Thomas C. Hutton
Elisabeth S. Harding
39 Homesdale Road
Bronxville, N.Y. 10708
January 31, 2005
Mayor Nancy Hand
Members of the Village Board of Trustees
Village of Bronxville
200 Pondfield Road
Bronxville, New York 10708
Re: Village-Wide Real
Property Revaluation
Dear Mayor Hand and Members of the Bronxville Village Board of Trustees:
We are writing with respect to
the immediate need for a Village-wide revaluation/reassessment of all parcels of
residential and commercial real property.
Over the past eight months we
have reviewed many documents relating to the Village of Bronxville’s real
property assessment rolls which we have obtained from the Village, the Town of
Eastchester, and the State of New York pursuant to Freedom of Information Law
requests. We have also reviewed articles from the 1966 and 1967 editions of the
Bronxville Review Press which covered the last Village-wide
revaluation/reassessment which was completed in 1967.
While we were originally
interested in determining what, if anything, could be done to deter the flood of
certiorari cases which continue to erode the Village’s tax base, we have been
shocked to discover that since 1995, for all practical purposes, the Village has
not reassessed any properties that have undergone major improvements. This is
an irresponsible fiscal policy. At first, we thought this failure to reassess
was limited to certain houses which had undergone major expansion projects such
as the house of one of our neighbors which doubled in size a few years ago.
After reviewing each of the Village Assessor’s Annual Reports filed with the
State from 1994 to 2004, however, we discovered that starting with the
assessment roll completed in 1996, the Village in essence stopped reassessing
any capital improvements until very recently. (For copies of Part 2 of Annual
Assessor’s Reports of the Village for 1994 - 2004 see Exhibit A).
During this nine year period,
despite a huge boom in construction projects throughout the Village, assessments
were increased on only 39 parcels of real property due to physical improvements
to the properties. This is an average of a little more than four properties a
year. This number represents a huge reduction from the 67 parcels the Village
reassessed in 1994, and the 60 parcels it reassessed in 1995 (see Exhibit A).
These 39 Village reassessments are also in stark contrast to the over 600
parcels located in the Village whose assessments were increased by the Town of
Eastchester during this period (1996-2004) for the Eastchester assessment
rolls.*
The dollar amounts involved are
not small. Some of the estimated costs of these improvements ranged as high as
$1,800,000 and the aggregate estimated cost of improvements for which
construction permits were issued from 1996 through 2004 was $127,367,188.
Excluding the assessment increases attributable to the Avalon project, the
Village’s assessment rolls only reflect assessment increases of $343,865, in the
aggregate, for this period. In contrast, if the Village had increased the
assessment on the same village parcels and in the same percentages as the Town
of Eastchester Assessor, the Village’s assessment rolls would have reflected
increases of $4,664,208, in the aggregate, for this period.
Reassessing properties that have
increased in value due to improvements is not a matter of discretion. Under the
law the real property tax is a flat tax. An owner of a parcel of real property
that is worth $100,000 should pay twice as much in real property tax as the
owner of a parcel that is worth $50,000. To the extent an owner is able to
improve the value of his parcel without a corresponding increase to the parcel’s
assessed value, the tax rate on that parcel will be lower than the tax rate on
other parcels. This is not only inequitable, it violates Section 305 of the New
York State Real Property Tax Law (“RPTL”). This section provides in part that
“all real property in each assessing unit shall be assessed at a uniform
percentage of value.”
We initially thought that the
Village’s failure to reassess might have been the idea of the current Village
Assessor, Robert Balog, who has certified the assessment rolls since 1996. That
appears unlikely, however. A review of the assessment rolls in Hastings and
Sleepy Hollow, where Mr. Balog is also the assessor, shows that in those
communities the Assessor’s Annual Reports to the State for the years 1999
through 2004 reflect a consistent number of annual assessment increases. (For
copies of Part 2 of Assessor’s Annual Reports for Hastings 1999 - 2004 see
Exhibit B; for copies of Part 2 of Assessor’s Annual Reports for Sleepy Hollow,
1999 - 2003, see Exhibit C). It is difficult to imagine that Mr. Balog would
find that capital improvements to parcels in Hastings and Sleepy Hollow
increased the underlying value of those parcels while all the capital
improvements to parcels in Bronxville added absolutely no value.
* As you know the Village and the Town of
Eastchester maintain separate and distinct assessment rolls. The Village
assessment roll determines the Village tax and the Bronxville School tax. The
Eastchester assessment roll determines the Townwide tax, the County tax, the
Fire District tax and the County solid waste and sewer taxes.
As we do not believe that this
no-increase policy was the brainchild of Mr. Balog, we have spent many hours
pondering why the Board of Trustees would adopt what we consider to be a secret
and illegal tax abatement policy and we have settled on several possibilities.
1. It is possible that this policy may have
arisen out of some misguided notion to encourage residents and new buyers to
renovate and upgrade the Village’s existing housing stock. The recent
construction project at the School and the pending renovation of Village Hall
seem to reflect the vainglorious desire of some Village residents and officials
to leave an indelible architectural mark on the Village.
2. We have also wondered if this policy had
something to do with the Avalon project which came onto the Village assessment
rolls in 1999 and 2000 and constituted the only assessment increases for those
two years, $621,280 in 1999 and $980,000 in 2000. (See Exhibit A). Possibly
these increases provided the incentive and wherewithal to mask the failure to
reassess other improved properties. This appears unlikely, though, since it
should have been readily apparent that the exact amount of the increases to the
Village’s assessment roll attributable to the Avalon is not permanent and
inevitably will be challenged and rolled back by future certiorari cases.
