Two decades ago, the system of taxation in the Hilltowns was badly skewed. Hilltown residents burned their tax bills in front of the Knox Town Hall. The Hilltowners were as hot as the flames in their burn barrel. Some were paying more than their fair share and they weren’t going to take it anymore.

There was an uprising when an outside firm was hired to set property values. Farmers were particularly upset that their land was going to be appraised at building-lot prices. Town hall meetings in Berne and Knox were packed for many months. When election time came, some board members lost their seats.

But some courageous and sensible town officials stayed the course. Property revaluation was completed in Berne, Knox, and Rensselaerville. Westerlo, however, has not revalued properties for decades. The state-set equalization rate for Westerlo is less than 1 percent of full-market value; this leaves newcomers with an unbelievably unfair tax burden.

Unlike most states, New York has no law requiring revaluation at certain intervals — international standards say there should be a review every six years.

Coming out of the pandemic — with an unprecedented infusion of support for state and local governments from the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan — New York State has a chance to rebuild its dysfunctional property assessment system in a way that is better.

Local village, town, county, school, and public library budgets all rest on the foundation of property taxes. They should be assessed fairly. Currently, the state has a patchwork of assessment systems and methods with no coherent oversight or teeth to ensure compliance.

Turning our local lens on Guilderland this week, reporter Sean Mulkerrin has covered the latest in a court battle between the town of Guilderland and Crossgates Mall, which is seeking to reduce its assessment by nearly half.

Crossgates has gotten the town to agree to a confidentiality pact; the judge overseeing the case has yet to sign off on the protective order.

The pact would ensure that either side could designate as confidential any documents filed or testimony given in connection with the case and, after the conclusion of the proceeding, the town and Pyramid would have 60 days to destroy all the confidential information shared between them. 

Crossgates, beginning in 1993, has repeatedly sued the town to lower its assessment but the matter has taken on more urgency with retail losses caused by the pandemic.

Crossgates’ secrecy about its worth is a perfect example of why the state needs a law with enforcement teeth.

Guilderland completed a town-wide property revaluation in 2019, the first since 2005. Guilderland, in 2017, had experienced a huge drop in its state-set equalization rate, which resulted in steep tax increases for residents on the edges of town with property in other school districts.

We commended the town on this page in 2017 for appealing the equalization rate. The assessor at the time, Karen VanWagenen, said she pursued the appeal because the dramatic drop hurt the town’s most vulnerable residents — those who get age, agriculture, veteran, and business exemptions.

While the town’s appeal was unsuccessful, it laid bare the problems with the current state system.

At the 2017 hearing, each of the three members on the state’s Office of Real Property Tax Service Board conceded the state’s system was flawed.

Guilderland was represented at the hearing by Laurence Farbstein, president of Industrial & Utility Valuation Consultants. He argued that assessments should be made countywide and that the current system of small, random sampling can lead to inaccuracies.

Guilderland’s commercial sample in 2017 was based on just five properties: Stuyvesant Plaza, the Hampton Inn, and three apartment complexes.

“There is a disconnect,” Farbstein said. When regional trends show a 1-percent adjustment factor, he said, it makes no sense that Guilderland’s commercial properties were valued at $935 million in 2015 and $1.26 billion in 2017 — an increase of 35 percent. “Either the trend bears no relationship to what’s happening in a community or … the selection process and the way the properties are chosen have skewed the numbers,” Farbstein said.

In responding for the state, Paul Miller noted that the town of Guilderland includes Crossgates Mall. He said that, at one time, “20 percent of retail in the Capital District was going through that mall.” Miller said further that, since the owner of that property won’t provide data, “we have to select other property.”

To ignore Guilderland’s major commercial center simply because the owners of Crossgates Mall won’t cooperate, clearly highlights the problem: New York needs a state law with enforcement teeth.

Steve Beals, director of the Valuation Service Data Bureau, responded, “We don’t have the resources to do appraisals every single year. That’s why we do trending. Again, it can cause issues.”

Beside the problem of no enforcement mechanism, the state needs a common requirement for full-value assessment. Miller said that having New York allow each individual municipality to set its own assessment level was a “nightmare scenario.”

“We have 1,000 jurisdictions,” said Miller. “We let them set their own assessments. Most states have a single standard of assessment.”

“You raised some good points,” said Matthew Rand, referring to Guilderland’s arguments. Rand chaired the board conducting the 2017 hearing and concluded, “Everyone acknowledges it’s a flawed process but it’s the process we have right now in place … No one’s got the exact value of any of these properties, so it’s a little bit of a cat-and-mouse game as far as what should the value of those properties be.”

If the state board charged with hearing challenges from municipalities believes the process is flawed, it is past time for a change.

The state must do away with the “nightmare scenario” and must set a single standard of assessment that is enforced statewide. This will reduce the burden for the state workers who now deal with 1,000 different standards. It will save residents from skewed tax rolls and unequal burdens. It will take the heat off of local officials who, as in Westerlo, have not made the commitment to fairly assess property. In the end, it will guarantee that residents across the state are each paying their fair share of taxes.