Correspondance w/ T of C Board
July 21st, 2008 — my3crowsTown of Clayton
1000 Islands
405 Riverside Drive
Clayton, NY 13624
Phone – 315-686-3512 Justin A. Taylor, Supervisor
Fax – 315-686-2651 Kathleen E. LaClair, Town Clerk
June 2, 2008
William L. Salisbury
P.O. Box 37
Clayton, NY 13624
Dear Will:
As a follow-up to your presentation of the petition to the Town on May 27, 2008, and visit to the Town
Board meeting on May 28, 2008, we asked the Town Attorney and State Office of Real Property Service
for their input and guidance on your request to “Roll Back” the assessment value to that of 2007.
The Town Attorney offered the legal opinion that the Town Board has no jurisdiction or authority over the
tentative roll as filed on May 1, 2008, or over the Assessor; neither the Board nor the Assessor can make
changes at this point other than the assessor’s ability to file a correction of errors on an individual basis.
Those errors are typically factual errors in her data of which she receives evidence of following the filing
of the tentative roll. At this juncture it is only the Board of Assessment Review (BAR) that has
jurisdiction over individual assessments.
The Office of Real Property Service provided the following response:
st
The other main aim of the petition was to have accurate and accessible data.
We agree that that is a common goal. With that being said, all the data that is and was used to determine
the values of each parcel is maintained in both hard copy and electronically in the Assessor’s office. You
have a right to view that information during normal business hours. Additionally both the Town of
Clayton and Jefferson County have taken advantage of the internet and placed some general information
about each parcel on line at
http://www.spatialwebhost.com/cmv%5Frc http://www.co.jefferson.ny.us/rpstoweb.nsf/$$Search
I note in this weeks TI Sun that your group is having a follow-up meeting on June 14
th
willing to attend this meeting to share the Town’s actions and rational for Revaluation in 2008, from the
TAXING entity perspective. Please contact me on my cell at your convenience.
Respectfully,
Justin A. Taylor, Supervisor
Town of Clayton
315-686-2240 (Home)
315-408-7363 (Cell)
315-686-3512 (Town Work)
jataylor@gisco.net
Presented to the Town of Clayton Board on 06/11/2008
Dear Sirs,
Presented to you tonight are 360 + signatures that were
gathered by a popular and collective desire to inform the Town of Clayton Board and its Assessor that we feel the job done on the 100% re-valuation is in much need of correction. Values of property and taxes are not realistic as to factual data and previous assessments and seem guesstamated at best. These are the signatures of property owners, business owners and seasonal residents, taxpayers that feel elected officials of this township are not at all concerned with fairness or equality.
The very basic right to Grievance was denied many who were personally misinformed by the Assessor, her assistant, and Town board members, mailings and quite boldly on the Town of Clayton web Site. When in fact, everyone had 5 more calendar days in which to submit a grievance form, either by mail or in person, on or before the day of grievance.
Statements made on the preliminary tax statement sent out to many, (especially Waterfront /Island property) owners stated that the % of change in the actual tax paid would be little or 0%. Many decided it would not be necessary to grieve and some may still be unaware. The fact is, that by calculating the 2008 levy using percentages + or – given to me by E-mail from the Town Supervisor shows that a 50% increase in one year for owners on Murray Is., Grenell Is. and many other waterfront properties is the reality! Inland taxes have decreased -27% on Danewald Rd. and -17%. on Greenizen Rd. Co. Rt. 181’s wooded lots are selling like hot cakes, yet their taxes are down –-9%. This is a 60% + difference and not what we would call equalization. These facts are born out in the spreadsheets submitted to you before this meeting of June 11th. This data clearly states that as individual property or as a “targeted” group of properties, A.K.A. “an island”, we are paying more than our fair share yet want only to be assessed equitably! Waterfront property has always paid its fair share, yet suddenly it appears that you think we have not! As if every other Town Board before you was not doing the job right, or every previous assessor had been missing something.
The Board continues to state that you have no power to request your assessor to roll back any portion of the tax roll, when in fact; the Town of Webb did just that and the Town of Cicero as recently as May 23rd. You sent us a copy of a letter addressed to Supervisor Taylor from the State Office of Real Property Service stating that you have done a great job, but they don’t know the facts, only that you crossed your T’s and dotted your I’s. The letter states that you have no right to change the Roll or request such an action of your assessor, when in fact, the actions of the other town boards contradicts this! A similar letter was sent to the Alexandria Bay Town Supervisor, when under fire for similar reasons, and many of us know his fate when Election Day was over.
