Skip universal navigation
Skip to main content

Department of Taxation and Finance

RPTAC Equalization Project Team

Monday, May 8, 2006

10:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.;
ORPS Albany Office


Assessors:  Tom Frey, Edye McCarthy, Curt Schoeberl, Todd Wiley

ORPS:  Pat Holland, Tim Maher, Jim O'Keeffe, Tom Pinto, Dave Ange, Dave Williams 

Significant Change Discussion:

The May 8th RPTAC Equalization sub-committee meeting was a further discussion on the definition of “significant change” when used to exclude sales from ratio studies.

            ORPS presented its definition of “significant change”.  ORPS believes that only sales which had a physical change between the taxable status date of the measured assessment roll being used for a ratio study and the date of sale should be excluded for “significant change”.  ORPS does not believe that physical changes which occurred prior to the taxable status date of a measured assessment roll being used for a ratio study should be excluded for “significant change”, regardless of whether the assessor had knowledge of the physical change or not.  Dave Williams gave a hypothetical example of the inequities which occur when sales with “significant change” prior to the measured roll taxable status date are excluded from a ratio study.

            There were then discussions over the sales correction process and the procedures used to exclude sales for “significant change”.

 There was a suggestion to match sales to a more current assessment roll in order to reduce the need to exclude sales for “significant change”.  Further discussion on this topic centered on timing issues – the period where sales would still be excluded for “significant change” even if a more current assessment roll were used as the measured roll.  There was also discussion that using a more current assessment roll may result in more sales chasing practices.  It was decided that ORPS would have to give this idea more thought and that the team will discuss at our next meeting. 

There was a discussion over the exclusion criteria in the sales correction process.  It was noted that there were inconsistencies in the documentation that CRMs were requesting from assessors regarding significant changes.  Edye also gave an example of where a physical change which didn't meet the 10% market value criteria could still represent a large change in market value to a property.  She suggested changing the market value criteria to 5% in order to stay in line with other ORPS tolerance levels.  

Next meeting – Wednesday, July 12, 2005 in the ORPS Syracuse office from 10-3.  We will video-conference to the ORPS Newburgh office. Proposed agenda topics include:

-         Status of 2006 equalization rates

-         Identify appropriate criteria for use of sales in the equalization process

-         Update on status of Bob Gloudeman's study of ORPS trends

-         Plans for 2007 rates and beyond