Expecting the Garden City school board to finally decide on whether or not they'd approve the consolidation of property Classes 2, 3 and 4 during last Tuesday's meeting, residents still left without definitive answers. Board members opted to defer their ruling yet again until they receive confirmation from the county and state on whether or not the consolidation would affect Class 1 owners.

Class 2 owners first approached the board last January, urging them to approve consolidation because they said they are "fed up" with having a disproportionately larger share of school taxes. The whole idea to consolidate Classes 2, 3 and 4 first came about when the Long Beach and East Williston school districts approved the change not too long ago.

Board members, who admitted they weren't aware they had the power to consolidate when first approached, referred the proposal to the Ad Hoc Committee on Budget Affairs, which unanimously recommended the board defer a decision until the countywide reassessment project is complete. Two committee members are Class 2 property owners. County officials as well as the district's in-house counsel also advised the board to do the same.

Class 2 owners asked the board to look more closely at their request. Board President Kenneth Monaghan notes the board agreed to do so and has spent an "enormous amount of time with Class 2 representatives."

The board extensively reviewed statistical information about every real estate transaction made in the village for Class 1 and 2 properties over the last three years with John Powell, assistant superintendent for Business and Finance. Members then agreed to defer their decision at a February board of education meeting to enable Class 2 owners to also review where homes trade in the village. Upon their review, Class 2 owners assumed the board was ready to make a decision at last Tuesday's meeting. But once again, members deferred decision.

Board Member Dr. Nancy Fredericks admitted, "I have a problem making an absolute decision with the current information before us. I cannot vote right now on consolidation. The factor weighing against consolidating Classes 2, 3 and 4 is whether or not it will affect Class 1 owners."

Board President Kenneth Monaghan agreed, saying, "How can I effectively argue this when I don't know if there will be an impact on Class 1 owners? If there is an impact, how can I take money from the pockets of Class 1 owners and give it to Class 2 property owners?"

Properties in Nassau County are divided into four property "classes" for the purpose of collecting school real estate taxes. Class 1 properties are residential homes; Class 2 properties are multi-family homes, including condominiums, apartments and co-ops; Class 3 properties are areas owned by utilities; and Class 4 properties are considered commercial. Nassau County is one of the few places in New York State, outside of New York City, that utilizes these different classes of ownership.

Last Tuesday's meeting enabled the board to review an updated analysis as a result of gathering more Class 2 data, meeting with Class 2 owners and providing them with the new data.

Richard Schrafel, president of the village's Estates Property Owners Association (Estates POA), urged the school board to heed the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendation. A Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) member argued that Class 2 owners are going to hold the proposed school budget hostage because a decision has not yet been made. "I suggest that if you allow these people to do that, others will. To hold this budget hostage is just wrong."

Peter Gall, a Class 2 owner who has met frequently with the school board, particularly Monaghan, thanked them for their hard work and cooperative response. Phillip Nolan, who lives on Hamilton Place, noted most Class 2 property owners are in their "pt" or post tuition years.

"I'm not saying we should pay less because we no longer have children in the school system but we shouldn't have to pay more either. We shouldn't pay more when in reality we're getting less."

The board received new information from the New York State Office of Real Property Assessment (ORPA). A base proportion, or "slice of the tax pie a given property class pays," Monaghan said, has been reduced by 25 percent for Class 2 owners and has been increased by 4 percent for Class 1 owners.

The board's analysis entailed compiling all sales for Class 1 and 2 where data was available for the 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01 years. It also determined school taxes paid on those residences during those years. Further, it adjusted the taxes to the current year by multiplying the taxes at sale by the increase of the last several years and made further adjustments for the prospective change in 2002-03, including the tax increase and the change in base proportions.

But like any analysis, Monaghan noted there are faults. Specifically, the board received less data about Class 2 than they did about Class 1. Further, Class 1 data is public while Class 2 is not; the taxes over the last three years can be updated but the Class 1 or 2 home price cannot; and much of the Class 2 data is on higher priced properties while there are more lower priced properties.

The board also noted that the proposed spending increase for 2002-03 is 8.5 percent although Monaghan emphasized that this figure has not yet been finalized. With reduced state funding, no Garden City School District fund balance or surplus and lower interest income, the 8.5 percent spending increase equals a 15.5 percent tax increase, he explained.

The impact these figures would have on Class 1 and Class 2 owners is as follows: Class 1 owners would see a 19.62 percent increase while Class 2 owners would see a 11.34 percent decrease, even after the 2002-03 increase. "This is good news for Class 2 owners," Monaghan said. "Class 1 owners, like myself, however, are going to feel this increase."

Lydia Staiano, who's also been meeting with Monaghan and currently pays $6,700 in school taxes, said the coalition, formed earlier this year and consisting of fed up Class 2 property owners who have threatened the board they'd sue if consolidation was not approved, "wholeheartedly" disagrees with the statistics Monaghan and others received from ORPA.

"This analysis shouldn't be used at all," she said. "We don't want to slap our Class 1 neighbors in the head and put the burden on them but we simply cannot be discriminated against any longer."

Nassau County's Reassessment Project

Calendar

Sept. 2000 - Contract signed with Cole Layer Trumble Company as result of a competitive proposal process.

Oct. 2000 - Image gathering began.

Feb. 2001 - Field data verification process began.

Summer/Fall 2001 - Property Owners received and reviewed Data Mailers. Requests for changes in descriptive information were returned to the Cole Layer Trumble Company.

Summer 2002 - Full disclosure notices to be mailed to property owners; informal review of values begins. .

Dec. 2002 - Mailing of Change of Assessment Notice to begin.

Jan. 2003 - Formal appeal process begins.

What is an assessment?

An assessment is a number having a direct relationship to the market value of a property. New York State law requires that assessments be maintained at a uniform percentage of market value.

Why are there four different classes of property?

The New York State Legislature created these classes to prevent major tax shifts from one property type to another.

The above information was obtained at www.mynassauproperty.com, Nassau County Assessor Charles O'Shea's website.