Another disconcerting note: The brief period of stair reconstruction in front of the opera house was conveniently started a few days before Grievance Day, thus giving the appearance that the Opera House was closed. No signs were posted outside about a detour to the 3rd floor. Some thought they had missed out and turned away not knowing there was any life inside at all.
Some may take offence when I say that taxpayers, as a whole, are uninformed and ignorant of the process or rights they have and are in need of help on many levels to keep up with everything. New taxpayers and old timers all could use the system to be easier to grasp. I know that I could have benefited from a more concise out line of things instead of being written in language only for people with Masters Degrees. Who will give taxpayers a fair shake at this process?
We say it will not be those who reap the rewards of bad data storage, of clerical errors, of bad measurements, poorly done assessments, missing information and deception! The Board has done the taxpayers and voters a disservice and injustice when this process of assessment and grievance is at all different from what the state mandates it should be!
When people of fixed income, whose taxes have doubled, are told at hearings or grievance that if they don’t like the tax or assessment that they should sell their properties. This is not what one should hear from the town’s Assessor or personnel. Then of course there is the obligatory choice of Small Claims Court or Supreme Court or death to resolve your tax problem.
Data on all property should be gathered with software that is new and improved. Property owners should be able under secure guidelines to input surveys, abstracts, pin locations, sq. footage, quality of construction, materials and proximity to or lack of services. This data, after being submitted, would not end up in the town dump or file folder heaven, but be accessible forever by assessors and their data entry people, as well as in the public domain! “Grievance Day” should be renamed “Groundhog Day”, the nightmare of lost and bad data repeats itself and is an open sore on this community! We can’t fix gas prices but WE CAN FIX THIS !
Recently the Province of Ontario in 2005 removed the burden of assessment from Municipality’s or (townships) altogether, creating a uniformly fair and equal process that all property owners in Ontario seem pleased with. The web site is www.mpac.ca/ . Canadian taxpayers and municipality’s are both relieved and un-litigated as a result of this, saving huge taxpayers dollars in the process! We are currently informing Senators and Congressmen of this plan if they are unaware of it and the benefits it provides. Maybe a similar plan will be ours in the near future and save us tax dollars that we pay for your defense!
Many who signed petitions are the town fathers and business people of Clayton. Many are a single family with a one income household who have been unfairly assessed either because of bad data or a lack of data. You are the Town Board of Clayton and we ask you to change this process in any way you can, as soon as possible! Please start today. We only wish to pay our fair share.
No More Arbitrary Assessments, No More Arbitration!
Respectfully,
The “Clayton Taxpayers Group”
1. The “2008 Assessment Notification” sent out in late winter by the Town Assessor contained inaccurate and misleading information.
For many, (especially waterfront/island properties) the notice indicated that their 2008 “Approximate Tax Liability” would be the same as 2007 LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING THE 2008 RE-ASSESSMENT
, despite increases in assessed value of 30% or more. Most owners decided it would not be necessary to grieve and will be shocked when they receive their new tax bills. Approximate tax increases can be easily calculated by using the 2008 estimated tax rates given to Will Salisbury by the Town Supervisor. By way of example, my notice indicated no change in taxes despite a 30% increase in assessed value. Not surprisingly, using the rates provided by the Town Supervisor, my taxes will increase approximately 30%. Many of my neighbors who did not file a grievance because they believed their projected tax increase would be zero according to the Town Assessor have now discovered their tax increase will be in the 30-50% range corresponding to the 30-50% average increase in the assessment of island properties. Such a blatant misrepresentation by the Assessor when the correct information was in the hands of the Town Supervisor mandates a corrected re-notification by the Assessor and an extended period to file a grievance. Alternatively, the Town could roll-back assessments to 2007 levels and provide proper notices in 2009.
2. The re-assessment was not done in accordance with accepted professional standards.
Island cottages and other structures were valued without obtaining information regarding square footage, age and materials used, number of bathrooms, age and condition of the septic system, etc. No inspection of the interior of the cottages was done or requested.
