-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 14, 2013 Results of the Portland Town Board Meeting.
Overall, we did accomplish something. Many good statements good ideas, thoughts and suggestions were made by attendees and board members.
Here is a summary.
Town board was asked to finance a lawsuit for unfair treatment on the Equalization rate if the lawyer deems we have a good shot at it. They are going to look into it, but do not think there is any money left. We asked them to dig deep, as we have already paid many times over and it is cheaper than a reval. We are still waiting on the lawyers take on all this. Of course, the lawyer is waiting on the state for some of this info he needs to make a recommendation.
Assessor guidelines and job descriptions are set by the state so we do not have input to that as we had hoped. As an alternative, the town is looking into a website that would have a section on Assessment frequently asked questions so owners will know what to expect for assessment changes for repairs, remodeling and new builds. We are looking for transparency and consistency.
Possibly, these common questions could also be on a handout/web page attached to the Building permit application.
It was pointed out that we have to be focused on the next year's equalization rate. The numbers will start coming momentarily dealing with Equalization rate any time now. It is looking like the property sales will support a higher equalization rate (lower market values). So far, reported sales from 7/01/12 to 06/30/13 support a 10% increase in equalization rate, back to 2% higher than 2011. In that case, they should use the sales data, not that mysterious CAMA valuation. That would be a big help. The town board agreed to have the assessor accept our help in working on that.
The town supervisor has done some research on how other states deal with assessments and equalizations. There are several alternatives out there. The town is going to spearhead a meeting with the state senators, board and citizens. Our goal would be to get them to introduce legislation, possibly to abolish the NY State Real Property Tax service by replacing it with alternative funding such as sales tax increases and/or income tax increases. There may be other viable simple alternative to property taxes and they should be explored.
Assessor job reviews and salary adjustments are not possible. If the assessor is not doing their job, the state is the one that could remove them. The assessor works one day a week in the office and one day out in the field.
The assessor was reappointed to a 6 year term.
Thanks to everyone for their support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1, 2013 - Town of Portland Workshop meeting results .
Our group made a presentation of what happened to the property taxes and how it affected our complete town, including the board members, lake and vacation home owners, and everyone else in the Town of Portland.
Supporting documentation was presented showing complete details of how the taxes could have been over $658,000 less if the equalization rate had not happened.
A flowchart showed the Equalization Rate Change process and at what point the state could have received input from the town and the assessor to challenge the state's assumptions. The path of no input and least resistance has been taken for many years including 2012 when the state calculated that town of Portland market values increased dramatically, causing a huge increase in our share of property taxes.
Then we went into discussion on the job description and guidelines of an assessor which the town board is going to work on after discussion with town counsel. They need to make sure the guidelines are not in conflict with any state guidelines before they can be adopted.
The town board admitted they want, and need, to take control of the assessor's office and be on top of the tax situation as it develops, not after the fact as in the past. Especially now that they know of the huge impact this process can make. These guidelines include the interpretation of when can an assessment change be off limits.
Our suggestions include no raise in assessments for repairs, landscaping and cosmetic changes. Additionally, for changes and remodels, only the change should be reassessed for it's value, not the total new market value for the property. In those situations, if a property were to receive a complete reassessment, it would be a spot re-val. One person shouldn't get a re-val unless everyone is getting a re-val. Only qualified changes show have a change in reassessment. This would take the fear out of filing a building permit for repairs, maintenance or property improvements.
The board is also exploring the possibility of controlling the assessor's position, and all positions within the town, by yearly performance reviews, using guidelines based on the job description and guidelines. These reviews could determine whether a salary reduction should be made.
As far as re-appointing the assessor, providing she accepts the new guidelines and control that will be put in place, it looks like the Town will be re-appointing the assessor. The clerical portion of her performance, reporting requirements and meeting state mandates has been acceptable by the Town Board. There will be no special town meeting to go over that. They feel that these controls and guidelines will re-align the position with the best interests of the property owners. Also, they pointed out that the information now available on the process and results will make it much easier for them to stay on top of the situation. And, they are fearful that any different assessor would not be any better. They said (probably true), they are not aware of any assessor in our area that has the knowledge or has made the attempt, to challenge the state on this complex process. They also could not find any continuing education courses for assessor in dealing with the effects of Equalization Rate changes. At least now we have knowledge to know what avenues can be taken to make changes.
There was no point in beating this issue to death as it was going nowhere. We didn't want to back them into a corner where they would come out fighting and we would be left out of the process. As it stands, our group is involved in developing the guidelines and job descriptions. We don't want to lose that.
The state will be making a decision on our Equalization Rate Complaint on August 16th so we are still hopeful that we may get some relief there. As soon as we hear, we will let you all know.
Conclusion? We have to work with what we got. If these controls are put in place and the assessor accepts them, then we just have to move forward. This will be an improvement. Thank you everyone for your support.
Citizens can make a difference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of 7/23/13 3:27PM Research as to the total impact the ER had on our town.
$658,801.69 – This number is the total impact on taxes for the property owners because of the equalization rate change for the Town of Portland. That means the residents in the surrounding towns paid that much less! And we will keep on paying it if we don't get it fixed!
So, this affected lake property owners only? No way, everyone paid extra. The town can't use this argument anymore. The whole town should be up in arms.
Here is the breakdown of the extra taxes paid in the Town of Portland strictly because of the equalization rate change.
