"I don’t fight fascists because I will win; I fight fascists because they're fascists." - Chris Hedges
Let's return to the August 14, 2008 public meeting conducted at the Town of Cuyler's Highway Garage. Of course, they didn't know it at the time, but the members of the Town of Cuyler Board were to learn a valuable lesson from the events surrounding the 2008 fiasco that unfolded: namely, whatever you do, don’t hold a public meeting in an attempt to justify to residents the case for performing an arbitrary town-wide property assessment revaluation. Here's what can (and did) happen: [see Exhibit 29 Page 1, Page 2]. Let's just say that subsequent to the public meeting that was held, the Cuyler Town Board ultimately determined that discretion was the better part of valor and threw out the town-wide property assessment revaluation. Homer (the town neighboring Cuyler) informed by the carnage described by the local newspaper, shortly followed suit: [see Exhibit 30].
Thus, it is fair to state that, if not the first to reject the prevailing status quo as it applies to the routine performance of town-wide property assessment revaluations, the citizens of Cuyler certainly can be considered in relatively recent times to be somewhere near the forefront of this movement. [See September 2022 article entitled: "Facing irate taxpayers, 2 Central NY towns drop efforts to keep property assessments current".]
Prior to the public meeting, and as well they should, the residents of Cuyler had experienced “sticker shock” upon receipt in the mail of their new assessment notices. So, convening many of these homeowners in the same room in an unsupportable attempt to legitimize the Town’s decision was an entirely problematic undertaking. Suffice it to say, the pitchforks were out* and the Town Board had sufficient premonition to make sure that the state police would be on hand. As the following Excel spreadsheet analysis identifies [Exhibit 30.1], 61% of non-business land and residential property owners would have lower assessments based on the application of the existing .7084 EQ rate in comparison with the results that would occur had the town-wide revaluation been accepted. By way of example, my assessment would have increased from $61,505 to $120,600.
(*The handout Judy and I provided to the audience at the onset of the meeting certainly didn't hurt the cause. Among other tidbits contained in the handout was an excerpt taken from a May 17, 2008 NEWS 10 NOW article chronicling the Town of Cicero's rejection of the town-wide revaluation performed in 2008 [see Exhibit 30.2]. In other words, there certainly was precedent for the action we were proposing.)
Lesson learned: In a newsletter mailed to Cuyler’s residents in 2014 (six years later), a one-sentence comment (buried deep within the text of the newsletter) indicated that the Town of Cuyler was only "considering" performing a revaluation. Then, without further comment and months later, the Town Board just went ahead and implemented it (the revaluation, that is) as a fait accompli!
Here’s the after-the-fact official notification I received: [Exhibit 31].
The first step available to a homeowner who wishes to contest his or her property assessment is to schedule a meeting with the town assessor. Although the Town of Cuyler Assessor at the time in question was William Bearup, the actual Town of Cuyler revaluation was subcontracted out to David Briggs. Judy and I met with David Briggs in April of 2014. We provided him with printouts (obtained from the Cortland County ORPTS database) of seven recent comparable sales transactions that were directly relevant to the assessment valuation of our residential property. According to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ORPTS publication entitled "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home," three such comparable properties would be sufficient for the purpose at hand: [Exhibit 32 Page 1, Page 2]. We also provided him with Excel spreadsheets [Excel Workbook 1] and an accompanying summary of our spreadsheet results: [Exhibit 33]. The aforementioned treatment supports an assessment reduction from $61,505 to $54,000. We asked Briggs to contact us if he found any problems with the properties we presented to him.
At our meeting, Briggs provided us with his computer-generated "State of New York - Real Property System Comparable Sales Report" (the data from which Briggs directly establishes our $71,000 assessment) and his "Briggs Appraisal Service"* report. Here are the datasheets for both reports and the text of the cover sheets accompanying the "Briggs Appraisal Service" report: [Exhibit 34, Exhibit 35 Page 1, Page 2, Exhibit 36 Page 1, Page 2]
Here’s the after-the-fact official notification I received: [Exhibit 31].
