Quoted from TippyCanoe

a reval should occur every 6 years.

When the reval was completed, the town was eligible for an annual state grant to pay for keeping the tax
values up to date.  The Tomassone administration rejected the state grant because it did not believe in
the reval to begin with.    My understanding is that the town would have to go through a whole NEW
reval process (at +$750.000 cost) to qualify again.    
So basically, the Tomassone administration sabotaged the reval by NOT doing the town's part of the
reval work  -- a part outlined in the contract with GAR; and then, the Tomassone administration
guaranteed that the reval would be obsolete from Day 1 ... by refusing a state grant to fund the
continual up dating of property values  (up or down .. depending on market values).

We should all be glad that we fired the Tomassone team last November.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

When the reval was completed, the town was eligible for an annual state grant to pay for keeping the tax
values up to date.  The Tomassone administration rejected the state grant because it did not believe in
the reval to begin with.    My understanding is that the town would have to go through a whole NEW
reval process (at +$750.000 cost) to qualify again.    
So basically, the Tomassone administration sabotaged the reval by NOT doing the town's part of the
reval work  -- a part outlined in the contract with GAR; and then, the Tomassone administration
guaranteed that the reval would be obsolete from Day 1 ... by refusing a state grant to fund the
continual up dating of property values  (up or down .. depending on market values).

We should all be glad that we fired the Tomassone team last November.

it would be the timely filing of such by the clerks office to do that? rejected it or filed late?......and as for the government and it's
'valuation'.....what an F'EN joke........

Rotterdam's reval was agreed on 'before' tommasone took office. It was a done deal! Although I agree that revals should be done periodically, this last one 'killed' NYS. Why? Ask Mr. Cuomo!!!!! He had his hand in this one.

The state KNEW that the housing bubble was about to burst. They KNEW that homes were over valued. What a great time to do a reval so the state could do yet another money grab.

Remember.....cuomo was all part of this housing bubble and what your taxes are today. EVERYONE is paying taxes on homes that in no way reflect it's value!!!

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

When the reval was completed, the town was eligible for an annual state grant to pay for keeping the tax
values up to date.  The Tomassone administration rejected the state grant because it did not believe in
the reval to begin with.    My understanding is that the town would have to go through a whole NEW
reval process (at +$750.000 cost) to qualify again.    
So basically, the Tomassone administration sabotaged the reval by NOT doing the town's part of the
reval work  -- a part outlined in the contract with GAR; and then, the Tomassone administration
guaranteed that the reval would be obsolete from Day 1 ... by refusing a state grant to fund the
continual up dating of property values  (up or down .. depending on market values).

We should all be glad that we fired the Tomassone team last November.

So, of course, this administration will step up and do the right thing.  Have confidence.

Quoted from senders

it would be the timely filing of such by the clerks office to do that? rejected it or filed late?......and as for the government and it's
'valuation'.....what an F'EN joke........

It was not the clerk's responsibility or fault.  That is not the work of the Clerk's Office .. but rather of
the Assessor's Office and the Supervisor's Office  --- in this case Tomassone's office.
      The Assessor and the Supervisor  BOTH had to
"sign off"that they had REVIEWED   the reval work that GAR did  .. and were supposed to look for "problems" ..such as those properties that are part in Rotterdam and part in the City (as an example).  The town had up to 1 calendar year to review the work and send back any "problems" to GAR -- to be
corrected.  To my knowledge,   GAR delivered the paperwork .. it was put in a storeroom .. and never
reviewed and when the year was up .. the town officials "signed off" on the reval.

and........what was/is next????? I'm listening

Is this the paperwork that supposedly disappeared?

who is in charge of the filing? either in the building or somewhere else?.......there are ENOUGH gumbas around to know what the hell is going on.....
please.....hatfields and mccoys.......take your flannel shirts off and your doc martins off and get to business already......do I hear banjos?????

there used to be talk of the 'godfather'.....I think it was more like a 'godmother'.......

The contract for the Reval was approved and signed in the waning months of the Paolino Administration.

The actual  Reval work was done DURING the Tomassone administration.

There isn't much that the current administration can do to UNDO the mistake or failure or whatever
you want to call it of the past administration ... the contract with GAR is done --- complete -- finished.
The town already turned down the state grant to keep the tax rolls up to date.    So the only way to
fix the reval "problem" would be to do another reval.     Given the cost -- I am not publicly saying I am
for or against that ... just saying that is the only way to fix it.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The contract for the Reval was approved and signed in the waning months of the Paolino Administration.

The actual  Reval work was done DURING the Tomassone administration.

There isn't much that the current administration can do to UNDO the mistake or failure or whatever
you want to call it of the past administration ... the contract with GAR is done --- complete -- finished.
The town already turned down the state grant to keep the tax rolls up to date.    So the only way to
fix the reval "problem" would be to do another reval.     Given the cost -- I am not publicly saying I am
for or against that ... just saying that is the only way to fix it.

Gotcha.

My bet is this administration doesn't "fix" the problem, just lets it fester - leave it for someone else.

they didn't want the state to dictate to the town something that should have been done a generation and a-half ago....so here we are now....close to the
present......and the future is still coming......so what's next?

Quoted from 147

Gotcha.

My bet is this administration doesn't "fix" the problem, just lets it fester - leave it for someone else.

Let's see .. you folks say that a reval is needed .. yet when I ran in 2005  (the reval contract was
approved during the campaign) ... everyone on the "other side" was throwing mud at me and my
running mates for supporting the reval.
I know I was right in supporting the reval ... and I understand that some politicians will oppose
something just to win votes.    What I don't get is .. who did all you folks vote for ????   If you were
for the reval .. and wanted it done right ...  you know who you should have voted for,

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Let's see .. you folks say that a reval is needed .. yet when I ran in 2005  (the reval contract was
approved during the campaign) ... everyone on the "other side" was throwing mud at me and my
running mates for supporting the reval.
I know I was right in supporting the reval ... and I understand that some politicians will oppose
something just to win votes.    What I don't get is .. who did all you folks vote for ????   If you were
for the reval .. and wanted it done right ...  you know who you should have voted for,

The point is, nobody WANTED a reval - it was mandated, and then ordered by Paolino. It should have been done YEARS previous. It wasn't. Then when it was done, it was done under questionable terms/circumstances, at the peak of the housing market.

Now, it can't be, and won't be re-done (yet) at the bottom of the market, as it would put many municipalities over their constitutional tax limit.

We just want it done RIGHT, and FAIR.

Quoted from 147

The point is, nobody WANTED a reval - it was mandated, and then ordered by Paolino. It should have been done YEARS previous. It wasn't. Then when it was done, it was done under questionable terms/circumstances, at the peak of the housing market.

Now, it can't be, and won't be re-done (yet) at the bottom of the market, as it would put many municipalities over their constitutional tax limit.

We just want it done RIGHT, and FAIR.

I wanted it done right and fair .. and as much as it should have been done 50 years earlier and kept up
to date ... I was also pragmatic enough to say --- you can't change the past only the future.
I suppose if I had lied and obfuscated ... I would have won.   But in the long run, I'd rather be
straight with the people and remain a private citizen   -- then lie and have a fancy title.