Skip universal navigation
Skip to main content

Department of Taxation and Finance

Equalization Project Team

MINUTES MEETING OF FRIDAY July 27, 2001
10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.

MANLIUS TOWN HALL

ATTENDING:

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

County Directors: Tom Bloodgood, Bob Diener

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

GENERAL BUSINESS: 6/11/01 minutes approved for publication on the Web site.
Jo Ann updated the group on the Equalization Informational Sessions and summarized the attendance and reactions. Presentation has been updated based on questions and input and is now available on the internet through ORPS website. Jo Ann also advised that the presentation of the 2002 market value survey and rate procedures will be made to the State Board at their 9/11/01 meeting in Albany thus group will need to cancel the 9/10 meeting and convene sooner.

2002 RATES: Pat distributed a revised map depicting which assessing units fall into each of the categories. This update included parcel counts by each of the categories and the inclusion of more categories. Pat also distributed a decision map which summarized the process for Major Types B, C, and A in very limited circumstances with the possible options for Major Type A. Recommendations were made for improvement of layout and inclusion of information and these will be made for future discussion. A summary sheet for approximately 30 assessing units with results from CAMA and sales ratio analysis results/recommendations was also distributed and discussed. With all of this information, the group identified a number of options, their merits/deficiencies and reached recommendations. The three major options etc were:

OPTION 1-ORPS would calculate full value and compare to assessing unit's full value, calculated by applying the stated level to the total assessed value of taxable real property, and if there is any difference use the ORPS numbers. No allowance/tolerance for differences. Decision-not a viable option-not directed at verification of stated LOA and a reversal to the plus or minus 2% used for 2001 rates.

OPTION 2-In the case of each individual selected parcel appraisal, ORPS would calculate an equalized full value based on the stated level. If that full value is within the prescribed IAAO tolerances for the property type etc. of the ORPS appraised value, the locally determined full value equivalent will be the appraised value otherwise the ORPS individual parcel value will be used. Decision-timing a major obstacle; instituting the tolerances and gaining understanding etc of ORPS staff and external is not possible at this point in time; because of the need to identify and appraise individual parcels from a prior assessment roll, ORPS individual parcel appraisals must be complete by ORPS staff long before stated level is even determined by the assessing unit. Relies too much on individual parcel uniformity and not on aggregate comparisons-different individual parcels will likely cause significantly different conclusions. Not feasible or practical for 2002 for all selections but is an idea which may have significant merit for future planning and rates.

OPTION 3-evaluate LOA independently against each major type in the analysis independent of major type weighting or get to a municipal level full value inclusive of major type weighting and then evaluate LOA. Decision - evaluate the LOA acceptability once and only at the municipal level.

OTHER ISSUES- The long-range goal is to reduce the differences in the approaches to the greatest extent possible. As the process is implemented, attention will be devoted to the possibility of use of CAMA and sales ratio analysis to other major types. There has been considerable discussion about a need for consistent processes and communication of information for all persons involved. Jo Ann will talk with regional management and schedule time with this group in the near future. The next meeting of the equalization group is scheduled for 8/29 from 10-3 in Manlius.

Based on the discussion, data review and recommendations, ORPS will discuss/review internally and formulate detailed procedures which will be distributed prior to the next meeting.

The following list was not discussed at the meeting but is being carried forward for final check at the next meeting.

Complaints Against Tentative Rates/Issues to be Resolved

  1. Complaints will be allowed against all the components of the methodologies used to calculate the particular 2002 rate. Rules-addressed 6/11 with references as noted and procedures
  2. An effort will be made to share with assessing units all information used in calculating a tentative rate as soon as available. Communication plan, procedures and informals
  3. An effort will be made to simplify and clarify the information provided with tentative rates.Communication plan and internal ORPS initiative
  4. The requirements for complaints against individual parcel appraisals and sales used as observations will be unchanged. Rules-6/11 186-15.2 (d)
  5. Complaints against individual sales in sales ratio studies will be subject to the same review standards as complaints against sales used as observations. Rules 6/11 186-15 (d) (ix) (a) and (b).
  6. CAMA modeling, data and models can be challenged. Rules-6/11 186-15 (c) (1) (v) and (vi), procedures and communication plan
  7. Challenges to aggregate results calculated via a CAMA value estimate or a sales ratio study must be supported with an alternative aggregate value with an articulated and reasonable basis, and data to support the conclusion. Rules-6/11 186-15 9 (c) (2) (v) and (vi), procedures and communication plan
  8. Any information to support the stated level of assessment appearing on the tentative roll will be accepted. Rules-6/11 186-15 (c) (1) (vii) and (2) (vii), procedures and communication plan
  9. An effort will be made to provide assistance to localities in how to determine the prevailing level of assessment. Communication plan
  10. Any information to support an alternative class or municipal aggregate full value will be accepted. Rules-6/11 186-15 (c) (vi) and (iv), procedures and communication plan
  11. An effort will be made to educate local officials in the new process. This effort will emphasize the use of local data (sales, inventory) and the need for local officials to assure that the data is accurate. Communication plan
  12. The level of assessment appearing on the tentative assessment roll is the standard against which the overall level of assessment and the level of assessment for individual major types is measured in calculating tentative State equalization rates as well as in the complaint process.

SUMMARY: Next meeting-Wednesday August 29, 2001 from 10-3 Manlius Town Hall. Jo Ann will distribute proposed 2002 market value survey procedures, revised decision map and any other appropriate materials prior.

Updated: