The Myth of Revaluation

WPCNR NEWS & COMMENT. By John F. Bailey. June 16, 2009:


 


 


“Several Dozen Municipalities Expected to Delay Revaluations” Hartford Courant,2009


 


“West Hartford Council Votes to Halt Revaluation”—Hartford Courant, 2009


 


“Revaluation Hits Hardest for Those Near Water” – New Haven Register, 2006


 


“Seymour to delay revaluation, as allowed under new state law” – New Haven Register, 2009


 


“West Haven: Foreclosure Capital of Connecticut” – New Haven Advocate, 2009


 


“In the Region: Connecticut and Westchester; Connecticut Revaluations Raise Hackles — New York Times May 1991


 


 


County Executive Andrew Spano’s letter to State Senator Jeffrey Klein urging rejection of the Adam Bradley-Suzi Oppenheimer Commercial Assessment Ratio bill (before the State Senate) last week claims, and we quote: “The root of the (certiorari) problem is revaluation, which has been resisted by most of the local governments for many years. The passage of this bill might relieve some of the immediate situation, but it would probably contribute to the stalling of the much needed revaluation process. It is the very resistance to revaluation that has put our localities in the position they are in now with certiorari.”


 


It is shocking to realize a County Executive of a $2 Billion County is misinformed.


 


A few key strokes on his personal computer before sending that letter to Senator Klein would have revealed to him that the results of revaluation in Connecticut, (you know, Mr. Spano, the state next door) are being postponed indefinitely by West Hartford, New Haven and a host of Connecticut towns because of the increased taxes being piled on residential homeowners as a result of the 2006 Connecticut revaluation.


 


 


 


 


 


 


The public has been bombarded with one giant lie about revaluation for years and in the last week it was perpetuated in flagrant ignorance of the facts.


 


 For the County Executive not to know how revaluation would affect the taxpayers he assaults every year with his $1.8 Billion budget by not cutting his own total budget is disturbing. (Eliminating expenses but still raising the budget is not cutting the budget).


 


WPCNR requests of the County for a statement from the County Department of Taxation and Finance on a general projection of what “reval” would mean in Westchester was not responded to by the county.


 


The fact is,the County Executive appears not to be aware of how revaluation has worked in the state next door. Why does he not know. The  Westchester County Association, self-styled crusaders for property tax reform the last two years do not apparently know either, or appear to not to want to know. The County Executive and the WCA lose all credibility when they put out an untested solution not based on facts readily available.


 


Does any one have any idea of what Revaluation would do?


 


In White Plains, City Assessor Lloyd Tasch told WPCNR last week there has never been a projection done in the city about what a revaluation of White Plains property would mean for the taxpayers. There has not be a reval since the mid-1950s.  Tasch did say that now when real estate prices are soft and businesses are experiencing declines is not a good time to do a “reval,” because market values have declined. He said any municipality wanting to do a reval should execute it in a period of prosperity to avoid having to raise the city tax rate if the city market value (or Grand List as it is called in Connecticut) had declined significantly from its current tax  roll.


 


Tasch said any revaluation would require the county and municipalities agreeing on how a reval would be conducted, how property would be valued, which he suggested would take a considerable time to hammer out. Then, he said, it would take  time to do a reval (in Connecticut it took 2 years in the city of Waterbury). He said it would probably take at least 5 years to do a reval.


 


Then Tasch said that the general affect of a reval is homeowners’ property taxes would go up substantially, and commercial owners’s property taxes would go down.


 


Tasch said that some sort of percentage would have to be applied to lower homeowner tax increases as a result to prevent homeowners in White Plains from being hurt in a revaluation.


 


When to Reval that is the question


 


This reval “at the top of the market”  is what has happened in Connecticut, which revalues by law all its residential property every five years.


 


Connecticut’s last revaluation was conducted in 2006, the height of the real estate boom. The result: housing values went up.  But now that hard times have hit, the taxes from the salad days of 2006 are coming in high and hard.


 


In suburban West Haven, tax bills increased as much as $5,000 in one year, because West Haven decided to bill for all the revalued home assessments the next year. This, according to the New Haven Advocate quote of a Century 21 realtor, contributed to West Haven having more homes in the foreclosure process than Bridgeport at the end of 2008. Mr. Spano and Mr. Mooney can read about this at www.newhavenadvocate.com/article_print.cfm?aid=3151


 


 


The ravages of the Connecticut Revaluation of 2006, have caused such an upheaval in property taxes that the State of Connecticut passed a law May 27, responding to the outcry of dozens of towns, that allows towns to delay implementing the property tax increases until 2011 The city of New Haven is the first to take advantage of the law, delaying the new property taxes, and Andy Spano and Bill Mooney could have read about it, if they so wished.


 


So if White Plains were to implement a reval on properties that have not been reassessed since the 1950s., that have not changed owners in 25 years, it does not take a genius to figure out that Mr. and Mrs. and Ms. White Plains, and Mr. and Mrs. and Ms. Westchester are going to get killed on property taxes in any revaluation.