The first step available to a homeowner who wishes to contest his or her property assessment is to schedule a meeting with the town assessor. Although the Town of Cuyler Assessor at the time in question was William Bearup, the actual Town of Cuyler revaluation was subcontracted out to David Briggs. Judy and I met with David Briggs in April of 2014. We provided him with printouts (obtained from the Cortland County ORPTS database) of seven recent comparable sales transactions that were directly relevant to the assessment valuation of our residential property. According to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ORPTS publication entitled "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home," three such comparable properties would be sufficient for the purpose at hand: [Exhibit 32 Page 1, Page 2]. We also provided him with Excel spreadsheets [Excel Workbook 1] and an accompanying summary of our spreadsheet results: [Exhibit 33]. The aforementioned treatment supports an assessment reduction from $61,505 to $54,000. We asked Briggs to contact us if he found any problems with the properties we presented to him.
At our meeting, Briggs provided us with his computer-generated "State of New York - Real Property System Comparable Sales Report" (the data from which Briggs directly establishes our $71,000 assessment) and his "Briggs Appraisal Service"* report. Here are the datasheets for both reports and the text of the cover sheets accompanying the "Briggs Appraisal Service" report: [Exhibit 34, Exhibit 35 Page 1, Page 2, Exhibit 36 Page 1, Page 2]
(*By the way, Briggs Appraisal Service? His disclaimer notwithstanding, there is the potential for, or certainly the appearance of, a conflict of interest here! Why? Realistically (and regardless of whether this confluence of the assessor and appraiser functions is an accepted industry practice), the adjustment factors applied in an appraisal-style valuation approach are not readily verifiable for substantive credibility/consistency and will vary when conducted by two or more appraisers operating independently.)
Incorporating the data Briggs provided to us into our own data set, I sent the following emails/attachments to Briggs’ office within several days following our meeting: [Exhibit 37, Exhibit 38, Excel Workbook 2]. No response to these emails from Briggs was ever received, and this absence of a response should be judged in the context of whether there were any problems with the seven comparable properties we presented to Briggs as the bases for contesting our assessment. In any event, here is an extended summary of the methodological weaknesses inherent in Briggs’ approach: [Exhibit 39].
Roughly two weeks prior to Grievance Day and not yet having heard from Briggs, Judy placed a call to his office. Briggs informed Judy that, "based on condition," our assessment had been lowered. He would not identify the dollar amount of our assessment reduction. We found out later, only by accessing the county assessment records, that our assessment had been lowered, from $71,000 to $68,000. What Briggs also did not convey to Judy was that he had officially lowered the condition of our home from normal to fair. Such a reduction in condition would have called for a far more substantial reduction of our assessment than was represented by the $3,000 reduction Briggs eventually recorded. Why? The seven comparable recent sales transactions we presented to Briggs were based on a condition normal categorization. Condition (as underscored by the "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home" publication and as anyone familiar with assessment valuation knows) is a major input into the determination of assessment valuation. On the Cortland County ORPS database, our property had been classified as condition normal, and this is the condition basis we used in obtaining what we believed to be comparable recent sales transactions. We did not have this condition fair information prior to our eventual presentations made before the Cuyler Board of Assessment Review (BAR) or, subsequently, our Small Claims Assessment Review (SCAR) hearing. In view of the significance associated with Briggs’ omission of this information, there is only one reasonable interpretation associated with his failure to communicate this change in the status of our condition: To support Briggs’ higher assessment value than was warranted, his omission during his conversation with Judy was deliberate.