School Taxes Extra
Brocton Extra 79,618
Chautauqua Lake Extra 7,477
Fredonia Extra 80,333
Westfield Extra 38,794
Total School Taxes Extra 206,224
County Taxes - Town of Portland Extra $452,578
Grand Total Extra $658,801
Time to get everyone in the town in on this.
If the town keeps the assessor, they should make a public statement of what are her strong points and explain how they outweigh her weak points as she allowed this to happen. The state will not allow a shorter term.
As far as giving her a reduced salary initially or lowering her salary for poor performance, can't see how this ever motivate her to do a better job. This could cause her to be more antagonistic.
We need action. Hoping our complaint to the state gets us a better equalization rate. We should find out after August 16th.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of 7/19-13 meeting with town board
Bad News, the Town Board has voted to re-appoint the assessor for a tentative 2 year contract, pending NY State approval. Normally they require a 6 year term.
It appears they do not understand the negative impact the assessors actions, decisions and approach has placed on the Town or there is some unhealthy connection between the assessor and the Town Board including the expenses associated with the current Complaint filed with NY State to get a better Equalization Rate. If the Board agrees that the Equalization Rate should be raised, how can they not see that is was because of the assessor why we are here in the first place. So discouraging. How can they ignore the glaring problems with the current assessor?
We are going to be working on an Assessor's Guideline that we are hoping to get passed into Town Law to try to keep a leash and muzzle on the position. Hopefully this will help.
Questions we asked the assessor. Her answers in Red
After each incorrect answer, I pointed out the discrepancies as shown in the purple type.
All the Exhibits (Supporting Doucments) are available by clicking on them.
What is the Equalization Rate (ER) definition?
She stumbled a bit but basically had the answer right.
Simply put - Total Assessed Value (AV) divided by Total Market Value (MV) = Equalization Rate
How does the ER affect taxes?
Her answer – Equalization rate does not affect taxes – Wrong
I pointed out to the board that it clearly does change taxes as it shifts more of the tax burden to those with the most increase in market value since our school and county taxes are based on market value.
I also pointed out that she mentioned at the previous board meeting she didn't know how much it would affect our taxes. The documents clearly shows that an ER rate change will affect the proportion of School and County taxes a municipality pays and it is pointed out in the Notice of Tentative State Equalization Letter page 1, next to last paragraph.
Exhibit C: 2012 Town of Portland Rate Data.pdf This one takes a while to open
How is the RAR (Residential Assessment Ratio) part of the ER determined?
Exhibit D: Residential assessment ratios (RAR's).pdf
Her answer – she wasn't sure.
What method was used to determine ER for 2012 & 2013?
Her answer – She was not sure.
The Assessor should know and understand this. Here is what was used –
CAMA on 952 properties for RAR, a computer modeling program that has our residential property values going up $21,000,000 in just 4 years, no real sales or appraisals were used.
ORPTS (Office of Real Property Tax Services) observations of 27 properties by "Appraised" values for non-residential properties. We talked about these "Values" later.
What was the report given to the group initially when asked how was the Equalization Rate calculated?
When the first group of 5 citizens asked for the data used in the calculations of the ER rate, what did you give them and why? We received pages 3-5 of the 2012 Town of Portland Rate Data.pdf , what was that?
Her Answer - that is all the info she had – Wrong
What she gave us was a part of the info, nothing to do with residential, only the non-residential part, the ORPTS observations of 27 properties by "Appraised" values for non-residential properties. We have copies of the letters from the state that explained what she received and asking for her input.
Exhibit E: 2012-ERA-Letter-2011-09-27.pdf
Exhibit F: 2012-ERA-Letter-2012-01-10.pdf
At the last board meeting, you mentioned that you have no input into the calculations. What is the Assessors input into ER calculations?
Her answer – The assessor has no input – Wrong
There are many ways in which an assessor can be a part of the calculation process.
There is a Pre-Decisional Collaboration (PDC) Process
Exhibit M: 2013fvm_pdc_process.pdf
Step 1 - See Exhibit E: 2012-ERA-Letter-2011-09-27.pdf
Step 2 - Exhibit F: 2012-ERA-Letter-2012-01-10.pdf
Step 3 – File a complaint – as outlined on page 2 of \ Notice of Tentative State Equalization Letter
Exhibit C: 2012 Town of Portland Rate Data.pdf
When Town Supervisor asked your opinion of the ER change in 2012, you said you agreed with the state findings. Did you review the "Appraised" value listed on Data Report 4? How were these "Appraised" values arrived at?
Her answer – (Wrong) she did not look at the appraisals and even if she provided different observations there was no guarantee the state would use them or whether they would be better or not.
How could she tell the supervisor she agreed with the states numbers if she did not check them out?
Let's look at some of the huge questions we kicked up.
Exhibit G: EdMiller2013-07-11.pdf
Plus look at some of the sales prices on these overvalued appraisals from the same list.
Exhibit H: Non-ResidentialObservations MM.PDF
What is the procedure and criteria for a property owner having their assessment lowered?
We asked about a specific property that had it's assessment lowered after being turned down by the Grievance Board due to incomplete paperwork. The assessor said that the owner showed her comps with lower values so she lowered the assessment. When asked if the owner had paperwork supporting the comps, the assessor said no, the owner told her about the comps. (Sounds sort of loose, she accepted verbal comps). She also said that after the taxes went up due to the equalization rate change, the owner contacted her again looking for another reduction in accessed value. She told the owner she can't do that again for him. Why did she do this for him in the first place?
This reeks of favoritism and is not consistent with guidelines.
