Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Changes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates assessor certification and reassessment frequency in charter review
Summary
Councilors debated Charter Commission proposals to address assessor qualifications and whether certification timelines and reassessment frequency should be changed; concerns focused on continuity of expertise, civil service constraints, and budget implications of reassessments.
Councilors spent a large portion of the pre‑agenda meeting on recommendations from the Charter Commission, particularly provisions related to the assessor’s qualifications and the frequency of property reassessments.
One commissioner questioned whether the New York State three‑year certification timeline for assessors is workable given the city’s two‑year elected terms, arguing that the city’s elected officeholders may never meet the state three‑year window during a two‑year term. Another commissioner recommended exploring whether the assessor or an assistant assessor could be made a civil‑service position or otherwise protected from political turnover to preserve institutional expertise.
Discussion included whether the charter should require a certified assessor within a specified time, the possibility of making some assessor duties civil‑service tasks, and the practical difficulty of finding certified assessors. Commissioners noted the last full city reassessment occurred in 2005 and discussed less costly alternatives such as staged neighborhood reviews or annual adjustments based on recent sales.
Legal and personnel implications were raised: one council member suggested obtaining legal guidance on whether the city can require elected officials to attain the certification faster than the state timeframe, and staff said the Charter Commission should consider the policy and civil service offices would need to be consulted on job classifications. Commissioners also discussed adding duties to the charter (risk and safety, IT) and the complications of embedding those in charter language.
No final changes were approved at the pre‑agenda meeting; councilors asked staff and the Charter Commission to continue work and provide clarifying language and legal advice for future public hearings.