The following month (May 2014) we presented our case to the Cuyler BAR. Once again, we provided the Board members with the extensive comparable sales data and supplementary analyses that were provided to David Briggs. The only comments provided by the Board were the following two nuggets posed to us by Marty Young: 1. "Do you live there?" (meaning do we live in our home) and, 2. "Was the house really built in 1832?" (as stated by copies of the official records sitting right under Marty Young’s nose). Typical of the Cuyler BAR, our case was unanimously and officially dismissed without explanation -- no surprise there! [Exhibit 40]
Incorporating the data Briggs provided to us into our own data set, I sent the following emails/attachments to Briggs’ office within several days following our meeting: [Exhibit 37, Exhibit 38, Excel Workbook 2]. No response to these emails from Briggs was ever received, and this absence of a response should be judged in the context of whether there were any problems with the seven comparable properties we presented to Briggs as the bases for contesting our assessment. In any event, here is an extended summary of the methodological weaknesses inherent in Briggs’ approach: [Exhibit 39].
Roughly two weeks prior to Grievance Day and not yet having heard from Briggs, Judy placed a call to his office. Briggs informed Judy that, "based on condition," our assessment had been lowered. He would not identify the dollar amount of our assessment reduction. We found out later, only by accessing the county assessment records, that our assessment had been lowered, from $71,000 to $68,000. What Briggs also did not convey to Judy was that he had officially lowered the condition of our home from normal to fair. Such a reduction in condition would have called for a far more substantial reduction of our assessment than was represented by the $3,000 reduction Briggs eventually recorded. Why? The seven comparable recent sales transactions we presented to Briggs were based on a condition normal categorization. Condition (as underscored by the "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home" publication and as anyone familiar with assessment valuation knows) is a major input into the determination of assessment valuation. On the Cortland County ORPS database, our property had been classified as condition normal, and this is the condition basis we used in obtaining what we believed to be comparable recent sales transactions. We did not have this condition fair information prior to our eventual presentations made before the Cuyler Board of Assessment Review (BAR) or, subsequently, our Small Claims Assessment Review (SCAR) hearing. In view of the significance associated with Briggs’ omission of this information, there is only one reasonable interpretation associated with his failure to communicate this change in the status of our condition: To support Briggs’ higher assessment value than was warranted, his omission during his conversation with Judy was deliberate.
The following month (May 2014) we presented our case to the Cuyler BAR. Once again, we provided the Board members with the extensive comparable sales data and supplementary analyses that were provided to David Briggs. The only comments provided by the Board were the following two nuggets posed to us by Marty Young: 1. "Do you live there?" (meaning do we live in our home) and, 2. "Was the house really built in 1832?" (as stated by copies of the official records sitting right under Marty Young’s nose). Typical of the Cuyler BAR, our case was unanimously and officially dismissed without explanation -- no surprise there! [Exhibit 40]
The members of the Cuyler BAR are Wendy Custer (Cuyler Town Clerk), Nancy Corbin (Cuyler Town Board member), Marty Young, Michelle Stafford (Cuyler Town Board member), and James Custer.
The following passage has been excerpted from the New York State Real Property Tax statutes (N.Y. RPT. LAW § 523 : NY Code - Section 523: Board of assessment review): "The board of assessment review shall consist of not less than three nor more than five members appointed by the legislative body of the local government or village. Members shall have a knowledge of property values in the local government or village. Neither the assessor nor any member of his or her staff may be appointed to the board of assessment review. A majority of such board shall consist of members who are not officers or employees of the local government or village." [Italics added for emphasis] In other words, the composition of the Cuyler BAR is not in compliance with New York State statutes. (On the Cuyler Covfefe page of this website, and for your entertainment pleasure, scroll down the page to view the Cuyler BAR membership). Does it matter with respect to the Cuyler BAR’s statutory ability to render decisions affecting taxpayers? Apparently not: [Exhibit 41 Page 1, Page 2; Exhibit 42; Exhibit 43; Exhibit 44]. Nothing new in this regard; after all, studies have concluded that the worst government in the United States is local government (see: New York Intelligencer).
So what’s next? If a homeowner feels that a local board of assessment review decision has been rendered unfairly, that homeowner has two mutually exclusive avenues for redress. The homeowner can appeal the local board of assessment review decision under the auspices of a Small Claims Assessment Review (SCAR) hearing, or the homeowner can bring his or her case before the local Supreme Court. A $375 fee is assessed for a Supreme Court filing. In addition, a property appraisal must be performed and, for all practical purposes, an attorney must be retained. Accordingly, the property owner can reasonably expect to incur costs in the area of $5,000 - $10,000 if this avenue is pursued. The costs involved explain why such cases almost exclusively are filed by corporations (and, in the rarest of instances, by wealthy individuals).