3. We have also discussed the possibility
that certain Village officials preferred to collect increased construction
permit fees, which remain entirely with the Village, as opposed to collecting
additional property tax revenue which must be largely given over to the School.
4.
Redacted
In any event, regardless of the
reasons for adopting this policy, over the past nine years the Village Assessor,
either under the direction of, or with the tacit approval of, the Board of
Trustees, has failed to increase the assessed value of hundreds of parcels of
real property which have been subject to major capital improvements. This
policy obviously has benefited the owners of these parcels. They not only pay
lower annual taxes than they otherwise would, but they also can expect to be
able to sell these properties at higher prices because the properties have lower
tax burdens than they should. While this policy has helped these affected
owners, it has been at the direct expense of all the other Villagers who have
never improved their parcels of real property or those who either happened to
have made improvements to their parcels prior to 1995 or who happened to be the
unlucky few who made improvements and were reassessed in 2003 and 2004.
This no-increase policy hurts the
Village in other ways. The inevitable inclusion of sales of these improved
parcels in the calculation of the Equalization Rate for the Village will skew
the calculation of this rate because these parcels should attain a higher market
value than they would otherwise if they were properly assessed and taxed. The
resulting artificially high sales prices of these properties will only increase
the already existing discrepancies in the market values between the family
residential units and the cooperatives/condominiums. This result will only
further strengthen the flood of certiorari cases and will continue the erosion
of the Village’s tax base. Likewise, these artificially higher sales prices on
these improved parcels will make it more difficult for a homeowner of an
identically assessed parcel to claim that he is being overassessed.
Reviewing the scope of the
Village’s failure to increase assessments for major improvements during the
period 1996-2004, it is clear that the Village's current assessment roll
violates, and any subsequent assessment roll not based on a Village-wide
revaluation will violate, Section 305 of the Real Property Tax Law. (A copy of
the Village’s Assessment Roll for the year 2004 can be found at Exhibit D and at
www.bronxville.us.) Hundreds of parcels of real property have been given tax
breaks on millions of dollars worth of improvements at the expense of the other
Village residents. This is enough to irreparably distort the tax base. In
addition, the Village’s practice has exacerbated the problems with a tax base
that was already legally untenable due to the inequities which have developed
since the last time there was a Village-wide revaluation/reassessment. (For
more background on the Village's 1967 revaluation see Exhibit E).
As part of our review of the
Village’s records we have also discovered many irregularities in the Real
Property Cards which represent the official assessment record for each parcel of
real property in the Village. These cards were developed during the
Village-wide revaluation in 1967 and are considered so important that they are
kept in the vault at Village Hall. During our review of copies of approximately
200 cards we obtained through FOIL requests, we discovered that the dates on
which assessments had changed were (a) predated, (b) post-dated, or (c) left
blank entirely on many of the cards. Given the nature of these mistakes it is
difficult not to conclude that they were intentional acts rather than random
acts of negligence. In either event, the poor maintenance of Real Property
Cards reflects another major problem in the Village's current assessment rolls.
For these reasons, we believe
that the only way the Village can come into compliance with Section 305 of the RPTL is to institute a Village-wide revaluation/reassessment. Based on our
research, it is readily apparent that the Village Board of Trustees likewise has
been contemplating the need for a Village-wide revaluation. Several years ago
the Board instructed Mr. Balog to perform a study of the Village assessment roll
and what the effect of a reassessment might be on village properties. The
Board discussed the results of this study with Mr. Balog at an Executive Session held on October 14,
2002. Clearly, such a study would not have been necessary unless the Board of Trustees
believed in the first instance that a Village-wide reassessment was necessary. (For a copy of
Mr. Balog’s study see Exhibit F.)
The mechanics of a Village-wide
revaluation are straight forward. As Mr. Balog cites in his study:
“The
process of revaluation is extensive. The RPTL outlines the process for the
revaluation, and for the process for informing the public. The revaluation
process includes informal hearings on the proposed changes and assessment
disclosure notices well in advance of the normal change of assessment notices.
The process is intended to give all property owners an opportunity to have more
than the normal amount of time to examine their new assessment, to ask questions
regarding their new assessment, and then to obtain their own information in
order to ensure (or reassure) that the new assessment is correct.”
Of course, the experience of the Village’s
1967 revaluation program also provides an excellent road map for developing a
Village-wide revaluation in 2005. (See Exhibit E.)
We also note that in his study,
Mr. Balog concludes that “revaluation could be anticipated to cost the Village
approximately $180,000, with state aid contributing only $8,400 of that
amount.” Given the current debt burden attributable to the School construction
and the proposed debt burden attributable to the renovation of Village Hall, we
believe this is a small amount of expense to ensure that the costs of these
projects, along with the ongoing operation of the Village and a highly rated
school system, are shared fairly and equitably by all the Village’s residents.
In order to provide you and the
other recipients of this letter with a better idea of what we have learned with
respect to the need for a Village-wide revaluation, we have set out below a more
detailed discussion of the following subjects:
1. Duties of the Assessor
2. Annual Assessor’s Reports for the
Village of Bronxville for Assessment Rolls completed in 1996-2004
3. Construction Cost Estimates filed with
Applications for Building Permits to the Bronxville Building Department for the
period 1995-2003
4. Annual Assessor’s Reports for the
Village of Bronxville for Assessment Rolls completed in 1994 and 1995
5. Annual Assessor’s Reports for the Town
of Eastchester for Assessment Rolls completed in 1996-2004
6. Irregularities Found in the Real
Property Cards
7.
