Mayor Responds to Questions About Revaluation

The following are the comments of Mayor Jon Mark with respect to the 2016 Village-wide revaluation. The comments are substantially those given during the meeting of the Board of Trustees on April 26, 2016 and were in part given in response to an email sent to the Board on April 22, 2016 by Robert Berg which Mr. Berg read at the April 26th meeting of the Board of Trustees. Mr. Berg's email is posted on this web site.

2016 Revaluation: The tentative assessment roll will be filed on June 1st, as required, and notices of the 2016 assessments are expected to be mailed on June 2nd.
As is the case every year, residents are entitled to grieve their assessments. Pursuant to New York State law, grievances can be filed with the Village Assessor's office between June 1st and the third Tuesday in June, or June 21st for this year's statutory grievance deadline. The Village Board does not have the authority to modify the dates established in accordance with NYS law.

Some general notes about the revaluation process. Unlike what occurred in connection with the 2014 revaluation, this year more detailed information will be made available to residents directly and on the Village website soon after the filing of the 2016 tentative assessment roll. Among other things, I understand that the notices residents will receive will be approximately two pages in length and will contain sufficiently detailed information to allow residents to understand how the value of their property was calculated. For example, I am advised that the notice will set forth the physical attributes of the property that were taken into account in the modeling process and the corresponding coefficients applied to calculate the total property value estimated as of the revaluation assessment date which is July 1, 2015. That estimated value will become the 2016 total assessed value. In addition, the model used by the Village's project consultant, J.F. Ryan Associates, will be made available on the Village web site within a few days of the posting of the 2016 tentative assessment roll. Therefore, it should not be necessary to file numerous FOIL requests to obtain an understanding of how the 2016 revaluation was accomplished. This level of transparency should be an improvement over 2014.

Second, without getting into details of the technical or logistical aspects of the revaluation as to which I am not qualified to speak, it is noted that the process being utilized in 2016 has been simplified in a number of respects. For example, the neighborhood map that was used two years ago was simplified from 14 sub-neighborhoods to five neighborhoods that correspond to our five elementary school districts. Site adjustments, referred to as influence factors, will be made to specific parcels for the various factors that impact value (i.e., traffic, flood zones, etc.). The comparable sales data that transacted during the new sales base period in each of the respective five consolidated neighborhoods for the 2016 revaluation will similarly undergo a process of modeling; however, the 2016 modeling process will take into consideration all sales within each of the respective five neighborhoods. It is intended that the new neighborhood designations will ameliorate concerns that previously existed regarding the perceived inaccurate or inappropriate delineation of sub-neighborhoods. Similarly, the possible grades of construction quality assignable to each house were also simplified. The 43 grades that were used in 2014 have been mathematically consolidated into a more manageable grouping of 16 grade categories. These changes in approach, among others being employed, should result in a more robust valuation model relative to two years ago.

One other timing point: A comment has been made that the possible high demand for appraisers triggered by the revaluation will make it difficult for residents who wish to file grievances to find a suitable appraiser that is available to assist them. It is understood that while an appraisal is usually part of the preferred and recommended documentation submitted to support a grievance, the practice before the Board of Assessment Review ("BOAR") is to permit filers to supplement their grievance filing with additional supporting evidence of overvaluation, including an appraisal, after the initial filing of the grievance. It is not unusual for appraisals to be remitted for the BOAR's consideration after the grievance day deadline through the last week of August each year. I am advised that based on the schedule this year, the BOAR would accept additional documentation through September 1, 2016 -- provided that the additional documentation is supplemental to a grievance that was filed no later than June 21, 2016. Note that the statutory date for the Village Assessor to file the final assessment roll is September 15, 2016. Therefore, residents should have substantially more than three weeks to engage a suitable appraiser to prepare an analysis that they believe would support their grievance filings.
Mr. Berg has suggested delaying implementing the pending revaluation for a year. The Board has considered that suggestion and has chosen not to adopt it for a variety of reasons. Among other things, delaying implementation would extend for such a one year period a degree of uncertainty over assessed values in the Village. As some residents stated at the public meeting held on April 21, 2016, that sort of uncertainty is undesirable for residents and for the Village as a whole. On balance it is considered preferable to complete the present process as scheduled and provide some measure of closure on the revaluation process.

Finally with respect to the notice given for the April 21, 2016 public meeting at which an update of the revaluation process was given, the lead time for the notice was one week. While the notice period was shorter than is generally preferred, it was within the time frame permitted under the rules. The choices were to give a longer notice and call the meeting for a date in May, the week of April 25th being a school vacation week when many would be away, or have the meeting on shorter notice. The latter choice was made and the notice was sent to the local media for publication in accordance with the usual practice. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it would have been preferable to provide a longer notice and the Board will have that in mind in future cases presenting matters of similar importance and interest.