A $30 fee accompanies the filing of a SCAR petition. For the average homeowner, the low cost associated with the SCAR option certainly would appear to make the most economic sense; but, appearances can be deceiving. The hearing officers assigned to SCAR cases generally are unabashedly biased in favor of the assessors, don’t know and couldn’t care less about the guidelines by which to judge the homeowner’s argument for an assessment reduction, and are accountable to no one for their decisions. By way of support for the preceding premises, see: [Exhibit 45 Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4]. It should come as no surprise that my request for a qualified SCAR hearing officer was rejected. Since I was not aware of the last time a circus visited this area, I thought a SCAR hearing would be the next best thing: [Exhibit 46 Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4].
And now, the moment you’ve all been waiting for -- the actual SCAR hearing (July 30th, 2014)! Here’s a transcript of the meeting accompanied by the actual recording: [Exhibit 47 - Transcript of SCAR Hearing; Exhibit 48 - 2014 SCAR Recording Part 1, Exhibit 49 - 2014 SCAR Recording Part 2].
Some "highlights" of the SCAR hearing (attended by the Hearing Officer, Warren Resseguie; the Cuyler Assessor, William Bearup; David Briggs; and myself):
~ Notwithstanding my presentation of a former assessor’s reduction of our home’s assessment valuation based on the documented need for roof replacement, the Hearing Officer doesn’t understand (among a great many other things) how the presence of a structural deficiency (such as the documented need for a new roof) lowers the market/appraisal value of a home. Just to make sure there’s no misunderstanding, the roof in question has not been replaced (and Briggs was provided current photographs in our April 2014 meeting with him in support of this fact).
~ The Hearing Officer, the Assessor, and David Briggs are completely unaware of (and, it is obvious, couldn’t care less about) the guidelines governing a homeowner’s presentation of support for his or her case.
~ According to David Briggs, the computer-generated revaluation result ("State of New York - Real Property System Comparable Sales Report") must always be considered to be correct. The absurdity of such a representation (particularly in the context of a formal proceeding) cannot be understated. If correct, it would mean that there can never be a legitimate basis for a homeowner’s grieving of his or her property assessment if that basis diverges from the result obtained by the Assessor’s computer-generated re-valuation result.
~ On the subject of the computer-generated revaluation result, David Briggs demonstrates during the hearing that he recognizes the terminology associated with a reference to a multiple regression model (which Briggs maintains is applied by the computer-generated revaluation procedure), but terminological recognition clearly is the limit to his understanding in this area.
~ David Briggs maintains he entered the majority of Cuyler’s homes in the performance of this town-wide property revaluation; but, when challenged on this representation, he does not (cannot) provide documented support for this assertion. Briggs and the Hearing Officer use my refusal to allow Briggs to enter my home as a reason to dismiss the validity of my presentation. Of course, Briggs was provided extensive and current photographic evidence (during our April 2014 meeting) of our home’s structural deficiencies. Moreover, our experience in this area (a home inspection by Julie Ray, a former Cuyler Assessor) has revealed that such an accommodation is pointless. In this regard, the following passages have been excerpted/repeated from the April 2002 "Past As Prologue" section of our website:
~ William Bearup appears to know how to shake his head and to grimace from time to time, but is otherwise mute during the course of the hearing. If you’ve seen the movie "Sling Blade," Bearup’s demeanor brings the movie’s main character, Carl, to mind.