Exhibit I: RPTaxLaw-Repairs.pdf
Exhibit J: Portland Bill of Rights.pdf
When a property has repairs made, does it increase their assessed value?
Have you changed any property’s assessments just for repairs made?
No direct Answer, just a shrug. She then said there is a difference between maintenance and property improvements where an improvement adds value to the home. She said she may be looking at a property repair and see a broken down silo next door. (Not sure where she was going with that.)
The assessor is using building permits of any kind to make a spot reval of assessments.
Whether it is a repair that should not be reassessed or some type of improvement that should only be assessed on the addition to the value, this is where the assessor is reassessing the complete property, basically a spot reval. This is why residents are afraid to repair or remodel because they will be singled out for a reval. Plus she will use it to eyeball your neighbors to see if she can get something out of them.
We provide 2 examples of foundation repairs where the assessor raised the assessed values because the piers were repaired.
Additional Attachments:
Exhibit N - AssessorJobDesc.pdf
Exhibit O - FairAssessments-1.pdf
2013-07-06 11:30 AM
Here is a summary of the meeting at Van Buren Point Community Center for their members to inform them of the property tax situation.
Click here to see a PDF of the presentation and a summary of where we are at.
2013-06-06 11:30 AM
Hello neighbors
Important town board meeting at Portland Town Hall Wednesday June 12, 7PM
It would be good to have a strong turnout and a good show of support for
making a change with the assessor and the equalization rate.
With the increase in the Fredonia School Tax budget, again, north west
Town of Portland properties owners (VBP, Days Woods, Beach Place, Taster
Lane and Patterson) will be paying more than their fair share of school
and county tax increases.
We are on the agenda for 2 important subjects.
1. Re-appointment of Town Assessor - Half the board is on the fence about
this and we feel that it is our duty to inform them of the wishes of their
constituents.
2. Disputing the Equalization rate. - This is a new opportunity and may
give us an avenue to get the ball rolling towards a change without trying
to find an alternate avenue to approach it. We were thinking that since
they did not change the rate, we would not have this opportunity but it
turns out that this is not the case and we do have that opportunity. This
equalization rate is what caused our taxes to escalate in 2012 and keeps
our taxes high in 2013.
Let everyone you know about this and invite them to come.
Hopefully see you there.
Bill Ploetz
716-679-7715
2012-12-24 10:59 AM
Merry Christmas Eve to all.
I put together some interesting comparisons in graphic format
Take a look at the following PDF Graphs. It is crazy what has happened to Portland. Now we have to figure out what we can do with this.
1. Town of Portland Residental "Market" value increase since 2009
2. Town of Portland percentage of change in various property type values since 2006
3. Town of Portland percentage of change in various property type values compared to Town of Sheridan since 2010
4. Town of Portland percentage of change in various property type rates used for calculating values since 2006
5. Town of Portland compared to other towns in the county as percentage of change in equalization rates since 2006
2012-12-22 10:59 AM
Seasons Greetings everyone.
We have received about all the numbers we can handle from the Freedom of Information Law.
I have been machining and transferring them into spreadsheets for analyzing the info.
Here are some brief summaries:
Observations of ER and RAR from 2006 - 2012 - The ER ends up being the final determination of how are property values are affected. These rates were downloaded from the NY state tax website. Note that properties values in general are not going up much in Chautauqua County but Town of Portland has seen a huge spike in values, coming largely from a "Calculated" increase in value for commercial properties and in a smaller amount, from residential properties. Mind that these increase in values do not reflect sales, just calculated sales and unofficial appraisals. RAR is residential only and ER includes non-residential and residential properties. It seems out of line that Portland should see such a huge spike while most of the county has not.
CAMA Calculated Residential Sales - Of the 952 properties used in the 2012 CAMA study, to determine the RAR (Residential Equalization rate) all were used in the study in more that one year between 2009 and 2012. Looking at the changes in calculated market value from 2009 to 2012 by this CAMA Study Program: 47 were calculated at the same value 189 were calculated at a lower value of $2.4 million less 716 were calculated at a higher value of almost $24 million more. Net change in market value from 2009 to 2012 is $21.2 million by CAMA study. This is saying that the Town of Portland has increased in market value by over $21 million in that time period. This does not seem realistic. How can the identical parcels change so much in value from year to year? There seems to be some fallacies in this logic or someone is feeding in parameters to the program to pre-determine the desired results.
These numbers came from the state through the Freedom of Information Law for the years 2009 - 2012 where CAMA studies were used instead of real sales numbers.
We are also analyzing the NY State sales lists to see why they could not use real sales and why commercial properties were "appraised" at a 45% rate?
We are then going to try to put this into a graphically presentation instead of the millions for columns, numbers, data, reports and spreadsheets we now have.
Once we have a presentation prepared, we will try a test run on an unsuspecting volunteer and see if it makes sense to them.
Then we will have a group meeting to discuss if we think we have enough evidence and information to take this to the next level.
Plus, we are trying to keep on top of the 2013 Equalization rate so it does not keep getting worse.
We will keep you posted.
Happy Holidays.
Bill
2012-11-15 8:32AM
BUDGET for Town of Portland 2013 - Click here for PDF (sorry - it scanned a little wobbly)
2012-11-13 9:00PM
Town Board Meeting summary and current status of our investigation into the equalization rates.
