homestead decision
does not have to be made now,lets study it and decide later. The other problem is the
confusing state laws,and we should actively see if we could have them changed.
There was a lengthy discussion that followed on:
Keeping the valuation current once its completed.
The effect on surrounding communities.
The difference between our revaluation and the one performed recently by Pelham that
was less sophisticated.
Ensuring that valuations get updated regularly
Councilwoman Myers commented on the difficulty in preparing future budgets,which is
2
April 7, 1999
based on the current assessment role.
Supervisor Ryan then thanked the Committee for their work and reminded everyone
about the presentations to be held at the Village's Board meetings as well as the Board of
Education's monthly meeting. He said that this is a painful process which is being
proposed, but that no one should have to pay more than they should. For 25 years this
issue have been avoided by everyone, it was not politically correct,well we have to face it
now. There will be plenty of time for everyone's questions to be answered and there will
be a public hearing in May to further study the issue and answer some of those
questions.
REPORT OF THE PROPERTY REVALUATION COMMITTEE AT END OF MINUTES
Affairs of the Town
1. Appointments-Human Rights Commission
The Administrator said the term of Cora Rust,expired at the end of March 1999,if re-
appointed by the Town Board,her term would expire March 31,2002. With the
appointment of Judith Meyers to the Town Board,there is a vacancy on the Commission.
When the Human Rights Commission was expanded to be a tri-municipal group,Judie
Martin,a former member of the Town Commission,was appointed as an alternate
commissioner. The Chairwoman of the Commission has requested that Ms.Martin be
appointed to fill the vacancy.
On motion of Councilwoman Myers,seconded by Councilwoman O'Keeffe,it was
unanimously,
RESOLVED,that the Town Board does hereby appoint Judie
Martin,as a member of the Tri-municipal Human Rights
Commission,to fill the unexpired term of Judith Myers,said
term expiring March 31,2000;and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED,the Town Board does hereby reappoint Cora
Rust as member of the Tri-municipal Human Rights
Commission,for a three year term,said term expiring March
2002.
2. Authorization -Prisoner Transportation Agreement Westchester County
The Administrator said that in accordance with the New York State Corrections Law,
prisoners are required to be transported from local municipalities within the County to
the County-run jail located in Valhalla. Under the terms of this agreement,local police
departments transport prisoners and are reimbursed for cost of transportation by the
County. The renewal agreement between the County and the Town for prisoner
transportation services is based on the distance from the municipality to the County jail.
The Town is in Zone 4 and would receive$110 per round trip in 1999 and$115 per round
trip in 2000. Outlined in the agreement are special circumstances for which the Town
would be entitled to additional expenses,for instance, if we were transporting more than
seven prisoners,the Town can submit expenses for additional police officers needed for
the transport. The total funding received is contingent upon the number of prisoners
held in custody in a given year. The agreement is essentially the same as the 1998
agreement except for an increase in the round trip fee. Subject to any comments by
Counsel,authorization is requested to execute the agreement with the County.
On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe,seconded by Councilwoman Myers,it was
unanimously,
RESOLVED,that the Town Board does hereby approve the
Prisoner Transportation Agreement between the Town and
the County of Westchester;and
3
April 7, 1999
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED,that the Town Administrator is hereby authorized
to execute said agreement on behalf of the Town.
3. Authorization -Snow/Ice Control Agreement New York State Dept. of Transportation
Mr.Altieri said this is the proposed extension to the current agreement between the
Town and the New York State DOT for the removal of snow and ice on State roads in the
Town.The Town would be reimbursed in a lump sum of$8,253 for removal of snow and
ice on Weaver St.and the Boston Post Road.The proposed extension agreement would
run through June of 2001. All terms of the agreement remain the same as part of the
extension agreement.Authorization is requested to execute the extension agreement on
behalf of the Town.
There was a discussion on whether the reimbursement amount was sufficient to cover
cost. The Administrator explained that in certain years,like 1995,where we had
numerous snow storms,the reimbursement was not even close. But during the past
few years,there has been little or no snow,the reimbursement amount exceed actual
costs.
RESOLVED,that the Town Board does hereby
approve the Snow/Ice Control Agreement with
the New York State Dept.of Transportation for
reimbursement to the Town for snow and ice
removal on Weaver Street and Boston Post Road
for a sum of$8,253.00,said agreement expires
June 2001; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED,that the Town Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute said agreement on
behalf of the Town.
4. Report of Bids-Contract TA-99-3 -Fuel Tank Replacement
The Town Administrator reported that on Wednesday, March 31, 1999 the bids were
opened for the replacement of existing underground storage tanks with above-ground
tanks. He outlined the following:
Scope:
The purpose of this contract is to bring the Town into compliance with
Federal and State regulations governing the maintenance and operation of
underground fuel tanks. The current underground tanks are quite old and
do not have leakage monitoring equipment and vent-monitoring equipment
as required. This project was included in the Town's 1999 Capital
Improvement Program.
Under the bid specifications,the contractor must test the old tanks and
remove them if they are found to be leaking. If the tanks are not found to
have leaks,they can be closed by means of filling the tanks with sand or
other inert material. Leaking tanks must be removed from the site along with
any contaminated soil surrounding the tanks.
The contractor will install two(2)above-ground fuel tanks with a capacity of
two thousand gallons which is in accordance with our plans and
specifications. The tanks are used to store diesel fuel and unleaded fuel for
our vehicles. Above-ground tanks were chosen to avoid expensive leak
monitoring devices and ease of relocation should the Town redesign the
Town Yard at Maxwell Ave. Above-ground tanks are also easier to maintain.
The time for completion of the project is estimated to be three months.
Cost:
4
April 7, 1999
Bids were received from eight contractors with prices ranging from$98,300
to$327,000. The low bid was received from Ira Conklin Inc.of Newburgh,
New York with a bid of$98,300. A contingency for this project has been
established for the removal of contaminated soil. The quantity of this work
cannot be determined until the ground has been excavated and tested.
Based upon the size of our tanks,we have set a contingency of$100,000 for
soil removal. This amount is determined by an estimate of 1,000 tons of
contaminated soil removed at a cost of$100/ton.
In addition to the cost of the construction work there is a fee of$10,000 for
the engineering and inspection of the project. Therefore,the total project
cost is estimated to be$210,000.The project would be financed by the
issuance of a bond anticipation note.
Recommendation:
The recommendation to the Town Board is to authorize the project budget at
$210,000. Further it is recommended that contract no.TA-99-3 be awarded
to the lowest responsible bidder meeting the Town's specifications, Ira
Conklin and Sons Inc.,and that the Town Administrator be authorized to
execute a contract with the successful bidder.
The bids received:
N. Picco&Sons Contracting Co., Inc. $327,000.00
154 E. Boston Post Road
Mamaroneck, New York 10543
RND Services,Inc. $196,196.00
62 Fulton Street,White Plains. NY 10606
914-682-8585
Castlton Environmental Contractors $148,784.00
P.O. Box 507, E. Rutherford, NJ 07073
201-291-0101
Environmental Products&Services,Inc. $147,220.00
365 Route 9W,Congers, NY 10920
914-267-4828
S&M Management Incorporated $139,000.00
Route 6&209, Milford, PA 18337
717-296-5395
The Tyree Organization $138,260.00
125 Commerce Drive, Brookfield,CT 06804
Griffin Industrial Services,Inc. $126,816.10
P.O. Box 519, East Syracuse, NY 13057
315-463-6945
Ira D.Conklin &Sons,Inc. $98,300.00
92-94 Stewart Ave., P.O. Box 7457,
Newburgh, NY 12550
914-561-1512
Councilwoman Myers questioned whether there was more danger in having the tanks
above-ground rather than below.
The Administrator replied there was little danger because the tanks will be surrounded
by earth and diesel will not explode,it will only burn. He noted that in the year 2000
budget,there will be a proposal for restructuring the Town yard and these tanks would
be easy to move should it be necessary.
On motion of Councilman Weprin,seconded by Councilwoman O'Keeffe,it was
unanimously,
RESOLVED,that the Town Board hereby awards
the bid for Contract TA-99-3 for replacement of
5
April 7, 1999
two storage tanks,to the lowest responsible
bidder meeting the specifications,Ira Conklin &
Sons Inc.,who bid$98,300;and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED,that an additional$110,000 be
allotted for this project to cover the costs for
removal of contaminated soil should it be
encountered and for the cost of engineering
services; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED,that the Administrator is hereby
authorized to execute said contract on behalf of
the Town.
5. Salary Authorizations: -Highway Dept.
-Recreation Dept.