 


Reval Disaster in Connecticut


 


The New Haven Register highlighted the problem in 2006 – before the latest round of revaluations, pointing out that  property taxes were doubling or tripling even before the 2006 debacle. One owner saw their property taxes go from $8,400 to $11,000; homes on the water in Branford saw taxes go from$7,000 to $20,000.  The article, written in January 2006 may be seen at  www.hpearcere.com/content/2006/revaluation.asp


 


Supporters of revaluation always use the line, a third of the homes go up in value (and taxes), a third go down and a third remain the same.


 


 In Seymour, Connecticut, the New Haven Register  First Selectman Robert Koskelowski explained why his town of Seymour is delaying implementing their revaluation until October 2010. He said commercial and industrial property values always decline in a revaluation, (reducing their taxes). Koskelowski attributed this to companies being able to mark down the value of equipment and other property each year as they depreciate. Homeowners, the New Haven Register points out in their May 25, 2009  article at www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/05/25/news/valley/b7-sereval.prt. though cannot mark down the value of their homes as the home infrastructure deteriorates.


 


In New Haven, as of May 27, 3 weeks ago,  their Mayor (John DeStefano)has been quick to take advantage of Connecticuts Revaluation “Delay” Law.


 


New Haven has voted to delay implementing the new property taxes from revaluation because they are overwhelming the community. The increase the average New Haven homeowner faced was a 5.4 % tax hike this year  (in the third year of the five years New Haven has to implement its revaluation completed in 2006). Roughly it would appear over those five years New Haveners could expect a 25% property tax hike overall. An article in the New Haven Independent outlines what New Haven is facing at www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/02/mayor_seeks_rev.php


 


Revaluation Lowers Commercial and Business Taxes. Raises Homeowners’ Taxes


 


In the Hartford Courant of May 27, 2009, an article by Bill Leukhardt  notes that postponement of revaluation does not work to the city advantage. Leukhardt quotes Waterbury Assessor David M. Deutsch pointing out that delays in implementing keep commercial and business taxes higher by postponing adjustments reflecting longer-term increases in housing values. That article may be read at http://www.courant.com/community/news/hfd/hc-west-hartford-reval-0527.artmay27,0,7623043.story


 


The Courant story tells more of how the tax impact of revaluation has raised an outcry statewide resulting in the “delay” law.


 


 


This statement, apparently an afterthought,  by Deutch highlights the big myth of revaluation that has been exposed right next door. He seems to be saying that businesses will benefit from revaluation even more than they do under the assessment system that New York has now. In New York,  home values are included in with commercial property values which creates the ongoing certiorari drain on White Plains and Westchester city and town tax rolls thanks to increasing home values.


 


The more things change…


 


If you go back 17 years to 1991, The New York Times confirms the horror of revaluation has long been with us, when Connecticut did it every 10 years, instead of 5 years. And even then, when the revaluation was done, communities sought delay in implementation.


 


In 1989 in Greenwich, 3,700 homeowners in that year filed grievances. The revaluation that year resulted, and I quote the Times article by Eleanor Charles, “The overall effect statewide (of revaluation) has been a significant shifting of the tax burden from commercial to residential,in some cases creating a 30 to 50 percent tax increase.”


 


It is interesting to note that the Town of Seymour delayed implementation back in 1991, too, and according to their then assessor, Anna Marks, who said, and I quote the article, “Now that the market has come down somewhat we just hired (a firm) to do another revaluation by Oct. 1.”


 


Robert Tuthill, the Greenwich Assessor  in 1991 was quoted as saying, “revaluations are threatening for retired people especially. And a lot of people who bought homes for $1 Million are finding they aren’t worth a million any more. Others have multimillion-dollar houses that were grossly underassessed.”


 


The Times view into Connecticut’s Revaluation past may be found at  http://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/05/realestate/in-the-region-connecticut-and-westchester-connecticut-revaluations-raise-hackles.html


 


Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose. (The more things change the more they remain the same.)


 


Don’t the citizens of Westchester and White Plains deserve the facts on revaluation from the county instead of a poorly thought out policy that serves a narrow, highly tax-benefitted minority — the business community in an election year?


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

Posted in Uncategorized

One House the Solution to NY State Senate Shenanigans

WPCNR THE FEINER REPORT. From Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner.  June 16,2009: Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner is urging New York state to establish a constitutional convention to consider reorganizing government structures in New York State. He is also proposing that the state rethink having a two house legislature. Nebraska has a one house legislature and has had a one house legislature for many years. New York State has a Senate and Assembly and has the reputation of having the most dysfunctional state government in America. A one house legislature could save millions of dollars.

Feiner said that the circus in the State Senate and the turmoil that is taking place is hurting New York State. A one house legislature would reduce legislative gridlock and would be less costly to the taxpayers. Senators like Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate won’t be able to hold the people hostage.