The following passage has been excerpted from the New York State Real Property Tax statutes (N.Y. RPT. LAW § 523 : NY Code - Section 523: Board of assessment review): "The board of assessment review shall consist of not less than three nor more than five members appointed by the legislative body of the local government or village. Members shall have a knowledge of property values in the local government or village. Neither the assessor nor any member of his or her staff may be appointed to the board of assessment review. A majority of such board shall consist of members who are not officers or employees of the local government or village." [Italics added for emphasis] In other words, the composition of the Cuyler BAR is not in compliance with New York State statutes. (On the Cuyler Covfefe page of this website, and for your entertainment pleasure, scroll down the page to view the Cuyler BAR membership). Does it matter with respect to the Cuyler BAR’s statutory ability to render decisions affecting taxpayers? Apparently not: [Exhibit 41 Page 1, Page 2; Exhibit 42; Exhibit 43; Exhibit 44]. Nothing new in this regard; after all, studies have concluded that the worst government in the United States is local government (see: New York Intelligencer).
So what’s next? If a homeowner feels that a local board of assessment review decision has been rendered unfairly, that homeowner has two mutually exclusive avenues for redress. The homeowner can appeal the local board of assessment review decision under the auspices of a Small Claims Assessment Review (SCAR) hearing, or the homeowner can bring his or her case before the local Supreme Court. A $375 fee is assessed for a Supreme Court filing. In addition, a property appraisal must be performed and, for all practical purposes, an attorney must be retained. Accordingly, the property owner can reasonably expect to incur costs in the area of $5,000 - $10,000 if this avenue is pursued. The costs involved explain why such cases almost exclusively are filed by corporations (and, in the rarest of instances, by wealthy individuals).
A $30 fee accompanies the filing of a SCAR petition. For the average homeowner, the low cost associated with the SCAR option certainly would appear to make the most economic sense; but, appearances can be deceiving. The hearing officers assigned to SCAR cases generally are unabashedly biased in favor of the assessors, don’t know and couldn’t care less about the guidelines by which to judge the homeowner’s argument for an assessment reduction, and are accountable to no one for their decisions. By way of support for the preceding premises, see: [Exhibit 45 Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4]. It should come as no surprise that my request for a qualified SCAR hearing officer was rejected. Since I was not aware of the last time a circus visited this area, I thought a SCAR hearing would be the next best thing: [Exhibit 46 Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4].
And now, the moment you’ve all been waiting for -- the actual SCAR hearing (July 30th, 2014)! Here’s a transcript of the meeting accompanied by the actual recording: [Exhibit 47 - Transcript of SCAR Hearing; Exhibit 48 - 2014 SCAR Recording Part 1, Exhibit 49 - 2014 SCAR Recording Part 2].
Some "highlights" of the SCAR hearing (attended by the Hearing Officer, Warren Resseguie; the Cuyler Assessor, William Bearup; David Briggs; and myself):
~ Notwithstanding my presentation of a former assessor’s reduction of our home’s assessment valuation based on the documented need for roof replacement, the Hearing Officer doesn’t understand (among a great many other things) how the presence of a structural deficiency (such as the documented need for a new roof) lowers the market/appraisal value of a home. Just to make sure there’s no misunderstanding, the roof in question has not been replaced (and Briggs was provided current photographs in our April 2014 meeting with him in support of this fact).
~ The Hearing Officer, the Assessor, and David Briggs are completely unaware of (and, it is obvious, couldn’t care less about) the guidelines governing a homeowner’s presentation of support for his or her case.
~ According to David Briggs, the computer-generated revaluation result ("State of New York - Real Property System Comparable Sales Report") must always be considered to be correct. The absurdity of such a representation (particularly in the context of a formal proceeding) cannot be understated. If correct, it would mean that there can never be a legitimate basis for a homeowner’s grieving of his or her property assessment if that basis diverges from the result obtained by the Assessor’s computer-generated re-valuation result.
~ On the subject of the computer-generated revaluation result, David Briggs demonstrates during the hearing that he recognizes the terminology associated with a reference to a multiple regression model (which Briggs maintains is applied by the computer-generated revaluation procedure), but terminological recognition clearly is the limit to his understanding in this area.