-Town Supervisor/Town Administrator Office
Highway Department
Meter collector
Authorization is requested to hire Paul Andersen as a Meter collector effective April 1,
1999 at$10 per hour. Mr.Andersen,a Larchmont resident,is replacing Tom Capello. He
will be responsible for collecting monies from all the Town meters in parking lots#1 and
#3 and from Vine Street.
Heavy Motor Equipment Operator-HMEO Promotion
Authorization is requested to promote John Barretto from MEO to HMEO effective April 1,
1999 at a salary of$42,485.John has been employed by the Highway Dept since 1992.
The position has been vacant since Larry Lancia retired last fall. A test was held for the
candidates for the HMEO position. It consisted of operating the highway department's
backhoe and payloader. Steve Altieri,Joe Paterno and Vincent Rinaldi observed each
candidate's ability to operate the machinery and John Barretto was selected for the
promotion.
Skilled Laborer-Promotion
Authorization is requested to promote James Guinee from laborer to Skilled Laborer
effective April 1, 1999 at a salary of$30,965, ( step#4). James has his CDL license and
meets the other requirements of the job description. This position has been vacant
since last year.
On motion of Councilwoman Myers,seconded by Councilman Weprin,it was unanimously
RESOLVED,that the Town Board does hereby
authorize the appointment of Paul Andersen,as a
meter collector,$10 per hour,effective April 1,
1999; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED,John Barretto be promoted to the
position of Heavy Motor Equipment Operator at
an annual salary of$42,485 effective April 1,
1999; and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED,that James Guinee be promoted to
the position of Skilled Laborer,effective April 1,
1999,at an annual salary of$30,965.
6
April 7, 1999
Recreation
On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe,seconded by Councilman Weprin,it was
unanimously,
RESOLVED,that as provided for in the 1999 Town
Budget that the Town Board does hereby authorize the
payment of salary to the following:
Lester Wauchope,Attendant,Memorial Park Tennis Courts,
$10.50/hour,effective 3/29/99.
David Patemo,Attendant,Memorial Park Tennis Courts,$9.25/hour,
effective 4/1/99.
Raymond Varian,Attendant,Memorial Park Tennis Courts,$8.75/hour,
effective 4/1/99.
Patricia Serry,Attendant,Memorial Park Tennis Courts,$8.25/hour,
effective 4/1/99.
Gina Tunno,Alternate Attendant,Memorial Park Tennis Courts,
$8.25/hour,effective 4/1/99.
Receptionist/Typist PT
On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe,seconded by Councilman Weprin,it was
unanimously,
RESOLVED,that authorization is hereby given to hire
Katherine Ohmer as a part-time receptionist/typist in
the Administrator/Supervisor's office effective April 1,
1999 at an hourly rate of$12.
ADDED ITEM
6. Approval of Certiorari
The Town Attorney presented the following certiorari recommending settlement:
On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe,seconded by Councilwoman Myers,it was
unanimously,
RESOLVED,that the Town Board does hereby
authorize the settlement of the following certiorari as
recommended by the Town Attorney,Charlene
Indelicato:
Ray Giorgio
631 Mamaroneck Avenue
Block 822 Lot 309
The cost to the Town would be approximately$70,with only 1998 at issue.
Year Assessment Reduced To Amount of Reduction
1998 $ 18,000 $ 14,000 $4,000
The Town will refund approximately$70 for the year in question.The loss to the Town is
approximately$70 per year.
7
April 7, 1999
De Laurentis Construction,Inc,
Block 831 Lot 14 335 Center Avenue-Joseph&Edmund De Laurentis
Block 831 Lot 129-639 Fenimore Road(De Laurentis Landscaping)
Block 831 Lot 147-631 Fenimore Road(De Laurentis Landscaping)
This property is in the Village of Mamaroneck. This property consists of three separate
tax parcels. The assessments are$8,000 for a parcel 59 feet x 125 feet,$4,000 for a
parcel 29 feet x 125 feet,and$39,100 for a parcel of approximately 57 feet x 110 feet
with an approximately 4,000 sq.ft.building,consisting of 1,015 sq.ft. office area built in
1980,a 1,015 sq.ft.area built in 1921,an 1,800 sq.ft.warehouse,and a 200 sq.ft.
garage. The total assessment for the property is$51,t00,which equalizes to a value of
$1,196,700.The petitioner claims a value of$300,000-$400,000.After reviewing the
property,it is our opinion that the value is closer to$600,000 -$700,000.A settlement
we reached at$700,000,which generates an assessment of$30,000.
Year Assessment Reduced To Amount of Reduction
1995 $ 51,100 $ 30,000 $21,100
1996 $ 51,100 $ 30,000 $21,100
1997 $ 51,100 $ 30,000 $21,100
1998 $ 51,100 $ 30,000 $21,100
The Town will refund approximately $1,200 for the four years in question. The loss to
the Town is approximately$300 per year.
Carl Buehler
2118 Boston Post Road
Block 613 Lot 50
This property is in the Village of Larchmont. The petitioner submitted an estimate of
value at$89,600.After reviewing the income and expense statement submitted, our
negotiator adjusted some and arrived at a value of$347,000.We estimated the
commercial area at$18 per square foot and the apartments at$1,000 per month each.A
settlement at$14,800 assessed value was agreed upon.The cost to the Town will be
approximately$60.Only one year, 1998,is at issue.
Year Assessment Reduced To Amount of Reduction
1998 $ 18,800 $ 14,800 $4,000
The Town will refund approximately$60 for the year in question.The loss to the Town is
approximately$60 per year.
Manopp Realty Corp.
1881-91 Palmer Avenue
Block 603 Lot 358
This property is in the Village Of Larchmont. This case was settled by George
Derderian early in 1997. Due to the timing of the settlement,the assessor's office
received the assessment in 1998 at$48,800 because of permits that were taken out and
work that was done. The settlement had included that work. After receiving an income
and expense statement that was submitted,we estimated a value of just under
$1,000,000 for the property. The settlement reflects that value. Since only one year is at
issue,the Town will refund approximately$0 and the loss to the Town will be
approximately$80 per year.
Year Assessment Reduced To Amount of Reduction
8
April 7, 1999
1998 $48,800 $42,800 $6,000
Dayhar Realty Corp.
1435 Boston Post Road
Block 411 Lot 249 and Block 411 Lot 280
(Ray Catena Lexus)
The petitioner submitted an appraisal that values the subject property at$1,515,000.
The Town'assessed value equalizes to a market value range of$3,660,C00 in 1994 to
$4,266,000 in 1999. The assessed value is$155,000. The petitioner's appraisal used a
10%capitalization rate,which is lower than a rate of 12%-13.5'that I usually use. The
10%capitalization rate produces a higher value. For the purpose of this settlement,I
used their rates.Accordingly, I proposed a settlement of$2,700,000 for all years. A
tentative agreement was reached at an assessed value of$115,000,which translates to
a range of value from$2,325,000 in 1994 to$2,725,000 in 1999.While this is a costly
settlement,it is my opinion that a court case would not be cost effective and would
likely cause an even larger reduction to our assessment.
Year Assessment Reduced To Amount of Reduction
1994 $116,250 $115,000 $ 1,250
1995 $155,000 $115,000 $40,000
t996 $155,000 $115,000 $40,000
1997 $155,000 $115,000 $40,000
1998 $155,000 $115,000 $40,000
The cost to the Town for the 5 years at question will be approximately$76,000.
Section 4, Block 411, Lot 280
Year Assessment Reduced To Amount of Reduction
1994 $23,900 $13,900 $10,000
1995 $23,900 $13,900 $10,000
1996 $23,900 $13,900 $10,000
1997 $23,900 $13,900 $10,000
1998 $23,900 $13,900 $10,000
The cost to the Town for the 5 years at question will be approximately$76,000.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES-February 24, 1999
On motion of Councilwoman O'Keeffe,seconded by Councilwoman Myers,it was
unanimously,
RESOLVED,that the Town Board does hereby approve
the minutes of February 24, 1999 as amended.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ernie Odierna said that he had received complaints about the Highway Department
staff blowing stuff into the stream.
The Administrator responded that he had received a call also,had went down and
spoken to the men about blowing differently.
ADJOURNMENT
9
April 7, 1999
The Supervisor said the next regularly scheduled meetings would be held on April 21
and May 5, 1999.
On motion of Councilwoman Myers,seconded by Councilwoman O'Keeffe the meeting
was adjourned at 10:50 PM.