Status of Equalization Rate Investigation
We are sort of going nowhere fast. We are still waiting on some Freedom of Information Law info from the state to compare all the townships for the last 2 years for what has happened to equalization rates and to see if only Portland had this drastic change. We did get the 952 parcels that were used in this years calculations and those numbers where somewhat representative of the ratio of lakefront to non-lakefront residential parcels. It turns out that about 23% of the residential properties in Portland are along the lakefront. What did standout were the non-residential parcels. Many seemed over-appraised and one of the comps they used was questionable. We can not understand how the State's purchase for the Cornell Extension at $300,000 for 53 acres of grapes is an arm's length sale. That was an out of the ordinary sale and in 2006, before the real estate bubble burst. It should not be used to calculate value of other non-residential parcels in our township. That class of parcels was calculated at 45% of assessed value to market value. This skewed our equalization rate downward and hurt even more than the residential calculations. This will be part of our discussions with the state. The equalization rate is a combination of residential and non-residential "Calculated" values.
So we are still preparing our data and studies to see what we can come up with for our arguments.
In the meantime, we need to keep up on the equalization rates for 2013. The town supervisor says that he will be in communication with the assessor and keep us posted as the new numbers are being developed. We are hoping to get an higher equalization rate for 2013.
We need to stick together as a strong group. We don't want to let this slide and we also should keep fire to this issue.
Town Board Meeting Summary:
The Town Board voted in the new budget. See the new budget at BUDGET for Town of Portland 2013 - Click here for PDF
The highway department is still dealing with substandard floor installed by a contractor. There are voids under the floor and premature breakage is feared. The town has not released the bond on this job and letters are being submitted to try to get this resolved. The contractors last efforts did not resolve the issues. The board is trying to avoid paying for an engineering study and report to prove the defects.
The Peerless Street bridge project has not found any funding relief from suggestions by Cathy Young. Applying for federal grants would raise the cost of the project and delay completion. Other avenues are being explored.
The water department needs to winterize the chlorinator at the water tower, it is in danger of freezing and needs a simple insulated cover and maybe a light bulb for heat. The water department has been directed to do that out of existing funds. There is still an issue of how to keep the hydrants clear during the winter and how to spray around them for weed control. The board is looking into that.
2012-10-16 2:40pm
Dan Schrantz (Town Supervisor) has contacted the Council of Towns and has a list of lawyers experienced with town legalities. They are going to choose a lawyer and meet with the town attorney too, as soon as they can get it scheduled.
The Town meeting at the school is not directly related to our problem. They will be there to explain how equalization rates are calculated and the importance of a reval. Our thoughts on a reval and things that could be brought up at this meeting.
The current Equalization Rate Change problem should be resolved first.
If and when a reval is done,
a. should be done county wide because of the high number of school districts that exist in multiple townships
b. the economies of scale. Bidding it out to an outside company with no interest in Chautauqua county should get the best price and the fairest reval.
Why maybe it should not be done:
a. It is out of date immediately, that means it needs to be re-done frequently adding additional tax burdens on an ongoing basis.
b. It is expensive adding to our tax burden and the money to pay for it will be going out of the town or county to get a fair reval
c. Equalization rates adjustments (if done properly) are much less costly and should reflect the current market condition which have very volatile lately.
2012/10/15 11:00am
Portland Town Board Meeting Tuesday October 23, 7PM Brocton Central School Auditorium to speak with state and town officials about reval and equalization.
We are in hopes that this is separate from the efforts to fix the errors on the current equalization rate.
2012/10/13 7:20pm
Nothing new. The town is working with the state to get to the root of this evil.
2012/10/11 12:16pm
We just received the Freedom of Information Act info and the number that were turned into the state for the recalculation of the equalization rate were the same as the list the assessor provided, no sales, no residential properties and not what should have been used.
2012/10/11 8:45am
A neighbor called with more good info this morning. He knows one of the councilman quite well and talked with him this morning. The town met in executive session last night. They belong to a Council of Towns. It has legal counsel and assistance to towns in matters like this. They have a emergency meeting at 9AM this morning. The councilman said that he was impressed by the group's research and presentation and wished that more community members would get as involved on other issues.
The neighbor also brought up the point that we as citizens are restricted by the slow times for getting info through the Freedom of Information Act but the town is not. They have the info or can get it and need to get it now. The councilman agreed.
So I think we are headed towards a resolution to this.
2012-10-10 8:00pm
We think the town board meeting went very well.
At the 5pm pre-meeting, the group had some slight strategy changes. Attendees brought to light some additional information and approach considerations.
The , the town supervisor made a brief statement. He said that the state made the request for the equalization rate change and that they had no control over it. He said he that the change was due to the sales of many higher valued home on or near the waterfront that went for so much more than the assessed value. He knew that there was a 2% tax cap and had no idea that the change in equalization rate would have such an impact on the tax rate. He said they were already in conversation with the county about the need for a reval. Then he turned it over to the group
The spokesperson made his presentation very well. You could see the board members eyes light up. We truly believe that they had no knowledge of what had happened.
We presented that there was not a tax cap since the school opted to vote in a 3.5% hike and that the town has control of the equalization rate by the final figures that are turned into the state by the assessor.
We explained how the tax cap was over-ridden and where we got the numbers from and what we were waiting on from the state.
It was also brought up that this could possibly be a violation of law and that the town must take action immediately. The Town attorney said we must jump right on this so we do not pass any filing deadlines. The supervisor and council members discuss everything and just can't quite believe it. They wanted to get right on it and wanted us to set up a citizen spokes-group.
The Supervisor also said that this fuels his reason for not really wanting to do a reval because it would add to the tax levy and he has held the town budget for 6 years. (Very admirable in this day and age, with the state taking so much and throwing it back to the towns responsibility)
August 14, 2013 Results of the Portland Town Board Meeting.