Redacted
8. Brief History of the Village-wide
revaluation in 1967
9. Changes in Neighborhood Market Conditions After
1967
1. Duties of the Assessor
The duties of a municipality’s
assessor are straight forward. According to the New York State Board of
Equalization and Assessment (SBEA), “(t)he assessor maintains the assessment
roll document that contains every property’s assessment. To do this, the
physical description, or inventory, and value estimate of every parcel of real
property in the municipality is kept up to date.” In addition “(n)ew
construction and major improvements to existing structures are inspected in
order that the record of each property’s physical inventory is current, and the
appropriate improvements are assessed.” (emphasis added, see Exhibit G).
Each year the SBEA also requires the assessor to file annual reports on
assessment changes, both increases and decreases. These reports are broken up
into two separate parts.
Part I of these annual reports is
a summary of increases and decreases in the total assessed value of locally
assessed properties from the prior real property tax roll to the current roll.
Part I also contains a certification by the assessor that the information
contained in the report constitutes a true statement of fact and is derived from
the finalized assessment roll and that the accompanying computerized data file
supports the data provided in this report and is a copy of the file used to
produce the assessment roll. For your information we have enclosed a copy of
Part 1 of the Village’s 1997 annual report which was certified by Mr. Balog.
(See Exhibit H).
Part 2 of the assessor’s annual
report is the detailed listing of the changes to the prior year’s tax roll.
Pursuant to a FOIL request to the NYS Office of Real Property Services, we were
able to obtain copies of all the annual reports filed by the Village with
respect to tax years 1994-2004. You will find copies of Part 2 of each of these
reports listed as Exhibit A. As an aside, we have been informed by Mr. Porr
that copies of these reports, except the most recent one, are not maintained by
the Village and, therefore presumably the Village Assessor who is an officer of
the Village. Given that these reports, particularly Part 2, are the only
realistic way to track the history of the increases and decreases in the
Village’s tax roll, we find the Village’s failure to maintain copies of such
reports quite disturbing.
2. Annual Assessor’s Reports for
the Village of Bronxville, 1996-2004
A review of Part 2 of the Village
Annual Assessor’s Reports for the 1996-2004 assessment rolls reveals that there
were 39 increases for properties due to capital improvements. Two of these
increases related to the completion of the Avalon Apartments. The 1999 Annual
Report shows an increase of $621,280 and the 2000 Annual Report shows an
additional increase of $980,000 with respect to the Avalon. Other observations
on the remaining 37 increases are set forth below year by year.
1996
Four of the increases related to parcels located at 11,12,15 and 16 Beverly
Road (designated by section/lot numbers as (23./8/3), (23./8/4), (23./8/5), and
(23./8/6). Another increase related to the parcel located at 3 Westway
and owned by Village Trustee Frank Sica (section/lot number 7.A/2/5).
This parcel shows an increase of $13,400 but this amount was totally offset by
the elimination of the assessed value on another parcel owned by Mr. Sica
(section/lot number 7.A/2/1). There was also an increase of $15,200 on the
parcel located at 78 Tanglewylde (section/lot number 14./3/1) and there
was an increase of $25,000 for the parcel located at 37 Greenfield Avenue
(section/lot/number 17./3/11) which reflected the completion of a new house on
the location of a previous house which had been torn down. The other two
increases for this year were $5,300 for the parcel located at 12 Elm Rock
Road (section/lot no. 6.F/1/2) and an increase of $5,000 for the parcel
located at 6 Paradise Road (section/lot 18./7/1).
1997
Except for an increase which was totally offset by a corresponding decrease in
the assessed value of an adjoining property, there were two increases in this
year. The first was an increase of $32,000 on the parcel located at 15
Hawthorne Road (section/lot no. 6.C/1/7) which reflected the reconstruction
of the house which had been destroyed by a fire. The second increase was for
$10,865 and reflected an additional increase for the parcel located at 78
Tanglewylde (section/lot no. 14./3/1).
1998
There were no increases this year.
1999
Except for the increase related to the Avalon
Apartments there were no increases this year.
2000
Except for the increase related to the Avalon Apartments there were no
increases this year.
2001
Except for an increase which was totally offset by a decrease in the assessed
value of an adjoining parcel, there were no increases this year.
2002
Except for an increase which was totally offset by the decrease in the assessed
value of two parcels owned by the same family, there were no increases
this year.
2003
There were 16 increases in this year which in the aggregate totaled $112,900.
One increase, for $21,900, related to the parcel located at 18 Dusenberry
Road (section/lot no. 7.H/4/7) and involved a major renovation of the
previously existing house.
2004
There were 7 increases in this year which in the aggregate totaled $48,900. One
increase, for $29,900, related to a parcel located at 10 Kraft Avenue
(section/lot no. 3./2/15) and reflected the construction of a new house to
replace the previous house that was destroyed by fire.
Excluding the assessment
increases related to the Avalon Apartments and those increases which were
totally negated by offsetting decreases, the Annual Assessor Reports for 1996 -
2004 reflect assessment increases in the aggregate of $343,865.
3. Construction Cost Estimates
filed with Applications for Construction Permits to the
Bronxville Building Department, 1995-2003
While it is difficult to compute
the value of the capital improvements to parcels of real property during the
period 1995-2003, a review of the construction cost estimates filed with the
applications for construction permits for the same period provides a good guide
in developing an order of magnitude. For example, the construction cost
estimates related to the Avalon Apartments were $6,178,485 and $5,000,000 in
1998. As mentioned above, the assessment on this project was increased by
$621,280 in 1999 and the assessment was increased by $980,000 in 2000. In
addition, while the aggregate construction cost estimates include improvements
to tax exempt property owned by Lawrence Hospital ($7,525,000 in 1998) and
Concordia College ($6,910,000 in 2001), it should be noted that in many cases
the cost estimates provided on the applications for construction permits were
probably much lower than the actual costs of completing these projects. We have
set forth below the aggregate construction cost estimates listed on the
Village's Building Department Activity Reports for the years 1995-2003.
Year Cost Estimates
1995 $5,112,502
1996
$5,205,024
1997
$6,352,200
1998 $29,618,995
1999
$13,182,967
2000
$15,783,500
2001
$21,791,000
2002
$16,213,000
2003
$14,108,000
Total
$127,367,188
4. Annual Assessor’s Report for
the Village of Bronxville for Assessment Rolls completed in
1994 and 1995
The Village Assessor’s Reports
for the assessment rolls completed in 1994 and 1995 were certified by the then
Village Assessor John Galloway. Part 2 of each of these reports is included in
Exhibit A.
A brief review of these reports
reveals that Village assessments on 67 parcels of real property were increased
in 1994 and the Village assessments on 60 parcels of real property were
increased in 1995. In the aggregate the total increases in assessed values were
$179,000 in 1994 and $240,800 in 1995. In addition, the aggregate construction
cost estimates were $6,354,009 in 1993 and $6,084,925 in 1994.
5. Annual Assessor’s Reports for
the Town of Eastchester for Assessment Rolls completed in 1996
- 2004
The Town of Eastchester has its
own assessor whose office is distinct and separate from that of the Village
Assessor. The Village Assessor has responsibility for adjusting assessments, up
or down, on parcels of real property on the Village assessment rolls. The
Village assessment roll is used only for purposes of determining the Bronxville
Village tax and the Bronxville School tax. In contrast, the Eastchester
Assessor has responsibility for adjusting assessments, up or down, on parcels of
real property located in the Village of Bronxville, the Village of Tuckahoe, and
the unincorporated portions of Eastchester on the Town assessment roll. The
Town assessment roll is used to determine the Town-wide tax, County tax, Fire
District tax, and County solid waste and sewer district taxes.
In 1967, the Town of Eastchester
revaluated its assessment rolls for the Village of Bronxville, Village of
Tuckahoe and the unincorporated portions of Eastchester. The Town used the same
firm to perform this revaluation that Bronxville had hired to perform its
Village-wide evaluation in the same year. Consequently, the Town’s assessment
roll with respect to parcels of real property in the Village of Bronxville was
derived from the same market estimates used by the Village in determining its
assessment roll. The Town, however, used a different percentage of market value
to develop its assessment roll and it has continued to maintain a separate
assessment roll since 1967.
The separate roles and legal
responsibilities of the Eastchester Town Assessor and the Village Assessor are
clearly set out in a letter, dated April 28, 1998, from Eastchester Town
Supervisor Jim Cavanaugh to Mayor Hand. Apparently this letter was prompted by
a telephone conversation between Mayor Hand and the Eastchester Town Assessor,
Richard O’Donnell, in which the Mayor called to relay the complaint of a
Bronxville resident who had objected to the attempt of an appraiser from the
Town of Eastchester to inspect improvements at his home. (For a copy of Mr.
Cavanaugh’s letter see Exhibit I.)
In an apparent attempt to calm
the inter-governmental waters and to explain the role of the Eastchester
Assessor, Mr. Cavanaugh set forth in his letter the responsibilities of the Town
of Eastchester as follows:
“As you know, the Town of Eastchester is
responsible for maintaining an assessment roll in Bronxville for purposes of the
Townwide tax, County tax, Fire District tax, and County solid waste and sewer
districts. All told these taxes constitute about 30 percent of a typical
Village tax bill, so it is essential that the assessments be as accurate as
possible.”
Mr. Cavanaugh also enclosed with his letter
the pamphlet prepared by the New York State Board of Equalization and Assessment
which explains the role of an assessor and which we referenced above. With
respect to the importance of site inspections, Mr. Cavanaugh also noted the
following:
“It is the policy of the Town Assessor that
all changes in assessments be based upon a site inspection. This is consistent
with State law. It is also the policy of the Assessor that every reported
instance of an improvement be addressed. Not only are site inspections the norm
for assessors statewide, anything less will lead to inaccurate assessments that
penalize the taxpayers.”
Consequently, although the Town
maintains separate assessment rolls, it still works with the Village Building
Department to obtain copies of building permits for construction projects within
the Village. A review of these permits provides the Town with the information
it needs to schedule the physical site inspections that allow the Town Assessor
to determine whether particular capital improvements warrant an increase in the
properties’ assessed values.
While it would be unfair to make
an exact comparison between the assessment rolls of the Village and the Town of
Eastchester because the Village and the Town have kept separate rolls since
1967, we do believe a comparison is instructive for demonstrating the extreme
nature of Mr. Balog’s failure to increase the assessments on parcels of real
property which have been subject to major improvements. We were able to secure
from the State and the Town of Eastchester paper copies of Part 2 for the
Eastchester Assessor’s Annual Report for assessment rolls completed in 1997,
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. (For copies of the pages of Part 2 of these
reports that cover those parcels located within the Village of Bronxville see
Exhibit J.) In addition we were able to obtain electronic copies of these
reports for the Eastchester assessment rolls for 1996, 2003, and 2004.
Unfortunately we were not able to convert these electronic files to appropriate
paper copies as Exhibits. However, for purposes of the discussion below we have
used the information on these electronic files.