Submitted by
Patricia A. DiCioccio,Town Clerk
C:\MSOffice\Winword\M INUTES\99minfl04-07-99x.doc
10
REPORT OF THE
PROPERTY REVALUATION COMMITTEE
TO THE
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
April 7, 1999
Page
SUMMARY ................................................................................... 3
1. MISSION OF THE COMMITTEE .................................................. 7
2. CONCERNS REGARDING EXISTING ASSESSMENT PRACTICES .... 8
A. Existing Practices and Impacts ................................................ 8
B. Resulting Inequities ............................................................. 10
1. Residences: Inconsistencies Among Assessment Ratios ......... 10
2. Types of Property: Inconsistencies ................................... 12
C. Legal Challenges to Assessments ............................................ 13
D. Concerns .......................................................................... 18
3. OTHER KEY ISSUES .................................................................. 19
A. Ability to Pay ..................................................................... 19
B. Transition Phase-In ............................................................. 21
C. The Homestead Option ......................................................... 21
D. The Villages and the Town ...................................................... 23
E. County Taxation .................................................................. 24
4. ADMINISTRATION OF REVALUATION ........................................ 25
A. Basic Steps of the Revaluation Process ...................................... 25
B. Cost ................................................................................. 25
C. Community Information ....................................................... 28
5. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................... 29
TABLES
Page
TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT
RATIOS: 1997 .............................................................. 14
TABLE 2. TOWN OF MAMARONECK ASSESSMENT RATIOS:
RATIOS: 1995-1998 ...................................................... 17
CHARTS
CHART 1. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT
RATIOS: TOWNWIDE 1997 SALES ................................. 15
CHART 2. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT
RATIOS BY SALES PRICES: 1997 ...................................16
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ............................................................. 31
APPENDIX II. THE COMMITTEE ...............................................................32
SUMMARY
The Property Revaluation Committee of the Town of Mamaroneck finds that assessments on
individual properties in the Town of Mamaroneck are inequitable. The amount of property
taxes paid by individual property owners in the Town, therefore, also is inequitable.
The inadequacies in property assessment that exist in Mamaroneck are by no means unique.
They are the result of a long history of deficient property tax administration that exists widely
throughout the country, including New York State. Some other individual assessing units are
taking action to improve their systems. The Town of Mamaroneck can do so also if it chooses.
April 7, 1999
OBJECTIVES
The Committee has focused on four main objectives.
• The establishment of equity: meaning that property owners are to be treated fairly under
the law.
• Clear explanation regarding the basis of assessment: meaning that property owners are
provided the information necessary to understand their taxes.
• Professional execution of the process of change toward a more equitable property tax
system: meaning that any changes to valuations are executed in a thoroughly proficient
manner and are based on valid data.
• Proper maintenance of assessment equity: meaning that procedures are put in place to
maintain on-going and equitable assessments through time.
FINDINGS
We find that:
Property assessment in Mamaroneck needs to be updated.
Some owners are taxed at an amount that is more than three times as high in relation to
the value of their homes as are other homeowners.
Moderately priced homes, on average, are overassessed compared with higher priced
homes.
The prior revaluation in the Town, in 1968,did not result in permanent equity because
there is no process in place to update assessments on a regular basis.
The differences in levels of property taxes paid by owners relative to the value of their
properties has been caused largely by different amounts of appreciation in the values of
individual properties over the past 30 years.
The different rates of increase are caused among others by 1)differences in location,2)
improvements of properties, and 3)successful challenges of assessments of property
values by some owners but not by others. We find that these are not appropriate reasons
for differences to exist in the level of taxation of individual properties.
Existing inequities have caused a large number of property owners to challenge the
assessments on their properties initially before the Board of Assessment Review, and
thereafter in Small Claims Court by most residential property owners and in State Supreme
Court by commercial property owners. This is a costly and inefficient means to provide tax
equity for individual owners.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A Town-wide reassessment should take place.
Such reassessment is intended to ameliorate inequities. It is not intended to affect the overall
level of revenues raised by local government.
2. Proper execution of the revaluation process is as important as is the decision to revalue.
Several matters related to the process require serious attention if revaluation is to have
community support and if revaluation is to lead to the equitable result that property owners
have a right to expect.
The process of revaluation should:
• Be clearly and fully explained to the community with full opportunity for discussion of
concerns;
• Be undertaken by experienced professionals with a strong track record and supported by
an understanding of the unique aspects of property values in Mamaroneck;
• Assure that full information is provided property owners regarding the basis of specific
assessments placed on individual properties;
12
April 7, 1999
Provide full opportunity for property owners to review and discuss the proposed individual
assessments on their properties and to submit grievances for due consideration before
final decisions are made.
3. The Town should provide assurance that the new standard of equity will be maintained.
• The Assessor's Office should have the resources and expertise to maintain equitable
assessments.
• A procedure should be put in place by the Town Board that leads to full Town-wide
revaluations on a regular basis of perhaps five years.
4. The Town should continue to work toward the enactment of legislation on countywide
revaluation.
We believe that there would be benefits to be derived from greater Countywide involvement in
assessment administration that could lead to Countywide revaluation. Nevertheless,
Mamaroneck should itself act upon revaluation at this time rather than await uncertain County
and State action.
KEY RELATED ISSUES
We have identified, and reviewed the key policy issues involved in reassessment of real estate
parcels in the Town.
Ability to pay
We believe that the interests of homeowners of moderately valued homes, many of whom
are likely to be senior homeowners, are well served by revaluation because moderately
valued homes are more than likely to be overassessed at the present time. Furthermore,
the Town of Mamaroneck currently makes full use of State legislation allowing a property
tax exemption for low-income senior homeowners. Finally,the recent initiation of the
New York State School Tax Relief Exemption program(STAR)provides special benefits for
low and moderate-income seniors.
• Transition phase-in
We believe that transition toward the full imposition of new assessed valuations, as is
permitted by State law,would be inefficient and inequitable because such a transition
over time would complicate and delay the achievement of equitable assessments.
• The homestead option
The homestead option in State law allows assessing units that have revalued to divide
taxable properties into the two categories of 1)homestead residential and 2)commercial.
These two categories of property may then be taxed at different rates in order to limit or
prevent a shift in tax burdens from one group of taxpayers to another—generally from
commercial property owners to residential homeowners.
However, it is impossible to determine the impact of choosing the homestead option until
after a reassessment has taken place. Only then can any shift in the tax burden to
homeowners from commercial interests due to reassessment be detected. With this data,
the Town Board can decide whether to enact the homestead option after a determination
of the extent of any tax burden shift, a balancing of the needs of residential and
commercial taxpayers, and an analysis of its impact upon businesses in the Town.
This is an issue that will require serious attention. However, it is appropriate that this issue
be addressed at such time as revalued property data exist and are analyzed.
REPORT OF THE PROPERTY REVALUATION COMMITTEE
OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK
April 7, 1999
1. MISSION OF THE COMMITTEE
13
April 7, 1999
The Property Revaluation Committee of the Town of Mamaroneck was appointed by the Town
Board on February 25, 1998. Our mission is to:
Identify and advise the Town Board on significant issues related to property revaluation;
Advise the Town Board on means to create maximum community understanding of the
issues related to revaluation of property in the Town;
Provide information to the residents and property owners of the Town regarding the
reasons for property revaluation.
This report identifies and advises the Town Board on significant issues related to property
revaluation. In addition,we provide and analyze information that may be of interest to the
community. We also identify issues of significance for the long-term maintenance of an
equitable and well-managed system of property taxation.
1. CONCERNS REGARDING EXISTING ASSESSMENT PRACTICES
The property tax is by far the most important source of income for the Town of Mamaroneck,
accounting for two-thirds of its revenue. Likewise, it is by far the most important source of
income for the Mamaroneck school system, having accounted for almost 90 percent of its
revenue in recent years. The property tax represents a substantial financial cost to the owners
of homes and business property in Mamaroneck. However,the tax provides most of the funds
expended to meet the needs of our children for primary and secondary education,for our
roads, public safety, sanitation, public recreation facilities and municipal administration.
A. Existing Practices and Impacts
Outdated assessment roles
Our individual property tax bills are determined by 1)the assessed value placed on our
property by municipal assessors, and 2)the tax rates determined by the budgets of the
County,Town, School Board, and Villages in which we own property. In turn, the tax rates are
determined by the purely mathematical calculation of dividing the respective budgets by the
assessed valuations of taxable properties.
If, for example,the school board would need to raise$60 million from property taxes and the
total assessed value of taxable property in the school district were$175 million,then the
school tax rate would be calculated as 34.3 percent of taxable assessed valuation ($60 million
/$175 million), or$343 per$1,000 of taxable assessed valuation. The owner of a residence
assessed at$12,000 would receive a school tax bill of$4,116($12,000 x .343).