Evaluation of the land for island and waterfront properties was done using an arbitrary rate per linear foot of water-frontage. No adjustment was made for the presence or absence of docks or boathouses or their age and quality of construction. No adjustment was made for whether the water-frontage was usable for docking, water entry, or water-depth, nor was the condition or age of any seawall considered. By way of example, island water-frontage of 130 feet with no boathouse, a forty year-old dock which needs replacement, a forty-year old deteriorated metal seawall which must be replaced, and the remainder of the frontage unusable because of large rocks and low water was valued the same as another property with 130 feet of water-frontage with a boathouse and the remaining frontage accessible for swimming and boating.
3. No consideration was given to the fact that island properties do not receive the basic municipal services available to residents on the mainland.
For example, there is no police presence on either the water or any islands; no public docks on the larger islands as are found in the Village of Clayton except Grindstone Is. ; no garbage collection; no construction or maintenance of roads or other public ways; no sewer or public water systems, etc. Nor any consideration for the reality that any services are used only for three to four months a year.
Conclusion
The “Clayton Taxpayers Group” intends to evaluate its legal options including litigation in order to remedy the biased, subjective and arbitrary way the re-assessments were conducted and determined and the misleading information provided by the Assessor to property owners designed to discourage them from exercising their grievance rights. Since there is no New York law requiring re-assessments, clearly the Town has the ability to rollback assessments to the 2007 level. This would be justified because the re-assessment was both improperly done and then improperly noticed to Township property owners. The fact that several other towns have already done so suggests such an approach is not illegal or in violation of New York law. Alternatively, the Town can defend itself against potential litigation based upon the fact that re-assessment which was done in an illegal fashion and then miscommunicated to property owners.
Presented to the Town of Clayton Board on 6/11/08 on behalf of the “Clayton Taxpayers Group”
Letter to the Editor
6/29/08
“ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT DATA”
At the root of the problem of real property assessment is the “collection of adequate data” on properties. Like an old recipe – if a few of the ingredients are missing it will not make your dinner guests happy with the meal. A good painter will know their subject well and the details will be planned, unless of course they are an abstract painter, and the result is not likely to be subject to guidelines. The assessment process is New York State is at best a form of contemporary abstraction. Guidelines were set as a mandate from the state and many from the golden age of “file folders” and “index cards”. I am sure those who work within this system pray for a godsend solution.
In the Town of Clayton, the Assessor depends upon the Jefferson County repository for data to make decisions on each property that she has “supposedly visited”, to determine her assessments. It is blatantly obvious that all is not well with this system or are there any substantive plans to improve how this data is made available to the public or the assessor.
We are not talking about criminal records here, we are speaking of what taxpayers’ own and the descriptions of said properties upon which data they are assessed by.
There are two things that could be done to improve this kangaroo assessment system.
1. We need new software mandated by the State that is developed independently from the archaic current system and yet allows for a streamlining of data from the old into the new data base. This new data base would be accessible by all taxpayers’ owning property in a given township for the purpose of entering one’s own data, such as land survey, abstracts, quality of frontage, access to services such as water and sewer, fire protection, seasonal roads, etc. The ability to go online and enter into your own file, data pertinent to your building, structures and home, such as would be used by a realtor to determine the true value of your property as if it were for sale. Data such as types of flooring, foundations, window, siding, roofing, type of framing, winterization, septic, water service, age of structure, condition as well as the current dimensions and number of baths and bedrooms. All of these representing the very quality of anything that is more or less pertinent to the property.
2. All information whether gathered from the old files
and records or submitted by the taxpayer would then be checked by the assessor, their assistants, or data entry persons hired to confirm data whether from within the system or in the field using an inspection process. This process in the first few years would be more intensive, employing enough staff to get the job thoroughly done. The inspection process would eventually taper off as a township was near completion and all those who wished to be accurately accounted for were checked. Such a thorough and detailed description of properties would enhance the clarity of assessments done by local assessors, thus eliminating much litigation that currently is tying up our State court system. This same data base would be available to any taxpayer during the grievance process, so that anyone can compare a property in question with others who have the same or nearly the same physical characteristics. Clearly described data would make for clearly assessed properties and clearheaded judgments by those hired or appointed to do so.
Beyond these two points described above, a fair and equitable assessment process can only be obtained through hard work, the hiring of more data entry professionals and software that truly allows guidelines to be achieved. This same software should act as an umbrella that would red flag inequities and highlight areas that need attention. The Provence of Ontario, Canada has had such a system in place since 2005 www.mpac.ca/
Clever people need only to streamline similar software and method into the New York States system and or any state for that matter. Our State Supreme Court is burdened in part by law suits from taxpayers trying to get a fair shake in the assessment process.
