The following is Nassau County Legislator Richard Nicolello's statement reassessment:

The Nassau County Legislature recently approved, by a vote of 14 to 4, the settlement of a lawsuit that challenged the county's residential system. The vote will have far-reaching consequences for every taxpayer in the county. I voted no becuase I believe the stipulation of settlement to be a hasty, ill-conceived "rush to judgment" that is going to result in hardship to many county residents. In particular, some residents on fixed and limited incomes, such as seniors and young couples, could be hit hard merely because of the type of house or location of the community in which they live. I believe this to be unconscionable.

By approving the stipulation of settlement, the Legislature has relinquished its power to appove a contractor to do the assessment or control its cost. The Legislature agreed to a "Fair Market Value" approach to assessment without any expert testimony or presentation as to how this will affect taxpayers in Nassau. The Legislature agreed to the stipulation without any "phase-in." Moreover, the method of assessment chosen will avoid a legal restriction that would have "capped" the amount of increase of anyone's assessment in any given year. This means that for homeowners whose assessment goes up, the increase will hit all at once in 2004.

Virtually everyone agrees that there are problems and inequities in the county's assessment system that must be addressed. In fact, the Board of assessors had already voted to proceed with some form of reassessment. By agreeing to the stipulation, the Legislature effectively gave up its right to control this process.

The case that was settled was brought by the ACLU and joined by the Clinton Justice Department. Lawyers for the county assessor's office spent a considerable sum preparing for trial. In fact, the county had won similar lawsuits in the past. On the eve of trial, the lawyers and county assessor presented to the Legislature a settlement for approval. Despite the fact that the Legislature was not a party to the suit and was not respresented by counsel, the judge wanted us to agree to the settlement. The settlement was presented to us as an "emergency." There was no real notice to the public, and no real participation in the hearing by Nassau residents. Other than the presentation by the county assessor's attorneys, there was no expert testimony, no comprehensive analysis, no evidence to show what the effect would be on Nassau's residents.

Armed with little or no accurate information, without public hearings or comment, the Legislature was asked to take one of the most significant actions that we will ever take. We were asked to change the formula by which county homeowners are assessed without any real information as to what the effect would be.

The Legislature's real power in the process comes from its ability to approve the expenditure of funds and hiring of a contractor to do the reassessment. If we don't like the contractor, or oppose the method of assessement selected, or disagree with the cost, we can say no. The stipulation effectively removes this power. It states that the "County shall approve the contractor" selected by the assessor. Thus, we must approve the contractor selected by the assessor. If we don't, the judge has the power to punish the county until we do what he wants us to do. In effect, the judge has now taken our duties as your elected representatives.

As stated earlier, the stipulation requires that "Fair Market Value" be the new basis of assessment. No detailed information was provided as to how this will affect any particular homeowner. However, the study done by Newsday, which the assessor indicates is accurate, does provide some indication of the effect. Not surprisingly, some North Shore communities appear to be under-assessed. What is surprising is that according to the Newsday report and other information I have seen, the most under-assessed areas include communities such as New Hyde Park, Williston Park, East Williston, Floral Park, Mineola and, to a lesser extent, Carle Place. If this information is accurate, many in these communities will see an increase in assessment.

Those living in older dwellings will probably see a significant increase in assessment. The experts I have spoken to define older dwellings as those that pre-date World War II. Thus, some homeowners, through no fault of their own, are going to see a significant increase in county taxes because their government on an emergency basis changed the rules. This is manifestly unfair.

The stipulation requires that the reassessment be completed by 2003, with the new assessment system to take effect in 2004. Every residential property in the county will be visited. Inspectors will seek permission to enter at least 15-20 percent of the homes. The cost of the reassessment is estimated in the range of $40 to $50 million. Moreover, there will be an ongoing expense in keeping the "fair market value" current.

The importance of selecting the right contractor is illustrated by problems created when we reassessed commercial properties in 1986. By all accounts, the out-of-state contractor did a poor job of evaluating the commercial properties. As a result, over the last ten years, the county has been forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds on commercial claims. In fact, 87 percent of every dollar spent for refunds goes to the commercial class. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the number of commercial and residential grievances is leveling off due to record property values. This is probably why the association of lawyers that handle these cases favors reassessment.

The stipulation does not end a case pending against the county to recover damages allegedly sustained by "over-assessed" areas. The stipulation also does not end a lawsuit brought on behalf of the commercial class, in which it is claimed that the commercial class pays too much in taxes as compared to the residential class. This suit by commercial interests, if successful, could result in significant increases in assessment and taxes for residents countywide.

I voted against the stipulation of settlement and broke ranks with many of my colleagues in government. I did so because I am convinced that the rush to reassess is bad public policy, which will place a greater tax burden on many who can ill afford it. Nevertheless, as the reassessment process continues, I will continue to work for fair implementation and greater protection for those who cannot afford an increase in their assessment.