The assessor of the Town of Mamaroneck undertakes the valuation and assessment of
property throughout the Town for purposes of County,Town and school district taxation. The
villages of Larchmont and Mamaroneck respectively have the option, but are not required,to
accept Town assessments for purposes of village taxation. The assessor of the Town also
functions as the assessor for the Village of Larchmont, although the Village remains a
separate assessment jurisdiction. The Village of Mamaroneck undertakes its own assessment
for Village tax purposes.
However,Town-wide valuation of properties for tax purposes has not been undertaken since
1968. Unless successfully negotiated or successfully challenged in court, these out-dated
valuations remain the basis of Town taxation of individual parcels today. As a result, our
property tax assessments today are unrecognizable as estimates of the market value of our
properties.
Fractional assessments: assessment-sales ratios
According to the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York(RPTL), assessments of our
individual properties for tax purposes must bear a consistent relationship to their full market
value. This relationship can be fixed at either full market value or at a fraction of full value.
However, State law requires that all assessments within an assessing unit,such as
Mamaroneck, must be made at a uniform fraction of that value(RPTL Section 305(2)). The
practice of assessing property for tax purposes at lower than actual market value, or"fractional
assessment,"is used by most municipalities in New York State. The procedure of fractional
assessment has been in use in the Town of Mamaroneck after 1968 because revaluation has
not taken place since that year.
The overall average relationship between assessments and full market values of taxable
properties in an assessing unit is called the"equalization ratio"(ER). The New York State
14
April 7, 1999
Office of Real Property Services(ORPS)estimates this ratio for each municipal assessing unit.
The most recent equalization ratio for the Town of Mamaroneck, at 4.22 for 1998, indicates
that the average taxable parcel of property was assessed at an estimated 4.22 percent of
market value based on information available to ORPS for 1997. The relationship between
assessments and market value on most owner-occupied residential properties alone
(excluding other properties)is called the"residential assessment ratio"(RAR),which was
estimated by the State at 3.94 percent based on 1997 data and utilized for assessment
purposes in Mamaroneck in 1998.
Theoretically, in a fractional assessment jurisdiction such as the Town of Mamaroneck, an
assessor would first determine the full value for each parcel and then apply the applicable
uniform percentage(i.e.,the ER or RAR)to determine the assessed value for tax purposes. In
practice, however, most assessors do not affirmatively estimate current values on an annual
basis, but instead utilize the prior year's assessment of existing individual parcels,with minor
adjustments. New assessments are undertaken only of new construction, including additions
and certain renovations. Such new assessments are made on the basis of cost of the land
and construction in the case of 1-3 family homes and new condominium homes. On
"commercial"parcels,which for taxation purposes includes all other residential properties in
addition to business properties, new assessments are made on the basis of capitalized income
derived (or that theoretically could be derived)from the property.
For purposes of assessing new properties, the assessor estimates current full value, utilizing
both the cost of construction based on 1968 costs and also the current market value of the
property. The assessor then applies the RAR for a final determination of assessed value.
However,the equalization ratio and the residential assessment ratio provided by the State are
not based on up-to-date surveys, but are in fact, based on historic information.
Not surprisingly,this passive method of assessing does not lend itself to an equitable or
accurate assessment roll. We note,furthermore,that the derived, and therefore estimated,
"full value"of properties based on the State determined equalization rates can be higher than
true market value or can be lower than market value. We have no evidence that the derived
estimated total of full market value in the Town of Mamaroneck is biased in one direction or
another. There is no information that would tell us,therefore,whether revaluation would result
in a higher or lower estimated total market value of property in the Town.
Differences in assessment techniques based on property type
As is the usual practice,valuations of 1-3 family homes are based on the estimated market
value of the property in 1968, or on 1968 costs in part if built later. However, all "commercial"
properties, including rental, cooperative and most condominium residences are valued on the___ _- comment[G1]:rage:u
basis of income derived from the property, or on income that would be derived if the relevant Post-1997 condos are(can be?)based on sates.
residential property were rented. This technique as applied to cooperative and most
condominium residential properties is required by State law.
Although real estate values have risen dramatically during the past three decades,the
assessor may be precluded under New York law from reflecting many of these changes on
individual properties, absent a broad reassessment plan. It is illegal, for example, to utilize a
recent purchase price to raise an assessment while similarly situated properties are not subject
to a reassessment(the condemned so-called "welcome stranger"assessment increase). Nor
is it permissible to increase an assessment on a newly altered house in excess of the cost of
the improvement(even though the alteration may increase the value of the house beyond the
renovation cost).
State law has required that special methods of assessment be put into place for cooperative
and most condominium residences. As noted, coops and most condo residences must be
valued as if they were rental properties, rather than on the basis of the sales prices. This rent
equivalent method of valuation is believed by some observers to benefit condo owners.There
is less agreement, however, about the impact on coop valuations. Furthermore,we have no
assurance about the specific impacts of special valuation procedures on coops and condos in
the Town of Mamaroneck.
B. Resulting Inequities
Under existing conditions and procedures, property owners may, and many do,face tax
burdens that are notjustified on the basis of equity. Furthermore, individual taxpayers may not
have the information to judge the appropriateness of their individual tax liabilities.
1. Residences: Inconsistencies Among Residential Assessment Ratios: 1997 Sales
Table 1 on page 14 provides data based on arms-length sales of owner-occupied residences
in the Town in 1997. It shows:
1) The ratio between the assessment and the sales price(i.e.,the residential assessment
ratio, or RAR)of such properties, and
15
April 7, 1999
2) The number of sales categorized both by sales price and by the RAR.
The charts that follow are based on the data in Table 1. They illustrate the extent of residential
assessment inequities that exist, using the 1997 sales data and the median 1997 RAR(3.94)
for these sales as calculated by the New York State Office of Real Property Services.
For all charts, five categories are identified:
1. Residences sold with an RAR more than 25% above the 1997 median RAR. These are
residences with an RAR of 4.94 or above.
Homeowners of these residences paid at least 25% more in property taxes than they
would have paid if their residences had been assessed at the median RAR.
2. Residences sold with an RAR between 6% and 25%above the 1997 median RAR. These
are residences with an RAR between 4.14 and 4.93.
Homeowners paid between 6% and 25% more in property taxes than they would have
paid if their residences had been assessed at the median RAR.
3. Residences sold with an RAR within plus or minus 5% of the 1997 median RAR of 3.94.
These are residences with an RAR between 3.74 and 4.14.
Homeowners paid between 5% less and 5% more in property taxes than they would
have paid if their residences had been assessed at the median RAR.
4. Residences sold with an RAR between 6% and 25%below the 1997 median RAR. These
are residences with an RAR between 2.96 and 3.73.
Homeowners of these residences paid between 6%and 25% less in property taxes
than they would have paid if their residences had been assessed at the median RAR.
5. Residences sold with an RAR more than 25% below the 1997 median RAR. These are
residences with an RAR of 2.95 or below.
Homeowners of these residences paid at least 25%less in property taxes than they
would have paid if their residences had been assessed at the median RAR.
The current assessment structure is clearly inequitable, as detailed in Chart 1. The chart
shows the following.
• Approximately 15% of homeowners who sold their property in 1997 paid more than 25%
more in property taxes than they would if all homeowners had been assessed equitably.
• Approximately 26% of homeowners who sold their property in 1997 paid between 6%and
25% more in property taxes than they would if all homeowners had been assessed
equitably.
• Only 19%of homeowners who sold their property in 1997 paid about what they would have
paid if all homeowners had been assessed equitably.
• But 30%of homeowners who sold their property in 1997 paid between 6% and 25%less in
property taxes than they would have paid if all homeowners had been assessed equitably.
• About 10% of homeowners who sold their property in 1997 benefited the most, having paid
more than 25% less in property taxes than they would paid if all homeowners had been
assessed equitably.
This inequity cuts unevenly across classes of value. Lowered-valued residences were more
likely to be over-assessed, and higher-valued residences were more likely to be under-
assessed (Chart 2).
80 percent of residences that sold for$300,000 or less in the Town in 1997 were assessed
at levels more than 5 percent above the median RAR;
33 percent of residences that sold for$300,001 to$500,000 in the Town in 1997 were
assessed at levels more than 5 percent above the median RAR;
21 percent of residences that sold for$500,001 to$700,000 in the Town in 1997 were
assessed at levels more than 5 percent above the median RAR;
14 percent of residences that sold for over$700,000 in the Town in 1997 were assessed at
levels more than 5 percent above the median RAR.