As noted above, excluding the two
assessment increases related to the Avalon project, there were 37 assessment
increases due to major improvements on the Village assessment rolls completed
for 1996-2004. During this same period, excluding assessment increases related
to the Avalon project, there were over 600 increases on the Town of
Eastchester’s assessment rolls for parcels of real property located within the
Village. We have set forth below the number of increased assessments on a year
by year basis for both the Village and Town of Eastchester.
Increase on Village Roll Increase on Town Roll
1996
9 18
1997
3 92
1998
0 60
1999
0 73
2000
0 75
2001
1 76
2002
1 70
2003
16 76
2004
7 81
--------
---------
TOTAL
37* 621
* Of this total, four assessment increases
were offset by corresponding assessment decreases to related or adjoining
properties.
It is interesting to note that the annual
number of Bronxville parcels subject to increased assessments by Eastchester
during this period is in the same ballpark as the number of parcels which had
increased assessments for the Village assessment rolls completed in 1994 and
1995 by Mr. Balog’s predecessor.
Besides the different number of
parcels which had increased assessments in Eastchester, it is also instructive
to look at a sample of the percentage assessment increases on specific houses on
the Eastchester assessment rolls whose assessments did not increase at all on
the Bronxville assessment rolls. Set forth below is a chart showing the
estimated construction costs and the percentage increase on the Eastchester
assessment roll for a sample of parcels located within the Village. For a more
detailed description of the construction cost estimates for these properties see
Exhibit K.
Construction Cost
Estimate for %
Increase in % Increase in
Bronxville
Eastchester Village
Address
Building Permit
Assessment Assessment
106 Tanglewylde Ave.
$290,000
36.80% 0
30 Elm Rock Rd.
$500,000
65.35% 0
47 Prescott Avenue
$649,000
37.00% 0
22 Sturgis Rd.
$300,000
48.71% 0
6 Leonard Road
$250,000
42.70% 0
44 Masterton Road $650,000
65.00% 0
43 Dusenberry Road
$259,000
14.89% 0
10 Courseview Road
$400,000 31.6% 0
18 Ridge Road
$1,200,000 46.50% 0
12 Wood End Lane
$475,000
47.20% 0
93 Tanglewylde Ave.
$350,000
34.08% 0
87 Tanglewylde Ave.
$1,800,000
98.60% 0
91 Tanglewylde Ave. $750,000
31.03% 0
10 Courseview Rd.
$400,000
31.62% 0
6 Greenfield Rd.
$400,000
21.61% 0
5 Vine Street
$400,000
74.00% 0
18 Ridge Road
$1,200,000
62.79% 0
75 Summit Ave.
$560,000
43.2% 0
35 Sturgis Ave.
$800,000
70.9% 0
*91 Tanglewylde Ave. is also 24 Sycamore
Street (See Exhibit L.)
It is likewise instructive to compare the percentage assessment
increases on some of the houses which were reassessed by the Village in 2003
with the percentage assessment increases on the Town of Eastchester’s assessment
roll. Set forth below is a chart showing the construction cost estimates on
eleven of the sixteen parcels whose Village assessments increased in 2003 and
the corresponding percentage increases on the Eastchester assessment roll and
the Village assessment roll. For a more detailed description of the
construction cost estimates for these properties see Exhibit M.
Construction Cost
Estimate for %
Increase in % Increase in
Bronxville
Eastchester Village
Address
Building Permit
Assessment Assessment
11 Fordal Road
$1,000,000 50.64% 8.7%
23 Homesdale
$250,000 10.59% 9.9%
3 Pine Terrace
$225,000 12.94% 9.1%
16 Sunnybrae $175,000 14.25% 8.5%
22 Elm Lane
$275,000
14.21% 19.4%
321 Pondfield Rd.
$550,000
10.68% 7.3%
58 Park Ave.
$500,000
56.4% 28.5%
102 Tanglewylde Ave. $150,000
8.52% 10.8%
9 Woodland Ave.
$275,000
18.24% 6%
21 Ridge Road
$370,000
6.2% 5.3%
8 Hobart Street
$175,000
32.11% 22.4%
Finally, we believe that it is interesting to review what the
assessment increases would have been on the Bronxville assessment rolls
completed for 1996-2004, if the Village Assessor had increased the assessments
on the same parcels and in the same percentages as the Town of Eastchester
Assessor did during this period. We have set forth below the assessment
increases reflected on the Bronxville assessment rolls year by year and our
calculation of what the assessment rolls would have been if the Village Assessor
had increased the assessment on the same parcels and in the same percentages as
the Town of Eastchester Assessor. The numbers below do not include assessment
increases related to the Avalon project or those increases which were offset by
a corresponding assessment decrease.
Actual Assessment Increases
Projected Assessment
Year on Bronxville Rolls
Increases
1996
$139,200 $183,759
1997
42,865 537,062
1998
0 682,066
1999
0 698,897
2000
0 692,559
2001
0 593,309
2002
0 452,029
2003
112,900 400,491
2004 48,900
424,036
TOTAL $343,865 $4,664,208
It is interesting to note that the difference
between the actual Village assessment increases and the projection of what these
increases might have been if the Village had assessed the same parcels and used
the same percentages as the Town of Eastchester is $4,320,343. This number
constitutes 5.8% of the Village’s Total Locally Assessed Properties of
$74,563,514 as reported on the Village Assessor’s Annual Report completed for
2004. Even if the Village had only reassessed at half the rate of the Town of
Eastchester, the assessment increases would have totaled $2,281,757 or $680,477
more than the assessment increases of $1,601,280 related to the Avalon project.