Overall, we did accomplish something. Many good statements good ideas, thoughts and suggestions were made by attendees and board members.
Here is a summary.
Town board was asked to finance a lawsuit for unfair treatment on the Equalization rate if the lawyer deems we have a good shot at it. They are going to look into it, but do not think there is any money left. We asked them to dig deep, as we have already paid many times over and it is cheaper than a reval. We are still waiting on the lawyers take on all this. Of course, the lawyer is waiting on the state for some of this info he needs to make a recommendation.
Assessor guidelines and job descriptions are set by the state so we do not have input to that as we had hoped. As an alternative, the town is looking into a website that would have a section on Assessment frequently asked questions so owners will know what to expect for assessment changes for repairs, remodeling and new builds. We are looking for transparency and consistency.
Possibly, these common questions could also be on a handout/web page attached to the Building permit application.
It was pointed out that we have to be focused on the next year's equalization rate. The numbers will start coming momentarily dealing with Equalization rate any time now. It is looking like the property sales will support a higher equalization rate (lower market values). So far, reported sales from 7/01/12 to 06/30/13 support a 10% increase in equalization rate, back to 2% higher than 2011. In that case, they should use the sales data, not that mysterious CAMA valuation. That would be a big help. The town board agreed to have the assessor accept our help in working on that.
The town supervisor has done some research on how other states deal with assessments and equalizations. There are several alternatives out there. The town is going to spearhead a meeting with the state senators, board and citizens. Our goal would be to get them to introduce legislation, possibly to abolish the NY State Real Property Tax service by replacing it with alternative funding such as sales tax increases and/or income tax increases. There may be other viable simple alternative to property taxes and they should be explored.
Assessor job reviews and salary adjustments are not possible. If the assessor is not doing their job, the state is the one that could remove them. The assessor works one day a week in the office and one day out in the field.
The assessor was reappointed to a 6 year term.
Thanks to everyone for their support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 1, 2013 - Town of Portland Workshop meeting results .
Our group made a presentation of what happened to the property taxes and how it affected our complete town, including the board members, lake and vacation home owners, and everyone else in the Town of Portland.
Supporting documentation was presented showing complete details of how the taxes could have been over $658,000 less if the equalization rate had not happened.
A flowchart showed the Equalization Rate Change process and at what point the state could have received input from the town and the assessor to challenge the state's assumptions. The path of no input and least resistance has been taken for many years including 2012 when the state calculated that town of Portland market values increased dramatically, causing a huge increase in our share of property taxes.
Then we went into discussion on the job description and guidelines of an assessor which the town board is going to work on after discussion with town counsel. They need to make sure the guidelines are not in conflict with any state guidelines before they can be adopted.
The town board admitted they want, and need, to take control of the assessor's office and be on top of the tax situation as it develops, not after the fact as in the past. Especially now that they know of the huge impact this process can make. These guidelines include the interpretation of when can an assessment change be off limits.
Our suggestions include no raise in assessments for repairs, landscaping and cosmetic changes. Additionally, for changes and remodels, only the change should be reassessed for it's value, not the total new market value for the property. In those situations, if a property were to receive a complete reassessment, it would be a spot re-val. One person shouldn't get a re-val unless everyone is getting a re-val. Only qualified changes show have a change in reassessment. This would take the fear out of filing a building permit for repairs, maintenance or property improvements.
The board is also exploring the possibility of controlling the assessor's position, and all positions within the town, by yearly performance reviews, using guidelines based on the job description and guidelines. These reviews could determine whether a salary reduction should be made.
As far as re-appointing the assessor, providing she accepts the new guidelines and control that will be put in place, it looks like the Town will be re-appointing the assessor. The clerical portion of her performance, reporting requirements and meeting state mandates has been acceptable by the Town Board. There will be no special town meeting to go over that. They feel that these controls and guidelines will re-align the position with the best interests of the property owners. Also, they pointed out that the information now available on the process and results will make it much easier for them to stay on top of the situation. And, they are fearful that any different assessor would not be any better. They said (probably true), they are not aware of any assessor in our area that has the knowledge or has made the attempt, to challenge the state on this complex process. They also could not find any continuing education courses for assessor in dealing with the effects of Equalization Rate changes. At least now we have knowledge to know what avenues can be taken to make changes.
There was no point in beating this issue to death as it was going nowhere. We didn't want to back them into a corner where they would come out fighting and we would be left out of the process. As it stands, our group is involved in developing the guidelines and job descriptions. We don't want to lose that.
The state will be making a decision on our Equalization Rate Complaint on August 16th so we are still hopeful that we may get some relief there. As soon as we hear, we will let you all know.
Conclusion? We have to work with what we got. If these controls are put in place and the assessor accepts them, then we just have to move forward. This will be an improvement. Thank you everyone for your support.
Citizens can make a difference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of 7/23/13 3:27PM Research as to the total impact the ER had on our town.
$658,801.69 – This number is the total impact on taxes for the property owners because of the equalization rate change for the Town of Portland. That means the residents in the surrounding towns paid that much less! And we will keep on paying it if we don't get it fixed!
So, this affected lake property owners only? No way, everyone paid extra. The town can't use this argument anymore. The whole town should be up in arms.
Here is the breakdown of the extra taxes paid in the Town of Portland strictly because of the equalization rate change.