2. Types of Property:The Inconsistencies
The average of assessment ratios in the Town of Mamaroneck is higher for income-producing
and multiple-family residential properties than for 1-3 family residential properties. Although
not unique to Mamaroneck,this feature of assessment practices is inconsistent with the legal
16
April 7, 1999
requirement that property be assessed at a uniform ratio to full value, giving rise to a costly
and substantial number of legal challenges to the assessment on commercial properties.
In 1995, for example(the latest such data available),the commercial class of properties
accounted for 10.3 percent of the full market value of taxable property in Mamaroneck,
according to State estimates based on a limited sample survey. However, such properties
accounted for the higher 21.4 percent of assessed value of the Town, according to the same
survey._ Furthermore,the most recent figures for the equalization ratio and the residential -- Comment[GZ]:Page:14
assessment ratio for the Town of Mamaroneck indicate that the average individual residential state(?)survey ofthe Town of Mamaroneck.
parcel was estimated to be assessed at only 3.94 percent of market value, and that the total of (Location is"Assessment&Values"folder)
such homes plus"commercial"properties(including special classes of residential property)
were assessed at 4.22 percent of estimated full value(Table 2, page 17). These data show
that"commercial"and multiple family properties continue to be assessed at a ratio higher than
that of 1-3 family residences, as estimated by ORPS. This disparity in treatment has existed
for many years, as shown by the data for earlier years. Commercial owners filing for tax relief,
therefore, have been successful in obtaining tax reductions through lowered assessments. It
is also the reason that separate data for 1-3 family owner-occupied properties i.e., the RAR, is
needed to understand the relationship of the assessment of individual residential properties to
each other.
C. Legal Challenges to Assessments
Property owners who believe that their property is over-assessed can appeal their
assessments and secure tax relief if the appeal is successful. Owners can appeal to the
Board of Assessment Review and if not satisfied, can make their claim also in an appropriate
court. Owners of commercial parcels(including coops, condominiums and rental buildings)
can avail themselves of so called "certiorari"proceedings whereby court determinations are
made regarding the appropriate level of assessment of such properties. Based on information
made available to the Committee,the total of assessment reductions on the town's
assessment rolls(exclusive of franchise and utility properties)amounted to 1.02 percent in
11996._Certiorari proceedings with regard to"commercial"properties resulted in a reduction of___ _- Comment[G3]:Page:14
16 percent of commercial valuations over a six-year period ending in 1996, or an average of Data provided by the assessor ofthe Town of
p Y p 9 ) ------- 9 -------
2.5 percent per year.
Mamaroneck and calculations based on Town data.
Comment[G4]:Page:14
Because resolutions of certiorari claims on commercial properties can, and usually do, take Katz information(&Gx language)that..."Town
several years, these resolutions often require not only that future tax burdens be reduced on thata analyzed the submittedtroll NYSORPS in 1din
that analyzed the assessment rolls for the pd.Including
the properties in question, but also that repayments be made for the over-assessments of the 1991-96,the aggregate assessment reduction resulting
past several years. Such repayments reduce the net revenues of the Town,Villages and the from certiorari proceedings for the class ofbroadly
defined commercial properties in Mamaroneck was
School Board, complicating budget planning. In 1997, the Town itself paid $546 thousand in $5,409,400...°Assessments in 1997 for residential
court-ordered Irefundsl. The Mamaroneck Union Free School District refunded $934 thousand condos($1,795,878),other residential(rentals?)
in Fiscal Year 1997-98.
—--------------------------------------------------—� ($628,450)&commercial($26,062,152)equaled
� $28,486,480(Sate of NY,County of west.,Town of
These refunds mean that the equivalent of an interest free loan has been made to the taxing
Mamaroneck,Report,199Property dding 1 %e u
q g � Assessor's Report,1997).Adding 16%equals
authorities.While the refunds are not insignificant, they comprise a relatively small percentage $33,044,317.Dividing by$5,409,400 equals 16%.
of the Town and School budgets and can be accounted for in the preparation of these Comment[G5]:Page:14
budgets. Nevertheless,the yearly reductions on individual properties ordered by the courts Data provided by the assessor ofthe Town of
and also made by the Board of Assessment Review,without concomitant assessment Mamaroneck and calcula ons based on Town data.
Page:14
increases on other properties in the Town, have caused the tax base to be eroded. As a
result,the tax rate has gone up in order to raise an equivalent amount of municipal revenues
on a lower total of assessments.
17
April 7, 1999
18
April 7, 1999
19
April 7, 1999
20
April 7, 1999
TABLE 2.
TOWN OF MAMARONECK MEDIAN ASSESSMENT RATIOS: 1995-98
Year ER RAR
1995 5.02 4.33
1996 5.03 4.11
1997 4.27 4.00
1998 4.22 3.94
Note: "RAR"is the Residential Assessment Ratio and applies to 1-3 family
homes. "ER"is the Equalization Ratio that applies to all taxable properties. The
ER is higher than the RAR because assessments on "commercial"properties
bear a higher average relationship to full market value of the property than does
the average assessment of 1-3 family residential properties. The ratios shown
for respective years are derived from estimated based on sales in prior years.
D. Concerns
We have found that the assessments placed on our properties,which provide the basis of the
property taxes that we pay, a)bear indefensibly differing relationships to their true market
values, b)have a basis that is difficult for property owners to understand, and c)have opened
up the Town as well as villages to costly and ongoing legal challenges that have complicated
the budget-making process.
The existing system does not provide for equity of property tax payments. Nor does the
existing system provide for property tax liability consistent with our wealth and ability to pay, as
measured by the value of our real property. Indeed,these inequities result in changes of
assessments that are imposed by administrative action as well as court order, in a piecemeal,
inefficient, and in itself inequitable, process.
We note that an effort was recently made to resolve many of these concerns on a countywide
basis. The Westchester Municipal Officials Association and the County of Westchester
initiated a cooperative effort in 1993 to develop legislation that would provide for property
revaluation on a countywide basis. The legislation was endorsed by the County Board of
Legislators, the State Assembly and the State Senate. However, the Governor vetoed, and
thus killed, the measure on the basis of alleged constitutional questions and alleged inequities
built into the legislation. We understand that efforts continue to be made to craft a proposal
for county-wide revaluation that would win required approvals, but that such efforts are neither
assured nor ready for swift implementation.
1. OTHER KEY ISSUES.
A. Ability to Pay
The Committee investigated the possibility that low-income homeowners of relatively low to
moderately valued homes,especially seniors on fixed incomes, might be vulnerable upon a
revaluation to dramatic increases in property taxation that they could not afford. We therefore
studied the potential impact of revaluation on homes of relatively low to moderate value.
We have found that homes of relatively moderate value were more likely than not to be
assessed at sales ratios that were higher than average(Table 1 and Chart 2). We conclude,
therefore,that homeowners of most homes of moderate value would benefit from revaluation
by a reduction in their taxes.
Recognizing the possibility that there would be some cases of increases in property taxation
on low-to moderate-income families in relatively low-to moderately-valued homes,we
reviewed the effects of new and existing programs whose objectives are to moderate the tax
burden,especially those programs having special impacts on low-to moderate-income
homeowners.
21
April 7, 1999
The Senior Citizens' Exemption
Permissive State legislation allows for a 50 percent reduction in the property tax assessment
on homes owned by seniors having a household income of less than $18,500, phasing down
to a credit of 5 percent for household incomes of under$27,000 (RPTL, Section 467). We
find that the Town of Mamaroneck has made full use of this permissive State legislation to
lighten the property tax burden on such low-income homeowners.
The New York State"STAR" Program
The School Tax Relief Exemption program(STAR),signed into law in 1997 (RPTL, Section
425)provides for a reduction in the local school property tax burden beginning with the current
(1998-99)fiscal year for low and moderate-income senior home-owners("Enhanced STAR")
and beginning in the 1999-2000 fiscal year for others("Basic STAR"). We believe that the
resultant lightening of the property tax burden makes the current period a propitious time to
undertake revaluation. The current imposition of the Enhanced STAR, and the phasing in of
the Basic STAR, programs tend to mitigate the increase in taxation that revaluation would
cause for those properties that are currently under-assessed, including especially any adverse
impact of revaluation that might exist for low and moderate-income seniors.
Impact of the Enhanced STAR program for low and moderate income seniors
The Enhanced STAR program for low-to moderate-income seniors,first put into effect in the
current fiscal year, provides an amount of property tax abatement that equals or exceeds the
increase in taxation due to reassessment that can be expected on virtually all homes valued at
$300,000 or less. Enhanced STAR exempts approximately the first$118,000[of_the full value_ - ,- Comment[G6]:Page:21
of an owner-occupied residence from school property taxes in Westchester County in 1998-99 Data taken from oRPS web site on February 4,1999
showed that the"Enhanced Exemption"for the Town
for seniors whose household income does not exceed $60,000. For senior citizen _ ofXtamaroneckfor1998-99 as certified on 4/27/98 to
homeowners in the Mamaroneck school district, this exemption will result in a school tax saving be$5,040 and the final equalization rate to be 0.0427.
of approximately$1,807. We calculate that a low to moderate-income senior homeowner will This suggests an enhanced exemption of$118,033.