~ David Briggs maintains he entered the majority of Cuyler’s homes in the performance of this town-wide property revaluation; but, when challenged on this representation, he does not (cannot) provide documented support for this assertion. Briggs and the Hearing Officer use my refusal to allow Briggs to enter my home as a reason to dismiss the validity of my presentation. Of course, Briggs was provided extensive and current photographic evidence (during our April 2014 meeting) of our home’s structural deficiencies. Moreover, our experience in this area (a home inspection by Julie Ray, a former Cuyler Assessor) has revealed that such an accommodation is pointless. In this regard, the following passages have been excerpted/repeated from the April 2002 "Past As Prologue" section of our website:
"At this juncture, Ms. Ray decided that an inspection of our home was in order … Ms. Ray acknowledged the validity of my approach and judged that a compelling case had been established … I stated that this basis for valuation would result in a total assessment for us of no higher than $50,700. I also stated that we were only seeking a total assessed value of $55,400. At that point, Ms. Ray represented that her only remaining task would be to verify the comparability of the several properties I had presented to her. She also indicated a willingness to lower our assessment on the tax rolls without informing the Cuyler BAR, but I insisted that a signed stipulation agreement must be presented before that body … Before the Cuyler BAR, Ms. Ray reversed the positions she had represented at the formal stipulation meeting conducted at our home. She justified her unwillingness to lower our assessment based on the introduction of a new tenet, namely, that Cortland County’s computer database does not represent an official data source. Since our analysis used these data and these data are unofficial, according to Ms. Ray’s statements before the Cuyler BAR, the results we obtained could not be considered valid and should be dismissed … Incredibly, one hour subsequent to making these pronouncements before Cuyler’s BAR members, Ms. Ray admitted to us in private that the assessment data in question are, in fact, official. She also admitted to us that she had made a mistake in not lowering our assessment, signing a stipulation agreement to this effect, and presenting this stipulation agreement to the BAR. When we asked her to inform the Cuyler BAR of her change of heart, she refused."
~ William Bearup appears to know how to shake his head and to grimace from time to time, but is otherwise mute during the course of the hearing. If you’ve seen the movie "Sling Blade," Bearup’s demeanor brings the movie’s main character, Carl, to mind.
Here’s the text of the presentation I made at the SCAR hearing: [Exhibit 51]. All representations I make within this presentation were accompanied by copious documentation, a significant amount of which has been referenced and provided above. In any event, here is a brief summary of my qualitative and quantitative supporting documentation: [Exhibit 52].
Here is the Hearing Officer’s verdict: [Exhibit 53 Page 1, Page 2]. In relation to the support I presented and David Briggs’ inability to contradict the soundness of this support (other than essentially to cite the infallibility of the computer-generated "State of New York - Real Property System Comparable Sales Report"), the superficiality of the treatment accorded by the Hearing Officer’s written decision speaks for itself. Even if the Hearing Officer’s conclusion (that both sides’ arguments had "pros and cons") is accepted at face value, the partial $3,000 assessment reduction (to $65,000) administered is biased in favor of the Assessor’s position -- hardly an even-handed treatment consistent with the supposed argument equivalence implied by the Hearing Officer's written statement. After all, half the difference between $68,000 and $54,000 calls for a $7,000 reduction to $61,000. The kindest thing I can say about the Hearing Officer’s synopsis is that he certainly met my expectations.
Here is the Hearing Officer’s verdict: [Exhibit 53 Page 1, Page 2]. In relation to the support I presented and David Briggs’ inability to contradict the soundness of this support (other than essentially to cite the infallibility of the computer-generated "State of New York - Real Property System Comparable Sales Report"), the superficiality of the treatment accorded by the Hearing Officer’s written decision speaks for itself. Even if the Hearing Officer’s conclusion (that both sides’ arguments had "pros and cons") is accepted at face value, the partial $3,000 assessment reduction (to $65,000) administered is biased in favor of the Assessor’s position -- hardly an even-handed treatment consistent with the supposed argument equivalence implied by the Hearing Officer's written statement. After all, half the difference between $68,000 and $54,000 calls for a $7,000 reduction to $61,000. The kindest thing I can say about the Hearing Officer’s synopsis is that he certainly met my expectations.