We think this comparison punctuates the enormity of the Village’s failure to
appropriately assess capital improvements during this period. At a time of
continuous certiorari cases and a declining tax base, we find it impossible to
fathom what the Village Board of Trustees could have been thinking.
6. Irregularities Found in the Real
Property Cards
As part of our series of FOIL requests to the Village, we asked for
copies of the real property cards for 168 specific properties. This number
represented approximately ten percent of the parcels of real property that are
listed on the Village’s current assessment roll. As part of this list we asked
for the cards for parcels owned by past and present Village and School officials
as well as those cards for parcels of real property which to our knowledge had
been subject to major improvements over the past ten years. Among many things
we were interested in discovering was whether the assessed values for these
parcels had been increased during the time period that Mr. Balog has been the
Village Assessor.
At first, we were interested to
find that in spite of contrary information on the Assessor’s Annual Reports,
some real property cards indicated assessment increases in 1998 and 1999. Our
initial interest turned to concern, however, when we discovered that the
property card for the property of one of our neighbor’s had been predated. In
reality, they were one of the first unlucky families in years to have their
assessment increased. This happened in 2003 after a construction project.
Oddly, however, the real property card for their residence indicated that the
assessment increased in 1999 and not in 2003. Given that the assessment change
would not have been recorded on the card until the assessment roll for 2003 was
completed, in the Spring of 2003, it seemed extremely curious that the card
indicated that the change had been made in 1999.
This discrepancy also made us
wonder about all the other cards showing assessment increases in 1998 and 1999,
years in which the assessor’s report to the state shows no increases other than
the Avalon. We also became curious about the accuracy of the real property
cards for those other parcels of real property that had assessment increases on
the assessment roll completed in 2003. Accordingly, we filed an additional FOIL
request for the real property cards for these additional properties. We also
asked for the card for the property owned by Village Trustee Thomas Leslie.
By this time we had secured copies of the Village Assessor’s Annual Report for
2000 and had discovered that the assessment for Mr. Leslie’s house had decreased
by almost 20 percent on that roll.
After receiving the additional
cards from the Village, we were dismayed to find three types of irregularities.
The dates of the assessment increases had been either predated, postdated, or
left blank entirely. With respect to these cards we specifically discovered the
following:
Postdated Cards:
We found three cards where the date of the assessment change had been postdated
by two or three years. The three cards all involved properties where the
assessments had increased for the Assessment Roll completed in 1996. (See Part
II of the Annual Assessor’s Report for Bronxville for 1996 under Exhibit A.)
The date of the assessment increases marked on the cards, however, were as
follows: For Trustee Frank Sica’s house at 3 Westway (7H/2/5) the card
states the assessment was increased in 1998; and for the house located at 42
Sturgis Road (7F/4/1) and the house located at 11 Eastway (7H/4/7) the cards
incorrectly state that the assessment increases incurred in 1999. (For copies
of these cards see
Exhibit N.)
Predated Cards:
We found three cards where the date of the assessment changes had been predated
by three or four years. The assessment on each of these properties was
increased in 2003 (see Part 2 of Annual Assessor’s Report for Bronxville for
2003 under Exhibit A) but the cards for these properties reflected the following
dates for these changes: for 22 Elm Street (7G/5/5) the card reflects that the
assessment was changed in 1998 and for the properties located at 321 Pondfield
Road (8/5/9) and at 23 Homesdale Road (7E/4/14) the respective cards reflect
that the assessments were increased in 1999. (For copies of these cards see
Exhibit O.)
Undated Cards:
As mentioned above, after discovering the three postdated cards, we requested
cards for the remaining properties whose assessments were increased in 2003. On
these cards we found that in each case the date for the assessment increase had
been left blank. (For copies of these cards see Exhibit P.) We were also
surprised to find that the date also had been left blank for the assessment
decrease on the card for Trustee Leslie’s house at 92 Tanglewylde.
According to the Annual Assessor’s Report of the Village of Bronxville for 2000,
the assessment on 92 Tanglewylde was decreased in 2000.
We have been deeply troubled by
the irregularities we have found in the real property cards that we have
reviewed. While we appreciate that “typos” can occur in documents, it is
difficult to believe that someone filling in the assessment changes in the
Spring of 1996 would mistakenly write down the year 1998 or 1999 instead of
1996. It is likewise difficult to believe that someone filling in the
assessment changes in the Spring of 2003 would mistakenly write down the years
1998 or 1999 instead of 2003. The fact that the dates of the assessment
increases were left blank on ten of the sixteen properties whose assessments
were increased in 2003 and that the date of the assessment decrease on the card
for Trustee Leslie's house on 92 Tanglewylde was left blank raises the
possibility that as a matter of course the real property cards for all
properties are not being maintained in a proper manner. This is extremely
alarming.
Developed during the revaluation
program in 1967, these property cards are the official record for each parcel of
property located in the Village. These cards are supposed to reflect the
complete ownership record, including the dates and purchase prices of any sales,
assessment records and the building record for each parcel of real property.
These cards are considered so important that they are kept in the Village vault
and when we filed FOIL requests to review and copy some of these cards we were
informed that the cards were too fragile to handle and that over time the
Village would have copies made for us.
Given the importance of these
cards, the poor maintenance and irregularities we have found are unacceptable.