Applying the school tax rate of$358.65 per$1,000
receive an Enhanced STAR benefit equivalent to a reduction in the overall property taxes of at assessed value,indicates a property tax saving of
least 21 percent on a home valued at$300,0001. $1,807..
Based on data for home sales in 1997 Table 1 we estimate that approximately 80 percent of Comment for Page:21
( ), pp Y p � Application for New York State School Tax Relief
homes then valued at$300,000 or less in the Town are currently overassessed by 6 percent or Exemption.
more compared with the RAR, and may, therefore, benefit from reassessment(Chart 3). Only Comment[G8]:Page:21
7 percent of homes of such value are estimated to be underassessed by 6 percent or more UtitizingFYl ni98-12i31i98 tax rate other than
school compared with the RAR(Table 1 and Chart 3). Based on this data,we conclude that the $358.65p e $1,000 r assess d assessed lfor the school
overwhelming proportion of low-moderate income seniors living in moderately valued homes in tax as for FY 1998-99 and the ER rate utilized at that
Mamaroneck will benefit not only by the Enhanced STAR program, but also from time of4.27i shows a total property tax of$8,53659.
The Enhanced STAR saving of$1,800 is 21%of
reassessment. Of such residents who do not benefit from reassessment, however, almost all the$8,537 tax bill gross of STAR on such property.
will gain more from Enhanced STAR than will be lost from the impact of reassessment.
The combined impact of STAR and property reassessment would result in a lower property tax
liability for a low to moderate-income senior homeowner in the Town of Mamaroneck unless
he/she were to face an unlikely increase of full market valuation of as much as 21 percent or
more.
Impact of the "Basic STAR" program
The Basic STAR program will be phased in over a three year period beginning in the 1999-
2000 Fiscal Year. When fully implemented, the program will exempt approximately$70,000 of
the full value of a homeowner occupied residence in Mamaroneck based on recent estimates
for homeowners not eligible under the Enhanced STAR program. This exemption is estimated _- Comment[G9]:Page:21
------- - ------
to reduce the property tax liability of such Mamaroneck homeowners by about$1,100 at Based on oRPS web page data drawn on February
45,1999. The material shows the exemption at
current tax rates when fully implemented and about$373 in the first year. When fully $30,000(assumed tobe the average statewide)and a
implemented, a homeowner with a residence valued at about$400,000 would have to face an westcnester`°sales pricedipperentialatzs626.
increase of about 10 percent in order for the combination of the Basic STAR and revaluation to
result in a higher property tax bill than would otherwise be the caueL --- Comment[Glo]:Page:21
Based on ER of 4.27,assessed value of$17,080.
Total tax of$666.40 per$1,000 assessedvalue gives
total tax of$11,782,of which savings of$1,072 is
However,the STAR program and its benefit for property taxpayers exists independently of 9.4%.
Town revaluation,should it be undertaken. We note also that there is no guarantee that the
STAR program will continue in effect indefinitely. Under any circumstances, the benefit of the
STAR program to homeowners is likely to change from year to year. The level of STAR
benefits for such homeowners depends on 1)State budget appropriations for this program,2)
the average market value of homes in Westchester County and 3)property tax rates.
Changes in any of these factors will change the level of benefits.
The Revaluation Committee concludes that the impacts of special property tax reduction
programs, i.e.,the senior citizens'exemption, and the STAR program, combined with the likely
net benefit of reassessment for owners of moderately priced homes, have unique benefits for
low to moderate-income homeowners,especially such seniors.
22
April 7, 1999
B. Transition Phase-In
Upon revaluation,the New York State Real Property Tax Law grants assessing units the option
to utilize a four-year phase-in of changes in assessments on currently underassessed
properties(RPTL, Section 1904[Par. 1]). Such phase-ins have not been utilized anywhere in
the State to Oatel(although Nassau County_and New York Cityprovide caps on certain ,- comment[au]:Page:22
increases in assessments under special provision of the RPTL). However,the failed proposal ORPS"Homestead"pamphlet and phone discussion
noted earlier that would have provided for Countywide revaluation in Westchester included a with John Wolhham,February 8,1999.
four-year transition procedure'. The Governor's veto message regarding this measure argued comment[3B12]:
that the transition procedure would delay the advent of equity in assessments.
The Revaluation Committee does not believe that a phase-in program would be appropriate
should revaluation be undertaken in the Town of Mamaroneck. A transition phase-in for
increased assessments on currently underassessed properties would allow underassessed
taxpayers to continue to benefit from this inequity for a further period of years. It would require
that other taxpayers continue to bear a tax burden higher than appropriate for the several
succeeding years. The Committee concluded that it would be most practical to assume the full
benefits of revaluation immediately upon revaluation,especially taking into account the
existence of benefits designated for low-income homeowners, notably low-income seniors, and
the recent establishment of STAR exemption benefits.
C. The Homestead Option
The homestead option, available to assessing units that undertake revaluation, involves a
number of complex and contentious issues. It is an option provided by State law that enables
municipalities to avoid a shift of the burden of municipal and school (but not County)taxes
which might otherwise occur upon revaluation from business and other properties to
homestead-eligible owner-occupied residences.
The homestead option permits the setting of two distinct rates of taxation on homestead
residences and on other properties at levels that would fix the relative shares of property taxes
paid among the homestead and commercial classes. However, the Town also may opt to set
the relative total dollar burdens of these classes of properties at levels between that existing
prior to revaluation and that which would occur if a single rate of taxation were applied to all
properties. By State Law,the Town may make adjustments of the class shares from year to
year.
Imposition of the homestead option does not increase the existing total tax burden of non-
homestead class(commonly referred to as the commercial class)properties. Rather, it does
permit the fixing of the existing share of the overall tax burden of commercial properties and
other properties initially at the share existing just prior to the revaluation. For example, if
commercial properties provided 25 percent of Town property tax revenues in the year prior to
revaluation,then the town could impose a tax rate on commercial and other non-homestead
properties on the one hand, and homestead-eligible residences on the other hand, such that
commercial and other non-homestead properties would continue to provide the same 25
percent of property tax revenues.
Any decision on this option must take place no later than thirty days prior to the completion of
the tentative assessment roll to which it applies. The time period between the completion of a
revaluation and completion of the tentative assessment roll may be short. Consequently,
some background on the issues will be useful to the Town Board now, although any decision
regarding the homestead option is made after a revaluation has been completed.
Some difficulties with the homestead option are as follows.
1.According to the Real Property Tax Law of New York State, it appears that assessing units
must make annual adjustments to the commercial and homestead percentage tax shares to
account for a)properties that are added or removed from the rolls, and b)different rates of
appreciation in market value. Adjustments in class percentage shares are subject to a 5
percent cap to the change in the percentage of total Town property taxes paid by either class
in any year. However, ORPS informs us that the law requiring adjustments to shares based on
additions,deletions, and/or differences in rates of appreciation does not provide any
mechanism for ensuring that this legal requirement does indeed take place. In fact,the
regulation concerning adjustments to percentage shares based on additions,deletions and/or
differences in rates of appreciation of values among the two classes apparently has not been
put into effect anywhere in_the State. comment[G13]:Page:23
E-Mail correspondence from John W olham,ORPS to
The Committee is aware that commercial property owners may be concerned that the George Roniger,December,1998
homestead option leaves them vulnerable to special increases in their individual taxes, should
the commercial share of total property tax collections remain constant even as individual
commercial properties may be removed from the tax rolls in later years. Should revaluation be
undertaken,we suggest that deliberation on the homestead option by the Town Board include
23
April 7, 1999
consideration of means to assure that commercial properties not be subject to unfair treatment
in future years.
2. Under the homestead option, homesteads include two types of homes: a)owner-occupied
homes in 1-3 family buildings, and b)condominium homes that have always been owner-
occupied (rather than having been rentals in the past). The commercial class includes 1)all
property that is used for business purposes, 2)all rental residences, and 3)owner-occupied
residences that are held in co-op form, and 4)owner-occupied condominium residences that
have not always been held in this legal form.