New York State needs to reorganize itself. There are more layers of government in New York State than any other state in the nation. Property taxes in Westchester are higher than any other community. Feiner has previously suggested that a study be conducted to determine whether county government should be eliminated or consolidated with other counties.He founded a group called RethinkingWestchestergov.com.  Feiner is also currently reviewing a proposal to consolidate three paid fire districts in Greenburgh. 


Feiner said that in these difficult times everything should be put on the table. We need to reduce the costs of administering government in New York State. Having a State Senate is a big waste of taxpayer dollars.

Posted in Uncategorized

Teachers Union, School District Settle Contract — Vote Coming Friday/Monday

WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. By John F. Bailey. June 16,2009: Superintendent of Schools Timothy Connors told WPCNR Tuesday morning that the School District and the White Plains Teachers Association, “we have reached a tentative agreement” settling their wage-benefits contract dispute.


In the final fact-finding session held yesterday between the teachers and the district resulted in the settlement which the Superintendent said would be presented to the teachers. Connors said he expects a vote among union members to be held Friday or Monday.



Superintendent of Schools, Timothy Connors


Connors said the settlement was along the lines of what has been at issue all along salary related to benefits. Benefits costs to the teachers have gone up 17% and the teachers union had sought salary increases to make up some of that difference. Whatever salary increase was negotiated will be in addition to the automatic 2% longevity increases that teachers receive automatically for each year of service (up to 20 years), unless that longevity increase amount was part of the negotiation. The contract, terms of which are not yet disclosed, would be retroactive for this year 2008-2009 and be in effect beginning July 1 for 2009-2010. A new contract would have to be negotiated for 2010-11..


The tentative settlement relieves incoming Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Christopher Clouet, of immediately taking up the contract negotiations as his first order of business and buys him about six months of settle-in time and relationship-building before he has to go back to the bargaining table with the teachers


Two weeks ago, the district had settled with the Civil Service Employees Association (with 500 employees working for the school district) for 2%

Posted in Uncategorized

Friends of Joseph Delfino Issues Refunds to Organizations Which Over-Contributed

WPCNR CAMPAIGN 2009. By John F. Bailey. June 15, 2009, UPDATED June 17, 2009 6:30 A.M.: The Friends of Joseph Delfino political organization has issued $7,763.50 in refunds to 25 political contributors who had exceeded the state limit on the amount they could contribute ($1,483), according to New York State Board of Elections reports through January 2009.


Paul Wood, the Mayor’s Executive Officer confirmed this to WPCNR this afternoon. Wood said the remaining dollars in the Mayor’s campaign coffers could be given to another political organization, or the Mayor could use them to run for another office. To date, the Mayor has not made a decision.


Wood also said  Tuesday that the overpayments were discovered by the Mayor’s campaign fund treasurer and that there were similar overpayments in previous years.


Friends of Mayor Joseph Delfino issued the following refunds:


 


Contributor                                     Amt of Donation Refund


Byram Concrete and Supply, Inc…..$550 (July 17, 2007)


Benerofe Properties Corp…………….$116 (August 29, 2008)


Belway Electrical Corp………………..$906  (August 29, 2008)


Bennett Kielson Storch Desantis Corp….$111 (August 29, 2008)


I.U.O.E. Local 137 Political Edu. Fund…$106 (August 29,2008)


Saccardi & Schiff, Inc………………………..$156 (August 29,2008)


Delbello,Donnellan, Weingarten,L.L.P…..$106 (August 29, 2008)


169 White Plains Restaurant Inc…………..$106 (August 29, 2008)


RPW Group, Inc………………………………$91 (August 29, 2008)


McCullough Goldberger & Staudt, L.L.P…..$156 (August 29,2008)


Painters and Drywall Industry Adv Fund…….$716 (August 29, 2008)


C.W. Brown, Inc…………………………………..$131 (August 29, 2008)


Healy Electric Contracting……………………….$156 (August 29, 2008)


Markey Realty, Inc………………………………..$156 (August 29, 2008)


P.F.F.A. Local 271, I.A.F.F……………………$156 (August 29,2008)


Group 5 Ltd…………………………………………$156 (August 29, 2008)


GTL Construction LLC………………………….$86   (August 29,2008)


The College of Westchester…………………….$516 (October 29, 2008)


Other Expenditures


The College of Westchester……………………$1,000 (January 14, 2009)


WP Beautification Foundation…………………$250 (January 14, 2009)  Conservation


NCAAD/Westchester, Inc……………………..$150  (January 15, 2009) Conservation


Friends of Amy Paulin…………………………….$99  (January 14, 2009) Contribution


Antonio Meucci Lodge 213…………………….$200 (January 15, 2009)  Conservation


Tigers Fan Committee……………………………$200 (January 14, 2009) Conservation


Holtzman Vogel PLLC…………………………..$1,387.50 (January 14,2009) Consultation


 


As June 14,2009, The Friends of Joseph Delfino organization reported a closing balance of $105,457.44.

Posted in Uncategorized