VILLAGE OF HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK BOARD OF TRUSTEES PUBLIC HEARING NOVEMBER 1, 2016

Transcription

1 VILLAGE OF HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK BOARD OF TRUSTEES A Public Hearing was held by the Board of Trustees on Tuesday, November 1, 2016 at 7:33 p.m. in the Meeting Room, Municipal Building, 7 Maple Avenue. PRESENT: Mayor Peter Swiderski, Trustee Meg Walker, Trustee Nicola Armacost, Trustee Daniel Lemons, Trustee Walter Stugis, Village Manager Francis A. Frobel, Village Attorney Linda Whitehead, and Village Clerk Susan Maggiotto CITIZENS: Six (6). Mayor Swiderski declared the Board in session for the purpose of conducting a Public Hearing in accordance with the legal notice that appeared in the October 28, 2016 issue of The Rivertowns Enterprise to consider the advisability of adopting Proposed Local Law C of 2016 to terminate the Village s status as an assessing unit: Mayor Swiderski: I will read it. Be it enacted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, as follows: SECTION 1. Existing Chapter 7, entitled Assessor is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. New Chapter 7, entitled, Assessments, Real Property Tax is adopted to read as follows: Chapter 7. Assessments, Real Property Tax 7-1. Legislative intent. The intent of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson is to implement section 1402(3) of the Real Property Tax Law providing for the voluntary termination of the Village s status as an assessing unit, as provided in the Village Law and the Real Property Tax Law. It is also the intent of this local law to abolish the position of Assessor and to terminate any and all responsibility as provided by law for the review of the assessments of real property located within the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson Termination of Village as assessing unit.

2 Page On the effective date of this chapter, the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson shall cease to be an assessing unit Position of Assessor abolished. The position of Assessor of the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson is hereby abolished Board of Assessment Review abolished. The Board of Assessment Review in the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson is hereby abolished Taxes to be levied. On or after the effective date of this chapter, taxes in the Village of Hastings-on- Hudson shall be levied on a copy of the applicable part of the assessment roll of the Town of Greenburgh, with the taxable status dates of such Town controlling for village purposes. SECTION 3. Within five days of the effective date of this local law, the Board of Trustees of the Village of Hastings-on-Hudson shall file a copy of such local law with the Clerk and Assessor of the Town of Greenburgh and with the Office of Real Property Tax Services. SECTION 4. Effective date; referendum. This local law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State, provided, however, that such local law is subject to permissive referendum and the Village Clerk shall forthwith proceed to notice such fact and conduct such referendum if required by petition. Mayor Swiderski: We have with us the Town Assessor if questions arise that she can answer, and I open for public comment. John Gonder, 153 James Street: Back in March 25, 2010, Betty Ryberg, the chairperson, Board of Assessment Review. I fought the Village and I was fortunate that they "considered your complaint of real property assessment and reduce your assessment to a very low value." That was the Village. Very nice way to do it, it worked great for me, and I am sure it worked great for many other citizens.

3 Page Then we came to 2015, and the Town of Greenburgh hired Tyler for reassessment of everyone. And this board, except one member which was Jeremiah Quinlan, voted for the resolution, if I am correct. Tyler came to my home. I invited him in, one of the first ones when you were telling us about it. I called him and I got him there early, in September. To make a long story short, they assessed me at $547,000. This woman, I showed her all kinds of problems: asbestos, lead paint, center heating, mold, water running in the garages and stuff. All she was interested in is square foot area. You could call or go over to the Town and fight them. So I called, and told them all the problems. It fell from $546,000. They gave me $402,300; so a $143,700 reduction just over the phone. I was still not happy with that. Went to the Greenburgh assessor's complaint in June There were two of us and it was kind of late. Edye was very busy, and I was taken by her assistant and told my house is worth nothing; it is a teardown. I wanted to present him stuff. He said, I saw the file you gave. He says, I am not interested, it is a teardown. They came up with $364,060. Now, I was trying to talk to them and they were in a rush. He says you got slopes. And I says I got rock ledge, a lot of ledge. I had three lots and an odd lot. He says, the land is worth that. But my land is worth about $65,000 per lot, three lots. You cannot build a two-family. There is a storm drain from the Village that got permission back in the '50s. I think you should keep your assessor. It worked for, 60 or 100 years. It worked very good, especially for old people like me. Because I know what you are after. You are after people like me to sell their home because they cannot afford the school taxes and whatnot. So I sell my house for nothing, and some young people, a couple, comes in, maybe one child or two children, and they want to remodel the home or rebuild it. They come for permits, and you want that. More revenue for you. After they enlarge it and whatnot you reassess them. That is how you are making your money; on the backs of the older people. I hope you will consider what I had to say. Susan Cooper, 378 Warburton Avenue: Politicians' of the use of the word "fairness" to describe the recent revaluation process begs the following question. How is it fair that with or without the reassessment we in Westchester still pay the highest property taxes in the country? Those people whose taxes went down may fell lucky, but their taxes are still too high. Since the political will existed to perform a revaluation after 60 years, then where is the political will to address the reasons behind these increases? For example, a local Village employee retired at 55 with a $74,000 pension, non state taxable, based on a 7.5- to 8 percent return on investment, regardless of the actual performance of the stock market or the fact that income has remained flat or declined for most Americans, including myself. This retiree also has free lifetime health care

4 Page and will not have to purchase supplemental after age of Medicare. When this scenario is repeated throughout the redundant layers of government village, town, county, state it seems clear that it is unsustainable. DiNapoli, state comptroller, recently said that costs for retiree health care for state and local entities is now over $68 billion for each entity. These costs are unfunded and they are not negotiable. Richard Ravitch, a prominent Democrat who helped resolve New York City's financial crisis in the '70s, is quoted in a recent New York Times article about Puerto Rico's financial crisis. He said, "Puerto Rico is just the most egregious example of borrowing to cover up deficits. New York City has $85 billion in retiree obligations all by itself. We have promised more than we can pay with confiscatory levels of taxation." So I would ask you and the politicians where, in the meaning of "confiscatory," do you find fairness? These costs, which keep property taxes so high, are contributing to socioeconomic and racial inequality. Long-term residents with low- or middle incomes are being forced out. Perhaps it is not intentional, but it is still amounts to a version of socioeconomic redlining. Manager Frobel, according to his contract as far as I know unless something has changed, has use of a car for business and personal use at taxpayer expense, with a total compensation package of over $200,000, including free lifetime health care. How is this fair? Can someone respond to these questions without diverting responsibility to Albany. Our Assemblyman Abinanti has some voting power in Albany and he objects to county workers contributing anything to their health care. How is this fair? I attended the Citizens Budgetary Advisory Board in the schools a few years ago. I asked, at one point, how many students would be able to afford a home here after graduation. A prominent member of the community replied that they could if they inherited one. How is this fair? John Kassebaum, 53 South Clinton Avenue: We moved here in My house has never been reassessed since the day it was built in We went through the reassessment process with the Town of Greenburgh, and you would not believe what the assessment went from and to. I filed a complaint the first go-round. They came back with a $50,000 reduction which, to me, was not significant enough. So I came back to Greenburgh and filed a secondary complaint. I have not heard anything from them since then. This was in June. It is my understanding that this reassessment will change the school tax amount, but no one seems to be able to tell me how much it is going to change to. Now we are going into a reassessment process very similar to what Greenburgh did, based on this change in the law in the Village of Hastings. The Village of Hastings said, according to this thing, "the taxes will

5 Page be levied on a copy of the applicable part of the assessment roll of the Town of Greenburgh while the taxable status dates of such town controlling for village purposes." What that says to me, in effect, is that the assessment process that Greenburgh is using is going to now be used for Hastings. And what is that assessment amount going to be? Is it going to be the same type of formula as Greenburgh is using for Hastings? If that is the case, then my taxes are going to double or triple or quadruple. Right now, they are significant enough because I am a retired person living on a pension and Social Security. I do not understand how I can live in Hastings if this change goes through, based on what I read here. The question I have is, what is the applicable part of the assessment for the Village of Hastings? Is it the same as the Town of Greenburgh school taxes? The formula is going to be the same? Mayor Swiderski: We will be using the new assessment roll, that's correct. Not the tax itself. Hastings village tax is 18 percent of your total tax bill. And the school is 70 percent. The school abides by Greenburgh's assessment. That is a new number that has been derived during the reassessment process. We are looking to adopt that roll as the Village roll. Mr. Kassebaum: So 18 percent of the new assessment will be Village tax. Mayor Swiderski: No. Your Village taxes will be computed based on that new assessment. If your school tax went up 30 percent your Village taxes are likely to go up in that vicinity. Mr. Kassebaum: Then it becomes untenable for me to live in the Village anymore. I am going to have to sell my house and move because the taxes right now are significant enough that they almost take up 50 percent of my income. So as far as I am concerned, this whole process that Greenburgh set up, where my taxes went from, let us say, $10,000 to $500,000 Village Manager Frobel: That is the value of the home, John, not your taxes. Mr. Kassebaum: But the taxes that are levied against that assessment Village Manager Frobel: Yes. Mr. Kassebaum: are going to change because the amount went from $10,000 to $500,000. Village Manager Frobel: The value went up, yes, John. But we do not know what the tax will be on that. Mr. Kassebaum: Do we have any idea what it will be?

6 Page Village Attorney Whitehead: The rates are not set yet. Village Manager Frobel: We do not know yet, John. If you want, I could spend time with you and go over it. Did you qualify for the phase-in of your taxes? Did your home value go up significantly? You would qualify for that. Were you aware of that? Mr. Kassebaum: Yes, I was aware of it but I do not believe when I investigated it that it was going to be something that was significant in my case to phase it in. Village Manager Frobel: Right. So you did not qualify for the phase-in. Mr. Kassebaum: No. Village Manager Frobel: OK. If you like, I could spend time with you personally and explain it to you and go over some of the numbers with you. Mr. Kassebaum: Yeah, I have not heard the second go-round with the complaint I filed. Edye McCarthy, Greenburgh Town Assessor: The appeals that took place in June, the Board of Assessment Review has finalized their determinations. The final letters of assessment changes or not changes will be mailed November 7. Everybody will be notified if there was an assessment change if they filed an appeal. Mr. Kassebaum: This is the package I put together and took up to the Town of Greenburgh. Town Assessor McCarthy: I believe it is. Mr. Kassebaum: OK, so November 7 I should hear something. Town Assessor McCarthy: The letters will be mailed November 7. Mr. Kassebaum: Yes, I would like to talk with you, Fran, about that. Village Manager Frobel: Sure, be happy to John. At your convenience, stop in. Mr. Kassebaum: I have not had anybody in the school since 1984, and I am paying school taxes that are a significant part of my income. If the assessment goes through for the Village as well as for the Town it is going to mean a significant increase in my taxes if the formula is changed based on the new assessment. But the new assessment went through the sky.

7 Page Steven Siebert, 113 Hamilton Avenue: I did not come to speak about this tonight, but is there not something we can do as a village because John is not the only person whom this is impacting? It seems like given all of our progressive values, there has got to be something we could do in terms of granting exemptions in particular cases. I know that means the rest of us will pick up something more, but the state of our village and our community and who we are seems to depend on that. I know we can say there are legal issues and we cannot do anything, but I would implore us to be creative in ways so we not lose people like John and others. There are too many people like that. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Swiderski asked for a motion to close the Public Hearing. CLOSE OF On MOTION of Trustee Armacost, SECONDED by Trustee Walker with a voice vote of all in favor, Mayor Swiderski closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m.