School Taxes Extra
Brocton Extra 79,618
Chautauqua Lake Extra 7,477
Fredonia Extra 80,333
Westfield Extra 38,794
Total School Taxes Extra 206,224
County Taxes - Town of Portland Extra $452,578
Grand Total Extra $658,801
Time to get everyone in the town in on this.
If the town keeps the assessor, they should make a public statement of what are her strong points and explain how they outweigh her weak points as she allowed this to happen. The state will not allow a shorter term.
As far as giving her a reduced salary initially or lowering her salary for poor performance, can't see how this ever motivate her to do a better job. This could cause her to be more antagonistic.
We need action. Hoping our complaint to the state gets us a better equalization rate. We should find out after August 16th.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results of 7/19-13 meeting with town board
Bad News, the Town Board has voted to re-appoint the assessor for a tentative 2 year contract, pending NY State approval. Normally they require a 6 year term.
It appears they do not understand the negative impact the assessors actions, decisions and approach has placed on the Town or there is some unhealthy connection between the assessor and the Town Board including the expenses associated with the current Complaint filed with NY State to get a better Equalization Rate. If the Board agrees that the Equalization Rate should be raised, how can they not see that is was because of the assessor why we are here in the first place. So discouraging. How can they ignore the glaring problems with the current assessor?
We are going to be working on an Assessor's Guideline that we are hoping to get passed into Town Law to try to keep a leash and muzzle on the position. Hopefully this will help.
Questions we asked the assessor. Her answers in Red
After each incorrect answer, I pointed out the discrepancies as shown in the purple type.
All the Exhibits (Supporting Doucments) are available by clicking on them.
What is the Equalization Rate (ER) definition?
She stumbled a bit but basically had the answer right.
Simply put - Total Assessed Value (AV) divided by Total Market Value (MV) = Equalization Rate
How does the ER affect taxes?
Her answer – Equalization rate does not affect taxes – Wrong
I pointed out to the board that it clearly does change taxes as it shifts more of the tax burden to those with the most increase in market value since our school and county taxes are based on market value.
I also pointed out that she mentioned at the previous board meeting she didn't know how much it would affect our taxes. The documents clearly shows that an ER rate change will affect the proportion of School and County taxes a municipality pays and it is pointed out in the Notice of Tentative State Equalization Letter page 1, next to last paragraph.
Exhibit C: 2012 Town of Portland Rate Data.pdf This one takes a while to open
How is the RAR (Residential Assessment Ratio) part of the ER determined?
Exhibit D: Residential assessment ratios (RAR's).pdf
Her answer – she wasn't sure.
What method was used to determine ER for 2012 & 2013?
Her answer – She was not sure.
The Assessor should know and understand this. Here is what was used –
CAMA on 952 properties for RAR, a computer modeling program that has our residential property values going up $21,000,000 in just 4 years, no real sales or appraisals were used.
ORPTS (Office of Real Property Tax Services) observations of 27 properties by "Appraised" values for non-residential properties. We talked about these "Values" later.
What was the report given to the group initially when asked how was the Equalization Rate calculated?
When the first group of 5 citizens asked for the data used in the calculations of the ER rate, what did you give them and why? We received pages 3-5 of the 2012 Town of Portland Rate Data.pdf , what was that?
Her Answer - that is all the info she had – Wrong
What she gave us was a part of the info, nothing to do with residential, only the non-residential part, the ORPTS observations of 27 properties by "Appraised" values for non-residential properties. We have copies of the letters from the state that explained what she received and asking for her input.
Exhibit E: 2012-ERA-Letter-2011-09-27.pdf
Exhibit F: 2012-ERA-Letter-2012-01-10.pdf
At the last board meeting, you mentioned that you have no input into the calculations. What is the Assessors input into ER calculations?
Her answer – The assessor has no input – Wrong
There are many ways in which an assessor can be a part of the calculation process.
There is a Pre-Decisional Collaboration (PDC) Process
Exhibit M: 2013fvm_pdc_process.pdf
Step 1 - See Exhibit E: 2012-ERA-Letter-2011-09-27.pdf
Step 2 - Exhibit F: 2012-ERA-Letter-2012-01-10.pdf
Step 3 – File a complaint – as outlined on page 2 of \ Notice of Tentative State Equalization Letter
Exhibit C: 2012 Town of Portland Rate Data.pdf
When Town Supervisor asked your opinion of the ER change in 2012, you said you agreed with the state findings. Did you review the "Appraised" value listed on Data Report 4? How were these "Appraised" values arrived at?
Her answer – (Wrong) she did not look at the appraisals and even if she provided different observations there was no guarantee the state would use them or whether they would be better or not.
How could she tell the supervisor she agreed with the states numbers if she did not check them out?
Let's look at some of the huge questions we kicked up.
Exhibit G: EdMiller2013-07-11.pdf
Plus look at some of the sales prices on these overvalued appraisals from the same list.
Exhibit H: Non-ResidentialObservations MM.PDF
What is the procedure and criteria for a property owner having their assessment lowered?
We asked about a specific property that had it's assessment lowered after being turned down by the Grievance Board due to incomplete paperwork. The assessor said that the owner showed her comps with lower values so she lowered the assessment. When asked if the owner had paperwork supporting the comps, the assessor said no, the owner told her about the comps. (Sounds sort of loose, she accepted verbal comps). She also said that after the taxes went up due to the equalization rate change, the owner contacted her again looking for another reduction in accessed value. She told the owner she can't do that again for him. Why did she do this for him in the first place?
This reeks of favoritism and is not consistent with guidelines.