At the heart of this is a data collection system that is antiquated and ineffective at best. It is time for a change. Let’s spend the tax dollars where they can be used to make these changes happen, not for defense in court for erroneous assessments that are likely to reoccur the very next year.
William L. Salisbury
Clayton Taxpayers’ Group
I am a taxpayer, voter and resident of the Town of Clayton. We are now living through the same type of revaluation process that the Towns of Orleans and Alexandria have gone through in the past several years. My friends in the Town of Cape Vincent, be aware, you are next in line!
This tortuous assessment process is fostered on “We the people”, by our respective Towns. In turn; unto them by Jefferson County, who receive their direction from the State government in Albany. And so, we find ourselves in a process where the final outcome is based on arbitrary data collection, and arbitrary judgments for relief. It is always about the money!
Generally, finger pointing, harsh words, and finally lawsuits are the choice or necessity to address the assessment process. When the distributions of monies are involved, people will go to extremes to grab “their fair share.” It is always about the money!
Upon witnessing over the past few years the expenses and outcomes from our neighboring Towns in this assessment battle, we, as the Clayton Taxpayer Group, tried a different approach. It was our purpose and hope to try to work with the Town of Clayton Board, to correct and possibly even help resolve the inequities and inadequacies of the assessment process. If we could avoid costly lawsuits for our Township, we perceived it as our duty to help bring about that outcome.
When inequities are apparent and acknowledged; I believe that one of the most sacred duties of a public servant, is to stand up and try to bring about the changes necessary to correct these. Merely because a system is or has been in place, and may be the only one presently available, does not mean it does not demand revision or correction. Of course, it is always easier to follow a known path, even if it leads over a cliff; than to blaze a new trail. Yet, what do we look to our leaders for if not leadership. Is it always about the money?
Because this issue and cause is so important, no one wishes this to become a personal or personality battle with our Town Board members or current Assessor. They find themselves working in a system that ultimately leads to misunderstandings, hard feelings, and failure. Working together to achieve something better is the best course of action. Yet, nothing is more personal than your home and ability to keep it. Is it always about the money?
Although I am a “River” property owner and taxpayer, I have been in conversations with “Mainland” property taxpayers who also feel strongly about assessment inadequacies. This situation should not divide those with like opinions, but rather be a cause to unite us. If the “River folk” seemed more vocal at first, as indeed we were, we now grow a bit hoarse and are in need of more voices from across the Township. This issue should unite us, because it concerns our ability to continue living in our homes. Indeed, common ground if ever there was.
Let us all join together to help make this taxation system more equitable, for us, our children and grandchildren.
“I guess we have failed? So were do we go? What can we do?”
Common questions now that the 2008 reassessment rolls have been accepted into record. For homeowners there is Article 7 and Article 78 to pursue. Your own attorney would be able to guide you better than we on the particulars of those articles. It would seem to me that the more people that could be involved in a Article 78 class action suit, the less it might cost and the more persuasive the argument. It is always about the money!
Educating folks on how to fill out grievance forms for next year is important. If you feel that you are unfairly assessed, this is very important. I hope that by next year we would be able to have hundreds of taxpayers grieving.
The Clayton Taxpayer Group will do all it can to help you, but we in turn need your help. We need volunteers who are ready to help take back the taxation process and change the current system to join us and help achieve that end. Your time is as important as anything right now. Many organizations and Townships are starting to stand up to the gross inadequacies of the present property taxation system. It is always about the money!
As the Clayton Taxpayer Groups budget dictates, we will be issuing articles and advertisements in the T.I. Sun and Watertown Daily Times, trying to maintain a web site www.1000islandstaxes.org, and through CC Emails trying to keep everyone informed. We would appreciate any help you are able to spare.
The Clayton Taxpayer Group
David A. Knapp
Murray Isle
Clayton, NY
42716 Murray Isle
Clayton, New York 13624
May 25, 2008
Clayton Town Board
405 Riverside Drive
Clayton, New York 13624
Dear Sirs;
I have been inspired to write to the Town Board of Clayton because of the recent formation of the Clayton Tax Payers Association. I went to the well-attended meeting and was impressed by the thoughtful, yet troubled citizens who shared their histories regarding the most recent re-assessment for the Town of Clayton.
