Skip universal navigation

New York State Universal header

Skip to main content

Equalization Project Team

MINUTES
TUESDAY MAY 8, 2001
10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

MANLIUS TOWN HALL

ATTENDING:

Assessors: Dave Briggs, Val Martins, Edye McCarty, Roger Tibbetts

County Directors: Tom Bloodgood, Paul Burckard, Bob Diener

ORPS: Tim Maher, Pat Holland, Jim O'Keeffe, Jo Ann Whalen(recorder)

GENERAL BUSINESS: The assessors' association added a new member, Edye McCarty, City of White Plains. Group reviewed the minutes from the 3/21 meeting and agreed that they should be placed in the web. Group also read and discussed the letter regarding the proposed rules sent by Tom Frey after the special RPTAC meeting on 3/28. Many of the areas of concern will be addressed by this group as we proceed to work through the 2002 equalization rate process.

LEGISLATION: Jim explained that the entire legislative package has been introduced in both houses. This typically does not happen. RAR proposal, to define the RAR as the market value ratio determined in the equalization program, is included. The railroad ceiling proposed legislation is part of the budget deliberations.

2000 RATES: Jo Ann distributed and discussed the 2002 equalization communication plan. Scheduled meetings were described and the assessment community members were urged to influence their respective executive committee members to be in attendance at the meetings. This first set of statewide meetings is scheduled to be complete by the end of June. Information shared will be the same as that discussed and reviewed at the special 3/28 RPTAC meeting. Starting in the fall, a second set of meetings will be scheduled to inform the assessment community of the procedures, provide them with materials/methods to determine what their respective level of assessment is, inform them of the data/information they will be receiving in support of the rate conclusions and types of data/support needed to challenge the conclusions.

Jo Ann also distributed Draft Framework for 2002 Market Value Survey. Group started with the first sentence and worked through each of the points-discussion, explanation and revisions occurred. Purpose was to get as understanding and general implications for the entire state.

For the reassessment category, which is about half of the assessing units in the state, there was some interest in using reassessments which are more than two years prior to 2002. As we move forward we will keep this in mind.

For non reassessments, the resulting observation workload, indicated by the framework, at a summary level by region and for each of the major types was also reviewed. The total number is fewer than 10,000 observations and part of this number will be completed with residential sales and the reuse of appraisals from the prior market value. For most assessing units in this category, there will be little change from what they are used to seeing in the determination of their equalization rate. For some assessing units and only for the residential class, the framework defines the use of CAMA techniques and sales ratio analysis to determine the acceptability of the stated level of assessment. This area will be much more deeply discussed and shared as it is being developed.

Some ideas expressed and agreements arrived at:

  • RPS V4 has a sales ration tracking analysis by property type/classes etc-it is packaged well and user friendly so that assessors can be watching market changes monthly-informing them as to the level of assessment.
  • Assessors need/would prefer to get all the related numbers/data for equalization at the same time.
  • Whatever data/sales/analysis ORPS is using the assessors should have the same available and sooner rather than later.
  • ORPS and assessor should come to agreement on the inventory of the appraisal observations up front and this should not be part of the administrative review process.
  • CAMA process-assessor must be informed of the parcels sampled but not of any individual parcel estimates. More discussion about how and number of samples are determined. CAMA models with variables/coefficients and significant stats such as mean % error and r square numbers should be available and reviewed by/with assessor.
  • Sales ratio analysis/conclusions more familiar to assessors-need to determine most appropriate manner to display data for assessor review and disagreement.

In order to meet the tight time frames for administrative review final decisions-6/15 and final 2002 procedures, the group agreed to meet on Friday 5/25 and Thursday 5/31 in Manlius from 10-3. We will then evaluate and set up future meetings.

SUMMARY: Next meeting Friday 5/25 in Manlius from 10-3. First agenda item will be review/discussion of administrative review rules, 186-16, and more detail and data relative to CAMA and sales ration approaches.

Updated: