Property values

The decentralized system of assessing property within Jefferson County has created a hodgepodge of practices leading to confusion and inequitable treatment of property owners.

The responsibility for maintaining reliable assessments on 57,000 parcels in the county is divided up now among the city of Watertown and 22 towns in the county. However, political decisions by the taxing jurisdictions on funding levels, staffing policies and reassessment updates have produced a wide disparity of assessments as reflected in equalization rates.

An equalization rate is New York state's judgment that property within a particular jurisdiction is, on average, valued at that percentage of its full market value. The rates are used to adjust values to overcome assessing differences when dividing up county and school district tax obligations to calculate tax rates.

But the equalization rates range from a low of 26 in Worth with Lyme not much farther ahead at 33 to a high of 100 in Champion, Clayton, Ellisburg, LeRay, Orleans, Philadelphia and Wilna. In other words, identical property in Worth, Lyme and one of the other six towns could be assessed at three different levels with the owners paying three different county tax bills on it.

Equalization rates fall so low because towns fail to maintain up-to-date assessment rolls. Property in Worth hasn't been revalued since 1982; in Lyme and Hounsfield, with a rate of 57, since 1989. All other jurisdictions have undergone reassessments at least since 2001.

Property owners may mistakenly believe that lower assessments with their lower equalization rates work to their advantage. Lower equalization rates, though, can mean they pick up a disproportionate share of the county or school tax burden.

Ideally, an equalization rate would be 100 percent or a countywide across-the-board level of assessment with consistent procedures used to determine property values in all towns and the city, as pointed out in a study by CAMA Consultants on behalf of the county on the possibility of consolidating assessment services.

The study analyzed the costs and advantages of four options: maintaining the present system, shared services among two or more towns or countywide assessment. The last could be achieved by having all towns and the city contract with the county or by turning over all the responsibility to a countywide assessment department.

Operating and transitional costs for the four methods vary. A countywide department may meet with the most procedural obstacles since it will require a public referendum and likely meet with the greatest resistance from town or city officials reluctant to surrender control to the county. But that should not deter county officials. They should take the leadership and pursue the study. It should not become another wasted expense. Change is in order.

The study did not recommend any particular course. However, the goals should be a system that implements uniform assessing practices, regular reassessments and a consistent level of assessment that will establish equitable treatment among the 23 taxing jurisdictions and fairness for property owners within them.