The only consistent pattern I see is that Assessor Trudell is applying unfair and complicated formulas to faulty statistics and misleading dimensions of your constituents properties. The group seemed in agreement that they would be willing to accept a fair market assessment. No-one attending the CTPA meeting spoke up saying they were being treated fairly.
A strong suggestion surfaced to have the Town write “fact-finding” into the budget because fair market cannot be based on
Cole let - pg 2
inaccuracies. Because of all the errors and defects, the group that night felt it necessary to ask you to direct the Assessor to set aside the 2008 tax roll until fairness can be reached.
I am in agreement and feel there are too many blatant errors on the Clayton rolls to turn a blind eye. Not only are there errors, but a lack of judgement can be seen on many parcels, especially in the offensive assessment placed on the shoal between Hub Island, Pullman Island and T.I. Park. That parcel is labeled #12.11-2-89, has an assessment of $5,000.00 attached to it, yet it is entirely underwater.
Please! get involved.
Sincerely,
Rachel Cole
Clayton Voter
42716 Murray Isle
Clayton, New York 13624
June 11, 2008
Town Board
Town of Clayton
405 Riverside Drive
Clayton, New York 13624
Re: June 11, 2008 Town Board Meeting 5:00 p.m.
Gentlemen:
In my May 25th, 2008 letter (Murray Rat attachment included) to the Town Board, I stated that there is an “illegitimate standard” being used to arrive at the figures for the tentative tax roll in Clayton. Not only does this terminology apply to our property on Murray Isle, it continues throughout the rolls, extending into the details of STAR Exemption recipients. Investigation has not ruled out a factor of deception because the percentages in the STAR program are reflecting greater than the 100% equalization rate on some parcels.
The Town Tax Rolls lack a uniform treatment of parcels and exemptions. They also lack “transparency” which is a term used on the N.Y. State website claiming rolls should be simple enough for taxpayers to understand.
We are making you aware of the discrepancies and our dissatisfaction. We ask you to send the roll back for correction. You do not have to “accept the roll”. No matter what the lawyers are advising you to do, at some point, when an official sees an injustice, he should correct it…then and there. Currently, you are the Town Officials. Send the tax roll back for correction tonight!
In his annual message, the Town Supervisor claims to be “proactive and open-minded”. He continues the message saying “we are committed to the Town of Clayton and the heritage that is Clayton’s underpinning.” Isn’t this Reval targeting those underpinnings?
My vision for Clayton includes friends, relatives and long term residents. The kind of practice taking place in this reassessment puts those people in jeopardy, if not this year, then down the road.
I question if the Assessor is “topping off” the rolls just to get a $5 - $7 dollar stipend per parcel from the State. The stipend isn’t worth the taxpayer anger nor the potential law suits. Ultimately, the Assessor fails in her job because she is supposed to be under oath to present a uniform tax roll. She has not.
Of course a Townwide Reval is going to cause some commotion. Are you willing to ignore the hundreds of tax-payers who are feeling this injustice? Do I understand correctly that the Supervisor’s term of office is over next year? If nothing is done to control this excess and inequality, a petition will circulate for a new Party Chair.
A few of us do have something in common…I believe that Mr. Kittle owns just under four (3.4) acres of vacant land assessed at $16,000. Mr. Taylor has about four and a half (4.65) acres for $31,800. The Turcotte Trust has nearly 8 acres valued at almost $23,000. My Mother is being assessed $245,000 for exactly four (4.0) acres.
How does this Board qualify this variation of 4 acres ranging from $11,500 (half Turcotte) - $245,000 in the same Town? I didn’t work hard to find these discrepancies. I’m certain there are even more bizarre and outrageous examples to be found.
Another common misnomer on the rolls is used when the Assessor calls Mr. Peterson’s parcel #42.00-1-55 “vacant”. His approximate 3 acres of land is valued at $26,400 while his total is $128,300. Why should that description remain “vacant”?
Apparently, the Governor has recently introduced legislation to cap the growth of taxes which could give us the right to set the cap lower than the law requires. The Town should be investigating more than just caps. Further investigation needs to be done regarding the rolls including the STAR program. We need immediate justice and fairness. Do not accept the tax rolls.
Thank you.
Rachel Cole