Tax Assessment Revaluation is Coming to Yonkers
The following article from LoHud discusses the proposed assessment revaluation plan that is being proposed for the City of Yonkers. I had the pleasure of speaking at the Municipal Operations Meeting on the subject Tuesday evening. I was surprised at the speed with which the plan was proposed for approval (the same day), and while I support the concept, it needs to be fleshed out considerably.
Revaluation is a controversial, if necessary program, and it is imperative that the City inform the public as how it will likely work. Ultimately, while the total tax revenue to the city will be unchanged some people will pay more, and some less. The ultimate goal is everyone pays their fair share.
Yonkers has not had a revaluation since 1954, and as long a time as that sounds, it does not compare to Mount Vernon, where the last reval was 1853, and New Rochelle, if I recall correctly, was 1939. Obviously, if you do not update your records for 55 years (or even 156 years!!), errors “creep” into the system.
I am not going to go into some of the minutiae of the tax assessment system, equalization rates in particular, as they are semi-arbitrary ‘fudge factors” to being the ancient assessments up to current levels. They are so fraught with errors, since the spread is so wide, that we have the tax certiori (appeal) mess we face today. this costs Yonkers millions of dollars a year.
For example, under the current system you have two houses next to each other: both are equal in lot size, building size, no. of bedrooms and baths etc, but one has was built in 1930, the other in 2000. The newer house will be paying MUCH higher taxes. The philosophical argument is the difference fair or not? True, construction materials and finishes are different, and their value may also be different, but on some basis they are the same, and their taxes should bear some relationship to each other. That is not the case now.
There are some significant social implications to revaluation. While it will be several years before it is actually implemented, the end result will be that people in older homes in Yonkers may well pay more (and people in new homes may pay less). There will be arguments from the homeowners with older homes along the lines of “it is not my fault that the city did not do a proper job for years, why should I be penalized;” or (and more significant) “I am a senior living in an old home and cannot afford a sharp rise in taxes; I will be forced out!”
These are valid social policy concerns, and the City Council will have to find a way to implement the increases in a way that does not force people out of their homes. This will be a topic of heated discussion in the city, and I can only suggest that the City Council look to the experience of other municipalities in how they handled this situation. There are tools to help make it easier.
There are many other aspects of revaluation that need to be delved into, but one area that I spoke out about was the proposal to have a “Board” of three city officials, led by Mark Russell the City Assessor. The board will make strategic decisions as to how this process will work, and what vendors will be hired to perform the new assessment analysis that will be required for every parcel in Yonkers.
Based on the attitudes I heard from the municipal side at the meeting, I have a significant concern. Given the legitimate concerns of the citizens of Yonkers there must be citizen involvement and input on the board.
I was pleased to see that the City Council appeared to understand this and appreciate the sensitivity of the proposal. I can only hope that they keep the process open and indeed reach out to all residents so they have a clear understanding of the process, and do not live in fear unnecessarily.
I believe the meeting ended on a positive note with the Council agreeing to hold open meetings to inform residents, and to consider expanding the Review Board. Please read the following for more details:
January 28, 2009Yonkers City Council puts off revaluation
Len Maniace
The Journal News
YONKERS - The City Council last night considered doing something not done in Yonkers since in 1954 - starting the massive revaluation of the city’s 36,000 parcels - but then decided to put it off a little longer.
Although the council seemed to lack the four “yes” votes to start the controversial revaluation, none of the council members actually said they opposed the measure. Instead, they said that both they and the public needed to become more familiar with the concept before taking up the measure.
“If it takes five more weeks after waiting five decades, is that a bad thing?” said Councilman John Murtagh, R-3rd District.
That came at a meeting of the council’s municipal operations committee, shortly before a full council where the vote was scheduled to be taken.
“I’m prepared to take this on the road,” said Council President Chuck Lesnick, agreeing to put off the vote until after a series of forums on revaluation for the public.
Avid council supporters of revaluation, such as Lesnick and Joan Gronowski, D-3rd District, said revaluation was needed because the city’s outdated assessments led to inequities in sharing the city’s property tax burden, and that left the city vulnerable to legal challenges. The city was forced to pay back $5.2 million last year to property owners who filed those challenges, a sharp increase over the $3.7 million total for the two previous years, according to City Assessor Mark Russell.
Properties in Westchester’s biggest city were assessed at an average of 2.34 percent of actual market value, Russell said last month.
Yonkers is not the only city in the county with outdated property assessments; in fact, only the towns of Rye and Pelham update assessments to keep them current.
Revaluation is getting another look from other Westchester municipalities. It was discussed Friday at a meeting of a group of county and local government officials known as the Westchester County Council of Governments. The Westchester Municipal Officials Association may soon form a special committee to advance the effort.
Revaluation is controversial because many fear it would lead to an increase in assessments and, as a result, property taxes. Experts, however, say the chances that a revaluation alone would raise a homeowner’s property taxes are roughly the same as the odds that they would decrease.
Mayor Phil Amicone supports the city’s adoption of revaluation legislation, though his position is nuanced, according to spokesman David Simpson.
Amicone wants the revaluation to be done on a countywide basis, but would be willing to begin the process in Yonkers because he believes that many Westchester municipalities would follow, Simpson said.
“He is committed to working with the City Council and with the county to do that, but it is a very complicated issue and it’s going to take a long time to get it done,” Simpson said.
The revaluation measure called for the new assessments to take affect for the 2012-13 or the 2013-14 fiscal years.
Though Yonkers hasn’t revaluated its properties since 1954, the city’s assessment is by no means the oldest. Harrison last assessed its properties in 1938 and Mount Vernon has not done that since 1853.
As currently written, the revaluation measure would set up an assessment advisory committee to supervise the effort. The panel would then hold a competitive bidding process to find a qualified company to conduct the revaluation.