Because the homestead option distinguishes between condominiums on the basis of prior
legal form of ownership, identical apartments in identical buildings could be taxed at different
rates when the option is enacted. Complicating the issue of taxation of non-rental residences,
many co-op and condo occupants currently may benefit from a provision in the State law that
requires that the assessment of such units be calculated on the basis of rental equivalent
values rather than on the basis of comparable sales.Valuation based on comparable rentals is
believed to be lower than that calculated on the basis of comparable sales for condos. There
is disagreement about the impact with regard to coops.
Under the homestead option, condos originally built as rentals and converted prior to 1997
would continue to be assessed on the basis of rental equivalents. Condos built as owner-
occupied condos would be assessed on the basis of market value. Co-ops would continue to
benefit from assessment based on comparable rental value. But co-ops would be subject to
the commercial tax rate that would be higher than the rate on other residential properties----------- comment[G14]:rage:24
E-Mail correspondence from John Wolham,ORPS to
3. The Committee considered the possibility that the homestead option could have an adverse George Roniger,December 9,1998
and unwelcome impact on business activity in Mamaroneck, in other words,that business
activity might move away from the Town as a result of homestead. We note, however,that
imposition of the homestead option would not create an increased tax burden on existing
commercial properties, as we have discussed above. Rather,the share of the total of property
taxes collected by the town would remain the same(or less if the Town Board so decided)than
the share existing prior to revaluation. All property-owners could continue to challenge their
assessments after revaluation on the basis of inequities within their class.
The Committee does not take a position on the homestead option at this time. However,we
do recommend that the Town Board give the option serious consideration.
D. The Villages and the Town
Property assessments by the Town of Mamaroneck are valid for purposes of taxation by the
Town itself,the Mamaroneck Union Free School District and the County. The villages maintain
the authority to undertake their own assessments for village tax purposes. They must
themselves decide for, or against, revaluation for village tax purposes. If a village opts for
revaluation, it may or may not undertake the homestead and/or other options.
The Village of Larchmont,which is totally contained within the Town, already cooperates
closely with the Town on property tax matters.
However,the Village of Mamaroneck is in a more difficult position. It straddles two towns,
Mamaroneck and Rye and contains two different school districts, Mamaroneck and Rye Neck.
Any Town revaluation will cover only a portion of Mamaroneck Village. Because tax rates are
determined by the purely mathematical calculation of dividing the Village budget by the total of
assessed valuations, Mamaroneck Village could not establish a rational tax rate if only part of
its tax rolls were reassessed to full market value. Furthermore, the homestead option is
available only after a total reassessment is completed. Mamaroneck Village, therefore, may
have to cooperate on a revaluation of Rye Town, or itself initiate a revaluation of the Rye
portion of the Village in order to have a fair and equitable assessment roll.
The Committee believes that it would be in the best interest of all jurisdictions to have a
consistent property tax valuation system. We stress the obvious value in having the villages
and the Town communicate on the options open to them.
E. County Taxation
The Committee is concerned that after a revaluation, Mamaroneck residents may wind up
paying a disproportionate share of Westchester County taxes. It is our understanding that
County taxes are apportioned on the basis of the total imputed full valuation of each City and
Town. For those Westchester jurisdictions that assess at less than 100%of full value(all
assessing units other than Pelham),total full valuation is computed by dividing the aggregate
assessment on the entire roll by the latest available equalization ratio. Since an equalization
ratio is derived from data that is often stale and sometimes inaccurate, certain Towns and
Cities may benefit from a ratio that is higher than would be justified by current market values
and which, in turn,would produce an understated full value assessment roll. In contrast, once
24
April 7, 1999
Mamaroneck undertakes a revaluation, the Town's aggregate full valuation will be quite
predictable and much more reliable. It is conceivable, therefore, that Mamaroneck's allocated
portion of County taxes will be increased upon revaluation,while other Towns or Cities,which
are still fractionally assessed,will pay less than a fair share.
We are persuaded that this matter deserves attention. We believe that equity on the County
level requires assurance that values among the towns, cities and villages be based on the best
and most recent information available. The Town Board should continue to work with, and
encourage action on the part of,the County and the State to have Countywide valuation
undertaken.
Barring such action,the County Board of Legislators,the County Executive, and the New York
State Office of Real Property Services should be encouraged to review the means by which
the County property tax burden is assessed to respective towns, and to take such action as
might be necessary to assure a fair distribution of the burden.
ADMINISTRATION OF REVALUATION
We are impressed with the complexity of several reassessment and valuation issues,with the
confusion created by aspects of the State Real Property Tax Law, and with the difficulty of
righting inequities that have been built into an inadequate system of assessment that has
arisen over a period of decades. We have been made aware that revaluations in other
municipalities have varied in the degree to which they are considered to have successfully met
the objectives of improved tax equity,the extent to which they have more closely aligned the
tax law with the execution of tax administration, and also to the extent that proposed
revaluations have met general community support. Our discussions with persons familiar with
revaluations elsewhere convince the Committee that revaluations can be successful if
administered by persons and companies with strong credentials, having an understanding of
unique aspects of individual properties in the community, and with regard for the concerns and
rights of the community at large and of individual owners. We have met with staff of the State
Office of Real Property Services and understand that ORPS can be of considerable assistance
in the process, providing its experience and guidance as appropriate.
Should the Town Board decide in favor of revaluation,the hard part will then begin.
A. Basic Steps of the Revaluation Process
The Committee is given to understand that the revaluation process is usually accomplished
through the steps outlined below,which are generally required in order for a municipality to be
certified by New York State as an "approved assessing unit"and,thereupon,to be eligible for
State financial assistance for the revaluation process and for maintenance of adequate
assessment rolls.
Based upon the information received to date it will take about eighteen months to complete a
thorough property revaluation. Tentatively, a target of the year 2001 can be set for revaluation
to be complete and for the consideration of a new assessment roll by the Town Board. That
June would be the Town's taxable status date,when the assessor must produce the tentative
assessment roll as required by State law.
Selection of a revaluation firm and consultant
Reassessments can be undertaken by the office of the assessor of assessing districts, or can
be undertaken by hired firms to handle data collection, analysis and related administration
tasks. The assessor undertakes final approval of new assessments.
The Committee feels that it is of the utmost importance that the administration of revaluation
be carried on by competent professionals.We suggest also that consideration be given to
engaging separate firms to value residential and commercial properties respectively,
recognizing that valuation procedures are different for such different properties and that the
expertise required also is different. Furthermore,we have concluded that an independent and
expert person be engaged to assure that the terms of the contract with the Town are carried
out properly and fully. Finally,we expect that the Town attorney will be fully involved to advise
on legal restrictions that relate to assessments of certain properties, including multiple family
dwellings and properties under recreational use.
Should the Board decide in favor of revaluation,the Town would issue a request for proposals
(RFP)from revaluation firms. The State Office of Real Property Services can provide a model
RFP for consideration by the Town and also can provide a list of contractors who have done
25
April 7, 1999
revaluations in other locations. Interviews would be held with qualified firms and there would
be a final selection requiring Town Board approval.The final contractor would be selected on
the basis of experience, including successful completion of revaluations in other jurisdictions,
and understanding of the particular nuances of property values in a community such as
Mamaroneck.
Data collection
The contracting firm would train employees in the collection of data describing the
characteristics of individual properties. Each Town property would be inspected individually.
Data collectors would inspect the outside of individual properties and would inspect the inside
if permitted by the owner. Should an owner not permit an internal inspection, as is the owner's
right,the data collector would then undertake to make judgments about the internal
characteristics. Data collected and judgments made would include the overall size of the
parcel and the residence, number and type of rooms, special features such as fireplaces and
pools,general location, and unique features of the location such as easements and other
special characteristics.
The data would be entered into the Town's real property computer program.
Inconsistencies between Town records and property characteristics
During data collection, discrepancies may be found between the Town's property records and
the existing characteristics of the property. Such discrepancies may include violations of the
New York State Building Code and/or the Town's Zoning Code or differences in the number or
type of rooms.
These discrepancies must be resolved. However,the Committee recommends that the Town
Board establish a policy that can minimize the impact of eliminating the discrepancies.We
suggest that the Board consider allowing the approval agencies to expedite the approval
process and provide a waiver of fees related to these approvals. Establishment of this type of
policy will encourage cooperation with the Town during the data collection phase of the
revaluation process.
Data mailers
A mailer would be produced for review and comment by each property-owner, listing the
information found or assumed during the inspection. Property-owners would be provided an
opportunity to correct information that may be inaccurate, including special features of the
property.
Sales files
The Town Assessor and the revaluation firm would prepare a sales file, listing property sales in
the Town over the past year, the sales price, and the characteristics of sold properties.
Tentative Valuations
Tentative valuations would be developed by computer model based on recent sales and the
specific characteristics of individual properties. Such tentative valuations would be provided to
individual property owners.
