Skip universal navigation
Skip to main content

Department of Taxation and Finance


10:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M.; MANLIUS TOWN HALL


Assessors: B. Bounds, D. Briggs, V. Martins, and R. Tibbetts

County Directors: G. Bennett, T. Bloodgood, S. Dorsey, T. Flynn, B. Miller and D. Sheflin

ORPS: C. Aviza, J. Harkin (Facilitator), J. O'Keeffe, J. Whalen (Recorder), and D. Williams

Utility Company: Lew Gammon (NiMo)


Discussion continued from previous meeting around short-term proposals 1 and 3:

1. Only account for significant changes in level of assessment. Agreement that 1998 rates would be handled in the same manner as 1997 rates. For 1999 rates, new reporting requirements are being considered. These would require rule changes. The proposal is that if on Part 1 of the Assessor Report, the total assessed value changes are within a range of -2% to +3%, Part 2 of the AR would not be required. All change in AV would be considered physical/quantity. If an assessor desired to file Part 2, it would be accepted and processed. If the State needed Part 2, they could require that it be filed. Simulation results and data used to arrive at this decision are attached.

3. Change definition of quantity change for functional and economic obsolescence. It was discussed and agreed that with the changes indicated in 1, and the potential use of trending to determine special rates in the future, there will be very few municipalities where the definition of functional and economic obsolescence will be important. Therefore, there would be no need for a new definition.


Members who had been at the RPTAC meeting the previous week reported the discussion and distributed the finalized charters. Both teams are charged by RPTAC and will function as described in the attached charters. Lew Gammon (NiMo) expressed his interest in being involved with both teams. Respective leaders of the three organizations need to establish members and start up the large parcel group.


We discussed the role/involvement of this group with upcoming proposed procedures - specifically 1998 village rate and 1998 city/town procedures. Both need to be in place by 9/1 at the latest. Group agreed that they would serve as reviewers and material will be passed along ASAP for comments and finalization.

STATE OWNED LAND (SOL): 1998 and future rates procedures

We discussed the issues, etc. which were raised again at RPTAC the previous week. As a result of those discussions and after internal analysis, it has been determined that SOL will continue to be handled as an isolation. In reassessment assessing units, small percentage differences between ORPS and the locally assessed numbers will be smoothed. Attached are the details for SOL handling in 1998 and future rate computations. Group will discuss further the option of removing SOL from rate computation.


Chuck Aviza led a lengthy and detailed discussion around the criteria utilized in the development of trend areas. Trend areas are defined as groups of municipalities which have common economic influences that would be expected to demonstrate similar movement over time. Trend areas may be influenced by an economic center or other influences such as proximity to major transportation corridors, resort areas, major topographical features, etc. There was also a discussion around the rolling median method to adjust 94, 95 and 97 reassessments for 1997 rates. Graphs were supplied to show the tracking of median sales prices over time utilizing 12 months of sales for each point for residential property and 18 months of sales for vacant and commercial properties.

A discussion followed as to the implementation of this trending process for 1998 rates. For 1998 rates, the rate valuation standard will be 1997. For all assessing units, except those conducting 1997 verified reassessments, aggregate major type totals determined for the 1997 rates (1996 Market Value Survey and 1/1/96 rate valuation standard) will be factored to 1997.

Finally, a discussion revolved around an additional proposal concerning the use of parameters when considering the use of these adjustment factors. It was proposed that for any adjustment factor that was plus or minus 2%, the factor would equal 0%. Subsequent parameters would be increased or decreased by 2% also. Meaning, if the factor was greater than plus or minus 2%, and less than or equal to 4%, the factor would be 2% and so on. This method resorts to the lower limit of the groupings. The group agreed with the recommendations and that the discussion was good and appropriate with this group. They also requested follow-up on progress at our next meeting.


Thursday, August 20, 1998; 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.; Manlius Town Hall


Review Agenda;

Get Organized

Discussion Agreement John 10:00 - 10:10
Village, City/Town Procedures Review Discussion Understanding, Agreement Dave 10:10 - 11:00
Trending Update Presentation & Discussion Understanding, Agreement Chuck/John 11:00 - 12:15
LUNCH 12:15 - 12:45
Achieving/Sustaining Equity Reassessments Presentation & Discussion Understanding Jim/JoAnn 12:45 - 2:45
Wrap-up; Next Steps Discussion Agreement JoAnn 2:45 - 3:00