Exhibit I: RPTaxLaw-Repairs.pdf
Exhibit J: Portland Bill of Rights.pdf
When a property has repairs made, does it increase their assessed value?
Have you changed any property’s assessments just for repairs made?
No direct Answer, just a shrug. She then said there is a difference between maintenance and property improvements where an improvement adds value to the home. She said she may be looking at a property repair and see a broken down silo next door. (Not sure where she was going with that.)
The assessor is using building permits of any kind to make a spot reval of assessments.
Whether it is a repair that should not be reassessed or some type of improvement that should only be assessed on the addition to the value, this is where the assessor is reassessing the complete property, basically a spot reval. This is why residents are afraid to repair or remodel because they will be singled out for a reval. Plus she will use it to eyeball your neighbors to see if she can get something out of them.
We provide 2 examples of foundation repairs where the assessor raised the assessed values because the piers were repaired.
Additional Attachments:
Exhibit N - AssessorJobDesc.pdf
Exhibit O - FairAssessments-1.pdf
2013-07-06 11:30 AM
Here is a summary of the meeting at Van Buren Point Community Center for their members to inform them of the property tax situation.
Click here to see a PDF of the presentation and a summary of where we are at.
2013-06-06 11:30 AM
Hello neighbors
Important town board meeting at Portland Town Hall Wednesday June 12, 7PM
It would be good to have a strong turnout and a good show of support for
making a change with the assessor and the equalization rate.
With the increase in the Fredonia School Tax budget, again, north west
Town of Portland properties owners (VBP, Days Woods, Beach Place, Taster
Lane and Patterson) will be paying more than their fair share of school
and county tax increases.
We are on the agenda for 2 important subjects.
1. Re-appointment of Town Assessor - Half the board is on the fence about
this and we feel that it is our duty to inform them of the wishes of their
constituents.
2. Disputing the Equalization rate. - This is a new opportunity and may
give us an avenue to get the ball rolling towards a change without trying
to find an alternate avenue to approach it. We were thinking that since
they did not change the rate, we would not have this opportunity but it
turns out that this is not the case and we do have that opportunity. This
equalization rate is what caused our taxes to escalate in 2012 and keeps
our taxes high in 2013.
Let everyone you know about this and invite them to come.
Hopefully see you there.
Bill Ploetz
716-679-7715
2012-12-24 10:59 AM
Merry Christmas Eve to all.
I put together some interesting comparisons in graphic format
Take a look at the following PDF Graphs. It is crazy what has happened to Portland. Now we have to figure out what we can do with this.
1. Town of Portland Residental "Market" value increase since 2009
2. Town of Portland percentage of change in various property type values since 2006
3. Town of Portland percentage of change in various property type values compared to Town of Sheridan since 2010
4. Town of Portland percentage of change in various property type rates used for calculating values since 2006
5. Town of Portland compared to other towns in the county as percentage of change in equalization rates since 2006
2012-12-22 10:59 AM
Seasons Greetings everyone.
We have received about all the numbers we can handle from the Freedom of Information Law.
I have been machining and transferring them into spreadsheets for analyzing the info.
Here are some brief summaries:
Observations of ER and RAR from 2006 - 2012 - The ER ends up being the final determination of how are property values are affected. These rates were downloaded from the NY state tax website. Note that properties values in general are not going up much in Chautauqua County but Town of Portland has seen a huge spike in values, coming largely from a "Calculated" increase in value for commercial properties and in a smaller amount, from residential properties. Mind that these increase in values do not reflect sales, just calculated sales and unofficial appraisals. RAR is residential only and ER includes non-residential and residential properties. It seems out of line that Portland should see such a huge spike while most of the county has not.
CAMA Calculated Residential Sales - Of the 952 properties used in the 2012 CAMA study, to determine the RAR (Residential Equalization rate) all were used in the study in more that one year between 2009 and 2012. Looking at the changes in calculated market value from 2009 to 2012 by this CAMA Study Program: 47 were calculated at the same value 189 were calculated at a lower value of $2.4 million less 716 were calculated at a higher value of almost $24 million more. Net change in market value from 2009 to 2012 is $21.2 million by CAMA study. This is saying that the Town of Portland has increased in market value by over $21 million in that time period. This does not seem realistic. How can the identical parcels change so much in value from year to year? There seems to be some fallacies in this logic or someone is feeding in parameters to the program to pre-determine the desired results.
These numbers came from the state through the Freedom of Information Law for the years 2009 - 2012 where CAMA studies were used instead of real sales numbers.
We are also analyzing the NY State sales lists to see why they could not use real sales and why commercial properties were "appraised" at a 45% rate?
We are then going to try to put this into a graphically presentation instead of the millions for columns, numbers, data, reports and spreadsheets we now have.
Once we have a presentation prepared, we will try a test run on an unsuspecting volunteer and see if it makes sense to them.
Then we will have a group meeting to discuss if we think we have enough evidence and information to take this to the next level.
Plus, we are trying to keep on top of the 2013 Equalization rate so it does not keep getting worse.
We will keep you posted.
Happy Holidays.
Bill
2012-11-15 8:32AM
BUDGET for Town of Portland 2013 - Click here for PDF (sorry - it scanned a little wobbly)
2012-11-13 9:00PM
Town Board Meeting summary and current status of our investigation into the equalization rates.
