NORWICH – The Chenango County Board of Supervisors was questioned by one of its own this month regarding a decision made to pass up on a state grant opportunity that could have streamlined property tax assessments and collection procedures.
In a letter to fellow supervisors, Janice O’Shea, R-Coventry, said the county should reconsider applying for at least one of the grants offered via the New York State Office of Real Property Services. The letter was not shared with the media, but O’Shea said in a telephone conversation Tuesday that she felt “the opportunity should be revisited.”
Members of the Finance Committee discussed O’Shea’s request at a meeting April 3 and agreed to reply to her, reconfirming the county’s position on what they said was akin to “accepting carrots with strings attached.”
“I call this usurping local authority,” Treasurer William Evans said. “They (the state) use the word ‘streamlining’ which is a nice word.”
Chenango County is one of a small handful of counties that did not apply last year for a portion of a $3.6 million grant that was delivered to most counties in the state on March 20, including neighboring Otsego, Broome, Madison and Cortland. In awarding the money, Governor David Paterson said that “streamlining our property tax system ... will make local government more efficient and result in lower property taxes for New Yorkers over the long run.”
Property taxes in New York State are among the highest in the nation and the property tax system is complex. There are 1,128 different government entities providing assessments for taxpayers, compared to a national median of 85. In addition, New York is one of only three states that lacks statewide uniform assessment standards.
Chenango County declined participation because the grant was developed at the behest of the state’s Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness, which local officials opposed last year. One of the Commission’s suggestions is for counties to create an encompassing assessing function for its municipalities.
“It’s about serving local country folks,” the county’s treasurer said in a lengthy address to the committee last week. “This gives no thought to individuals who have the right under the Constitution to freedoms that our forefathers gave to us. Having local representation used to be what democracy was all about.”
“The assessment system is broken. The state needs to look at what other states are doing. Look at the list of exemptions over the last 20, 30, 40 years. There have been more and more. There are very legitimate exemptions, but the costs shift to the taxpayer every time you do that.”
Finance Chairman Lawrence Wilcox, R-Oxford, said he would prefer to study the county’s property tax assessment and collection procedures without a grant. “I hesitate to think that we want the state to do anything for us,” he said.
Though the committee ultimately agreed to stick to its guns, two other members voiced an interest in the grant opportunity. Richard Schlag, D-German, said it might “help us do a better job in the Real Property Tax Services office.” Wayne Outwater, R-Lincklaen said, “Maybe we shouldn’t close this. We could look at it later.”
Evans said the only grant opportunity from the Commission that the county would consider would be one that offered technology equipment. “We would jump on something that has to do with having computers on the counter for people to do searches,” he said.
Coventry’s property assessment function is conducted by a contractor who is also hired for the same purpose by the towns of Bainbridge and Afton, respectively. O’Shea said future plans are for the three municipalities to adopt a shared agreement that would assess all properties equally as one unit. Each town would proportionally pay the contractor’s salary and benefits.
“This isn’t anything we are doing soon. Maybe by 2011,” she said.
The Finance Committee opposed the Commission’s outreach last year in a May 14 letter to former Gov. Eliot Spitzer that was revealed to the media just last week. The letter stated that mandates cause “huge” increases and Medicare has “crushed county budgets and services.” The cost for Medicaid for the indigent currently consumes about 50 percent of local tax dollars.
The letter further stated that the cost of special children’s programming should be born by the education department, not the county, and the comptroller had increased the contribution rates charged employers ten-fold, “while at the same time realizing huge financial returns to the retirement system through improved market conditions.”
“If you wish to provide property tax relief, assume the entire cost of those programs, pass those savings on to local government, as we will take care of the rest (local services),” the letter concluded.