This is particularly true because we have been told by Mr. Porr that the Village
does not maintain “custody and control” over the Annual Assessor Reports the
Bronxville Village Assessor files with the state. The real property cards are
the major way of tracking the assessment history on any parcel of real
property. When the information on the card is either incorrect or incomplete,
it is a very cumbersome process to reconstruct the assessment history of a house
by reviewing previous years’ assessment rolls until the year in which the change
in assessment occurred is located. Before we received all the Annual Assessor
Reports for the Village from the state, we spent several hours trying to trace
the exact dates when the assessment changed on Mr. Sica’s house and other houses
with predated and post-dated real property cards. In the absence of a
reasonable explanation to the contrary, it would appear that the real property
cards have been poorly maintained on purpose to make such a search extremely
difficult if not impossible.
7. Redacted
8. Brief History of the
Village-wide Revaluation in 1967
In the Spring of 1966, the
Bronxville Village Board of Trustees approved a real property evaluation program
to update the Village’s assessments. In his explanation of this program to the
Villagers, Mayor Edwin Russell set forth the program’s three primary objectives:
The Village seeks to establish properly
equalized assessment on all existing properties through the use of uniform bases
and proven methods of systematic appraisals.
The Village wishes to establish an up-to-date
and complete set of records for all properties, so that the basis of each
assessment can be readily verified by the assessor and understood by the
taxpayer.
The schedules and formulas developed in
making the appraisal will be retained by the Assessor, and used in the future on
the assessment of new buildings so that the proper relationship of assessment
will be maintained.
This program is not designed to increase the
overall level of Village taxes. It is simply an equalization program intended
to insure that the Village and School tax on each property shall be in direct
proportion to property values as required by law. The Town and County tax will
be based on the Town assessments. It should be noted here that this program
will not single out any area, type of property, age group or business property
as a target. The objective is simply to equalize all real property values in
relation to their true market values. (Bronxville Review Press, May 12, 1966,
pg. 1) (See Exhibit E).
The Village hired Cole-Layer-Trumble
Company of Dayton, Ohio, to perform the revaluation at a cost of $18,000. (See
Exhibit U for a copy of the Village’s contract with Cole-Layer-Trumble.)
Employees of this firm spent the summer and fall of 1966 inspecting properties
throughout the Village. At that time the Village had approximately 1,450
taxable properties of which approximately 1,100 were single family houses.
After the tentative roll was complete, but prior to Grievance Day, February 21,
1967, the Village hosted interviews with 540 property owners. According to
William Duke III, the Village’s then Administrator, “Taxpayers in Bronxville are
well informed and know exactly why the equalization project was necessary. Most
come in with a figure in mind and before they leave they tell you how close the
appraisal is.” (Bronxville Review Press, Feb. 2, 1967). Ultimately, 105
grievances were filed and upon review 47 appraisals were adjusted. For a more
detailed description of the Village's 1967 revaluation program we have included
copies of Bronxville Review Press articles which were intended to set forth a
very clear explanation of the program. The newspaper also printed a series of
articles by the then Village Administrator, William Duke III, and Cole-Layer-Trumble
which were intended to provide background information with respect to planning a
tax equalization program. (See Exhibit E.)
9. Changes in Neighborhood Market
Conditions After 1967
When the 1967 revaluation program
was complete, the tax roll reflected the physical condition of the Village’s
real estate. Those houses that were recently constructed were assigned a
relatively high market value while the older houses, particularly the large
Victorian houses in Lawrence Park, many of which were run-down, were assigned a
lower market value. Since 1967, however, many of these older houses have been
beautifully updated and restored to their original mint condition. Having been
on many house tours, we both can attest to the quality of work that has gone
into these houses. Curiously, though, the assessed value of many of these
houses has not increased from the low market values assigned in 1967 and we
think it is fair to say that in general the houses in Lawrence Park are very
underassessed.
In this regard, we discovered
that the Board of Trustees hired Mr. Balog to perform a study of what impact a
Village-wide revaluation would have on property values in the Village.
According to the Board’s minutes, at an Executive Session held on October 14,
2002, “Mr. Balog discussed his study of the Village Assessment Roll and what the
affect (sic) of a reassessment might be on village properties. Mr. Balog will
continue his review of the data.”
When we first heard of Mr.
Balog’s study we were very enthused. First, the existence of such a study
confirmed what we had heard through the Village grapevine despite denials from
Village officials. Secondly, it was clear that the Village Board of Trustees
would not commission a report to study the effect a reassessment might have on
village properties unless the Board thought that such a reassessment was
appropriate and/or legally required. Thirdly, if the study concluded that a
reassessment would have a major impact on the value of village properties (both
increases and decreases), that would not only substantiate the need for such a
reassessment but it also would quantify the existing inequities inherent in the
Village’s assessment roll.
Our first FOIL request for Mr.
Balog’s study was denied on the grounds that it was an intra-agency memorandum
and accordingly exempt from FOIL. We appealed this denial noting that pursuant
to New York State Public Officers Law all factual/objective information
appearing in narrative form or in “statistical or factual tabulations or data”
in an “intra-agency report” such as Mr. Balog’s study should be publicly
accessible. By letter, dated September 17, 2004, Mayor Hand granted our appeal,
in part, by providing us with a copy of Mr. Balog’s study which had been
“redacted where appropriate and disclosing ‘statistical or factual tabulations
or data.’” See Exhibit V.
When we received Mr. Balog’s
study, we seriously considered filing an Article 78 Proceeding in order to
request a judge to review the study in camera to determine whether all
the redacted material consisted solely of the opinions and recommendations of
Mr. Balog. For example, it is readily apparent that in some places even the
headings and titles of sections of the study have been redacted. After further
review we determined that the extreme lengths the Village has gone to hide the
information in Mr. Balog’s study speak for themselves. If the study had
concluded that a reassessment would have little or no impact on the value of
village properties it would likewise have concluded that the present assessment
rolls are fair and in compliance with Section 305 of the Real Property Tax Law.