Status of Equalization Rate Investigation
We are sort of going nowhere fast. We are still waiting on some Freedom of Information Law info from the state to compare all the townships for the last 2 years for what has happened to equalization rates and to see if only Portland had this drastic change. We did get the 952 parcels that were used in this years calculations and those numbers where somewhat representative of the ratio of lakefront to non-lakefront residential parcels. It turns out that about 23% of the residential properties in Portland are along the lakefront. What did standout were the non-residential parcels. Many seemed over-appraised and one of the comps they used was questionable. We can not understand how the State's purchase for the Cornell Extension at $300,000 for 53 acres of grapes is an arm's length sale. That was an out of the ordinary sale and in 2006, before the real estate bubble burst. It should not be used to calculate value of other non-residential parcels in our township. That class of parcels was calculated at 45% of assessed value to market value. This skewed our equalization rate downward and hurt even more than the residential calculations. This will be part of our discussions with the state. The equalization rate is a combination of residential and non-residential "Calculated" values.
So we are still preparing our data and studies to see what we can come up with for our arguments.
In the meantime, we need to keep up on the equalization rates for 2013. The town supervisor says that he will be in communication with the assessor and keep us posted as the new numbers are being developed. We are hoping to get an higher equalization rate for 2013.
We need to stick together as a strong group. We don't want to let this slide and we also should keep fire to this issue.
Town Board Meeting Summary:
The Town Board voted in the new budget. See the new budget at BUDGET for Town of Portland 2013 - Click here for PDF
The highway department is still dealing with substandard floor installed by a contractor. There are voids under the floor and premature breakage is feared. The town has not released the bond on this job and letters are being submitted to try to get this resolved. The contractors last efforts did not resolve the issues. The board is trying to avoid paying for an engineering study and report to prove the defects.
The Peerless Street bridge project has not found any funding relief from suggestions by Cathy Young. Applying for federal grants would raise the cost of the project and delay completion. Other avenues are being explored.
The water department needs to winterize the chlorinator at the water tower, it is in danger of freezing and needs a simple insulated cover and maybe a light bulb for heat. The water department has been directed to do that out of existing funds. There is still an issue of how to keep the hydrants clear during the winter and how to spray around them for weed control. The board is looking into that.
2012-10-16 2:40pm
Dan Schrantz (Town Supervisor) has contacted the Council of Towns and has a list of lawyers experienced with town legalities. They are going to choose a lawyer and meet with the town attorney too, as soon as they can get it scheduled.
The Town meeting at the school is not directly related to our problem. They will be there to explain how equalization rates are calculated and the importance of a reval. Our thoughts on a reval and things that could be brought up at this meeting.
The current Equalization Rate Change problem should be resolved first.
If and when a reval is done,
a. should be done county wide because of the high number of school districts that exist in multiple townships
b. the economies of scale. Bidding it out to an outside company with no interest in Chautauqua county should get the best price and the fairest reval.
Why maybe it should not be done:
a. It is out of date immediately, that means it needs to be re-done frequently adding additional tax burdens on an ongoing basis.
b. It is expensive adding to our tax burden and the money to pay for it will be going out of the town or county to get a fair reval
c. Equalization rates adjustments (if done properly) are much less costly and should reflect the current market condition which have very volatile lately.
2012/10/15 11:00am
Portland Town Board Meeting Tuesday October 23, 7PM Brocton Central School Auditorium to speak with state and town officials about reval and equalization.
We are in hopes that this is separate from the efforts to fix the errors on the current equalization rate.
2012/10/13 7:20pm
Nothing new. The town is working with the state to get to the root of this evil.
2012/10/11 12:16pm
We just received the Freedom of Information Act info and the number that were turned into the state for the recalculation of the equalization rate were the same as the list the assessor provided, no sales, no residential properties and not what should have been used.
2012/10/11 8:45am
A neighbor called with more good info this morning. He knows one of the councilman quite well and talked with him this morning. The town met in executive session last night. They belong to a Council of Towns. It has legal counsel and assistance to towns in matters like this. They have a emergency meeting at 9AM this morning. The councilman said that he was impressed by the group's research and presentation and wished that more community members would get as involved on other issues.
The neighbor also brought up the point that we as citizens are restricted by the slow times for getting info through the Freedom of Information Act but the town is not. They have the info or can get it and need to get it now. The councilman agreed.
So I think we are headed towards a resolution to this.
2012-10-10 8:00pm
We think the town board meeting went very well.
At the 5pm pre-meeting, the group had some slight strategy changes. Attendees brought to light some additional information and approach considerations.
The , the town supervisor made a brief statement. He said that the state made the request for the equalization rate change and that they had no control over it. He said he that the change was due to the sales of many higher valued home on or near the waterfront that went for so much more than the assessed value. He knew that there was a 2% tax cap and had no idea that the change in equalization rate would have such an impact on the tax rate. He said they were already in conversation with the county about the need for a reval. Then he turned it over to the group
The spokesperson made his presentation very well. You could see the board members eyes light up. We truly believe that they had no knowledge of what had happened.
We presented that there was not a tax cap since the school opted to vote in a 3.5% hike and that the town has control of the equalization rate by the final figures that are turned into the state by the assessor.
We explained how the tax cap was over-ridden and where we got the numbers from and what we were waiting on from the state.
It was also brought up that this could possibly be a violation of law and that the town must take action immediately. The Town attorney said we must jump right on this so we do not pass any filing deadlines. The supervisor and council members discuss everything and just can't quite believe it. They wanted to get right on it and wanted us to set up a citizen spokes-group.
The Supervisor also said that this fuels his reason for not really wanting to do a reval because it would add to the tax levy and he has held the town budget for 6 years. (Very admirable in this day and age, with the state taking so much and throwing it back to the towns responsibility)