Production of final valuations
Property owners would be given another opportunity to discuss their situation with the
assessor and/or valuation contractor,this time with regard to their tentative valuations.The
Town assessor and the revaluation firm would then determine the final valuation.
Issuance of impact notices
Statements would be provided property-owners showing the new value and the change in the
owner's property tax obligation based on the new valuation. The tax calculation would be
made on the basis of the Town budget in effect at that time.
At this point we would know the new full value of assessments within the Town, and also the
proportion of commercial assessments to residential assessments. With this information,the
Town can consider the impact of a homestead option and undertake final consideration of the
adoption of other relevant provisions of the State Real Property Tax Law.
Informal hearings_
During this phase, residents have a third opportunity to meet with the assessor and the
valuation firm in order to discuss their individual impact notices.
Preparation of the new tentative roll
The assessor and/or valuation firm will have another opportunity to change valuations based
on these discussions. Other necessary corrections will be made and the new tentative role will
be approved and prepared by the Town assessor.
Adoption of new values
26
April 7, 1999
The tentative assessment roll would include the new values and would be filed by the
Assessor.
Finally, all owners retain the right to challenge their assessments after revaluation in the same
way that assessments can currently be challenged, e.g., by review with the Board of
Assessment Review, by bringing the matter to Small Claims Court or, as appropriate, by a
claim with the State Supreme Court.
B. Cost
The cost of the revaluation project would be based on the final project specifications sent to
eligible revaluation firms. Since the Town may require additional work in the area of public
education and public awareness, the project cost will obviously reflect the additional work.
Based on other revaluations, our best estimate at the present time is that the cost would be in
the range of$65 to$80 per parcel. These rates equate to totals of about$540,000 to
$665,000.
However, New York State currently subsidizes the revaluation process to the extent of$5 per
parcel, providing approximately$40,000 and leaving approximately$500,000 to$6_25,000 of -- comment[GIs]:Page:29
direct Town costs for the process. Furthermore,there is currently an annual state aid payment Phone discussion with John wolham,November 23,
of up to$2 a parcel available for maintenance of quality assessment rolls in the years following 1998.
revaluation. Taking such additional State aid into account, the net cost to Mamaroneck of
revaluation put into effect in mid-2001 would be in the range of$450,000 to$575,000.
The 1999-2000 Executive Budget submitted by Governor Pataki to the State legislature
contains enhanced funding to encourage and assist assessment units to undertake
revaluation. Such enhanced funding would provide up to$20 a parcel for completing a
reassessment by the 2004 assessment roll and would also provide for$5 a parcel through
2004 for assessing units that take certain actions to sustain equity on an annual basis.L This ___ -- comment[G16]:Page:29
proposal could provide a total of State funds for revaluation and maintenance to Mamaroneck Letter from Thomas G.Griffcn,Executive Director of
the Office of Real Property Services to local
of about$35 per parcel, or about$290,000,which would bring the net cost of revaluation down government officials,February 2,1999.
to a total in the range of$250,000 to$375,000.
C. Community Information
We expect that community interest will be high as the Town Board considers revaluation. We
recommend, therefore,that intensive communication be undertaken with the community to
provide information, receive and answer questions, and respond to concerns. We believe that
taxpayers especially should be made aware of the following matters:
• That the overall level of taxation is a completely separate process from revaluation, and
that the revaluation process will not impact the average tax burden nor total tax revenue
collected.
• The process whereby the contractor will affirmatively provide information on the basis of
tentative assessments,with substantial opportunity provided the taxpayer to correct any
inaccuracies and to question any results.
• 5. CONCLUSIONS
The Property Revaluation Committee concludes that actions should be taken by the Town
Board to establish equity among its taxpayers and to more closely align tax administration
with existing law.
We are impressed with the complexity and the subtleties of assessment and assessment
law and therefore urge the Board to undertake the task of selecting contractors for the
work of valuation with all due attention to credentials,experience and prior success in
property revaluation, and to plan for the highest standard of supervision of the process.
Finally,we urge the Board to consider means to assure that equity and adequate
administration of the tax law be maintained in years subsequent to revaluation in order to
assure the rights of taxpayers to fairness and also the rights of the Town to collection of
appropriate funds.
The Property Revaluation Committee of the Town of Mamaroneck, therefore, makes the
following recommendations to the Town Board.
1. A full reassessment of property in the Town should be undertaken in order to re-establish
equity in the property tax system.
27
April 7, 1999
2. The Town Board should act to assure the dissemination of information to the community on
revaluation issues and the process.
3. The selection of contractors to administer the valuation process should be undertaken with
all due care to assure that seasoned professionals are chosen.
4. Consideration should be given to contracting separately for valuation of residential and
commercial properties.
5. A consultant should be hired to supervise the work of revaluation, in order to provide
assurance that all requirements for the highest standards of revaluation are met.
6. The Town Attorney should be fully engaged in providing legal advice concerning
restrictions on assessments that exist in the law.
7. The process should assure opportunities to property owners to correct any misinformation
regarding their properties and its valuation.
8. The Town Assessor's office should be staffed in a manner to assure effective overview of
the revaluation process and to allow regular analyses thereafter of significant trends in
property in the Town.
9. The Assessor should keep accurate records of property characteristics and maintain
current information on trends of market values of properties in the Town.
10.A procedure should be put in place by the Town Board that leads to full Town-wide
revaluations on a regular basis of three to five years.
11.The homestead option should be given serious consideration at such time as the Town
Board may accept the results of revaluation,with particular emphasis on the impact on
owner-occupied residences, business properties, and on condominiums and cooperative
apartments.
28
April 7, 1999
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY
Assessed Value: The value placed on a property by an assessor.
Assessment-Sales Ratio:The ratio of the assessed value of a property to its sales price. For
example, if the assessed value is$20,000 and the market sales value is$500,000,then the
assessment-sales ratio is equal to 20,000/500,000, or 4.0 percent.
Board of Assessment Review(BAR): A municipal board authorized to hear homeowner
challenges to property assessments and to impose a revised assessment. A homeowner can
continue his/her challenge through small claims court subsequent to a hearing at the BAR.
Certiorari: Refers to the process whereby commercial property owners can contest
assessments in the State Supreme Court. If the assessment is reduced through this process,
municipalities generally must provide a tax refund to account for excess taxes paid subsequent
to the filing.
Equalization Ratio(ER):The average ratio of assessment to market value of the total of
taxable properties in an assessing unit as estimated by the New York State Office of Real
Property Services(ORPS). For example, if there were a total of three properties with
assessment ratios of 3.0,4.0 and 5.0, then the average equalization ratio would be 4.0.
Fractional Assessment: The condition whereby property is assessed at a fraction of its full
value.
Full (Market)Value:The value of a property in an arms-length free market sale.
Homestead Option:The option made available in the RPTL for a certified assessing unit to set
separate tax rates for individually-owned residential properties and for properties defined as
"commercial."
Real Property Tax Law(RPTL): The basic State law relating to real property taxation in New
York State,which mandates conditions under which municipalities may assess and tax such
properties.
Residential Assessment Ratio(RAR):The average ratio of assessment to market value of
taxable 1-3 family residential property in the assessing unit.
School Tax Relief Program(STAR):A State program that provides partial exemptions of
property values from school property taxation.
Transition Phase-In:The option authorized by the RPTL to phase in over a five-year period the
impact of revaluation on individual properties whose assessment ratios had been lower than
the average.
APPENDIX II:THE COMMITTEE
Members of the Committee are:
George P. Roniger-Chairman
Thomas A. Christian
Robert S. Katz
Helen Langerfeld
Anne Hewitt McAndrews
Robert N. Millar
Kerry Sperling Moelis
Richard M. Mumma
Maurice A. Nalven
Also participating were the following persons.
James Fleming (with regard to co-op issues)
Stephen Altieri,Town Administrator
Susan Bickerstaff,Town Assessor
29
April 7, 1999
Ross Valenza,former Town Assessor
The Committee met with the following persons.
Eric Axelsen, New York State Office of Real Property Services
Mark Butryn,Assessor
Louis Cubell, New York State Office of Real Property Services
Anthony laccio,Appraiser, Goodman Marks Inc.
Charlene Indelicato,Town Attorney
Brian Kenny,Assessor,Town of Phillipstown
John Wolham, New York State Office of Real Property Services
Nathaniel Jackson, Director, Program Development, Westchester County Tax Commission
The Committee received information on legal, administrative and assessing procedures from
the Town administration and conferred with, and received further information from,the New
York State Office of Real Property Services. We reviewed several letters received from
officials and citizens conveying views related to our work.
30