Accordingly it would have concluded that a reassessment was not necessary.
Given the Village’s reluctance to share Mr. Balog’s conclusions with the village
taxpayers, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that, in fact, the study does
show that a Village-wide reassessment would have a significant impact on the
values of village properties, both increases and decreases, and accordingly
supports the need for such a reassessment. Supporting this position we have
also been indirectly told by individuals who have seen this report that it
concludes, in part, that many of the houses located in Lawrence Park are, in
fact, underassessed.
Even in its severely redacted
form, moreover, we do believe that Mr. Balog’s report provides a great deal of
useful information. During our research we have been told by several people
that a Village-wide revaluation would be cost prohibitive. Accordingly it was
enlightening to review Mr. Balog’s discussion of the cost of such revaluations
in other communities and his estimate that such a revaluation in the Village
would cost only $180,000. It was also interesting to see that Mr. Balog’s
description of what is involved in a revaluation paralleled the descriptions of
what occurred in 1966-1967 when the Village had its last Village-wide
revaluation.
10. Conclusion
After our lengthy review of the Village’s assessment records over the
past eight months we have learned the following:
a. The Village maintains an assessment roll
separate and distinct from the assessment roll for the Town of Eastchester.
b. The Village’s assessment roll is only
used for determining the Bronxville village tax and the Bronxville school tax.
c. The Town of Eastchester’s assessment
roll is used for determining the Town tax, the County tax, the Fire District tax
and the County solid waste and sewer district taxes.
d. Although the Village assessment roll and
the Town of Eastchester assessment roll have been separately maintained, they
are both based on market values determined by the same firm that performed the
last Village-wide revaluation in 1966-1967.
e. A review of the Village Assessor’s
Annual Reports to the state shows that from 1996-2004 the Village failed to
ensure that all major improvements to existing structures were appropriately
assessed.
f. From 1995-2003, the construction cost
estimates for capital improvements in the Village totaled approximately
$127,000,000. Excluding the cost estimates related to the Avalon project and
projects at Lawrence Hospital and Concordia College, the cost estimates for
construction costs were approximately $100,000,000 and presumably the final,
actual costs for these capital improvements exceeded these estimates.
g. From 1996-2004, excluding the assessment
increases related to the Avalon Project, there were 37 assessment increases on
the Village assessment rolls which resulted in an increase of $343,865.
h. From 1996-2004, excluding the assessment
increases related to the Avalon project, there were over 600 assessment
increases on the Town of Eastchester’s assessment rolls for parcels of property
located in the Village of Bronxville.
i. Although the Village and Town maintain
separate and district assessment rolls, a review of the Town Assessor’s Annual
Reports to the State for 1996-2004 are very instructive in demonstrating the
enormity of the Village’s failure to appropriately assess major improvements
during this time period. If the Village of Bronxville had reassessed the same
parcels of property that the Town of Eastchester did during the period 1996-2004
and had used the same percentage increase as that used by the Town, the
Village's assessment rolls would have increased by $4,664,208.
j. Redacted
k. The Real Property Cards which are the
only official reassessment records for each parcel of property in the Village
have been poorly maintained either negligently or intentionally.
l. In 1966-67 there was a Village-wide
revaluation program which provides an excellent precedent for the Village Board
adopting a revaluation program in 2005.
m. Mr.Balog has studied the effect of a
Village-wide reassessment on village property values and has discussed his study
with the Board. It is our understanding that this report confirms our belief
that many of the properties located in Lawrence Park are underassessed.
n. Mr. Balog estimates that the cost of
Village-wide assessment would be approximately $180,000 and his description of
what such a reassessment program would entail is very similar to the Village’s
reassessment program in 1966-1967.
o. The Village’s failure to assess major
improvements from 1996-2004 has exacerbated the problems with a tax base that
was already legally untenable due to the inequities which have developed since
the last time there was a Village-wide reassessment in 1966-1967.
Based on the above findings, we
have to conclude that the Village's assessment rolls have been irreparably
distorted. Since 1996 over 600 parcels of real property have been given
permanent tax breaks on millions of dollars worth of capital improvements at the
expense of those owners of parcels which were not improved during this secret
tax abatement program. In addition, going forward the resulting higher market
prices on these improved, yet underassessed parcels, will inevitably skew the
Equalization Rate for the Village and the Residential Assessment Ratio.
In order to remedy the inequities
caused by this failure to properly assess capital improvements and by the
passing of time since the last Village-wide revaluation, we believe that the
Village Board of Trustees must immediately adopt a program to revaluate the
assessments on all the residential and commercial properties in the Village and
to overhaul the present system of Real Property Cards. In adopting such a
program we also believe that someone other than Mr. Balog should be given the
job of running such a program. Based on his record as Village Assessor since
1996, we believe Mr. Balog has lost all creditability.
Given the personal conflicts of
interest of several members of the Board of Trustees with a program for a
Village-wide reassessment, we are cognizant of the fact that there is probably
little likelihood that the present members of the Village Board will be inclined
to adopt such a program. Accordingly, if within 30 days we do not hear from you
in writing that the Board has adopted a Village-wide reassessment program for
2005, we will pursue whatever legal remedies are available for restoring the
integrity and legality of the Village’s assessment roll.
Very truly yours,
Thomas C. Hutton
Elisabeth S. Harding