Potsdam property owners continue objections to town-wide reval

May 22—POTSDAM — Several property owners once again attended the Town Council meeting in May to voice their objections to their new assessments under the recent townwide property revaluation.
Last year, the town contracted GAR Associates, a firm based in Clifton Park, for $385,000 to perform a comprehensive revaluation of all assessed properties. The town had not conducted such a revaluation in 12 years, and officials hoped it would create a fairer and more up-to-date system of tax valuations.
However, for some residents, the reassessment resulted in property values increasing by as much as 50% to 100% compared to the previous year.
Although the assessments themselves do not automatically translate to higher tax bills, roughly a third of the town's parcels saw increased values from the GAR-led revaluation. These increases are expected to result in higher tax payments for many property owners when the town sets its new tax rate.
Potsdam's Grievance Day is scheduled for May 27, with three sessions: 10 a.m. to noon, 1 to 4 p.m., and 5 to 8 p.m. Property owners who wish to formally contest their new valuations can attend any of the sessions and can bring photographs or appraisals to support their case.
At the May 13 Town Board meeting, several residents criticized what they saw as poor work by GAR.
Fred Stone, who lives at the corner of May and Reagan Road, argued that GAR appeared to have based its assessment of his property almost entirely on square footage. His 65-year-old raised ranch was valued at $335,000, just $10,000 less than a nearby newly built ranch home, despite being only 36 square feet smaller.
Stone noted that, even accounting for the town's equalization rate rising to 100% this year, his property's assessment still increased by 59%. He questioned how his older, less modernized home could be appraised so closely to a newer one.
"There are a lot of errors in this assessment. And it's affecting people across this township and in the village. GAR did a poor job," Stone said.
John Burke, a county legislator and local property owner, echoed Stone's frustrations, particularly criticizing GAR's use of dissimilar properties as comparables in assessing his lot.
Other residents also challenged the accuracy of GAR's appraisals, saying the listed conditions of their properties did not reflect reality.
Property owner Eric Backus emphasized the need for transparency in GAR's methodology.
"One of the biggest challenges with the assessment at this point is that the consultant that was hired did not provide a clear and open understanding of the process in which they were using to do the reassessment. And I think that disclosure is required. It's not something that's optional," Backus said.
"If the board takes the assessment as is without clarity on that I believe that there are going to be, and I will already say to you, in addition to petitions, there are probably going to be legal activities," he added. "And I don't think it's worth the value of the time or the money of the town to be in the litigation over these issues."
Tracey Haggett-Sloan was sharply critical of the decision to hire GAR at all, arguing that the town could have used the same funds to hire a dozen assessors and performed the work internally.
"What you have done here by making this decision to hire this company is a disgrace. This was an improper, lazy and, dare I say, illegitimate process of a reevaluation. We relied on a company that I compared to being a parasite that lays in wait, latching on to any municipality that happens to fall below a certain level of assessment. Then they get their $385,000 from this township and they walk away scot-free," Haggett-Sloan said.
"What did we get? Not much. They did most of this process by satellite imagery drones or drive-by photos. Many of the people that have come to me have said, there's no data available. And I've looked and there's not one thing there," she said.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

8 hours ago

• Politico

Decoding the megabill's threat to clean energy

Presented by The fate of hundreds of clean energy projects hangs in the balance as House and Senate lawmakers negotiate just how far they are willing to go to bulldoze Biden-era tax credits ahead of a self-imposed July 4 deadline. In a new POLITICO analysis, Kelsey Tamborrino and Jessie Blaeser identified 794 imperiled wind farms, solar plants, battery storage facilities and other planned clean electricity generation projects located in overwhelmingly Republican districts. The projects, which have not yet begun construction, could be at risk of losing two critical tax breaks if House lawmakers prevail in rolling back Democrats' 2022 climate law. While the Senate's competing version of President Donald Trump's megabill would soften the tax credit assault, hundreds of those projects may still be affected if they don't move fast enough to start construction — a tricky if not infeasible task. How the battle unfurls could have major implications for the nation's ability to tackle its share of climate pollution and meet an anticipated spike in power demand as more data centers and manufacturing facilities come online. Clean energy makes up the majority of new power capacity expected to be added to the nation's electric grid during the next five years, according to a POLITICO analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 'Now is not the time to be taking new generation off the grid, and especially new cheap generation off the grid,' Tom Taylor with research firm Atlas Public Policy said about clean energy. The details are crucialThe House bill aims to fulfill Trump's promise of rolling back what he calls former President Joe Biden's 'Green New Scam' by aggressively sunsetting the clean energy credits. It would require projects to begin construction within 60 days of the bill's passage and start operating by 2028 to qualify — a tall order that could be easily thwarted by factors outside a project sponsor's control, such as permitting or interconnection delays. The House bill offers an exception for nuclear facilities. But EIA's data shows only one project that could potentially be done in time to benefit — rendering the exemption largely inconsequential. The Senate version would keep the credits intact for certain power sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower and energy storage. For wind and solar, however, it would require projects to begin construction by the end of 2025 to receive the full credit and before 2028 for a partial credit. The slightly more relaxed approach to cutting clean energy credits could spare a minimum of 57 projects, POLITICO found, while still raising questions about the future of as many as 569 wind and solar initiatives. Clean power advocates are warning about the consequences of both versions of the bill, including some Republican lawmakers and GOP-led lobbying groups. But House conservative hard-liners are threatening to tank the bill entirely unless the Senate version more closely mirrors the House draft. (Other sections of the Senate bill are facing additional obstacles from the chamber's parliamentarian, but more on that below). All in all, the megabill battle could make for a dramatic July 4 weekend on Capitol Hill if it doesn't prove too heavy of a lift for Congress to meet Republican leaders' aggressive deadline. Thank goodness it's Friday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Arianna Skibell. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to askibell@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Alex Guillén breaks down how the Trump administration lost a court battle this week after it tried to roll back hundreds of millions of dollars in Biden-era climate funding. Power Centers Senate parliamentarian: Not so fast, y'all Major energy and climate components of Republicans' party-line bill could fall out in the coming days after the Senate parliamentarian ruled those provisions would run afoul of budget reconciliation rules, writes Andres Picon. The parliamentarian has advised that eight sections would not meet the strict budget-related requirements, including ones that would target Democrats' 2022 climate bill, repeal vehicle emissions rules and amend the National Environmental Policy Act to streamline certain permitting processes. The parliamentarian has yet to review the much-debated Senate Finance portion of the bill that seeks to unravel the Biden-era clean energy tax credits. Trump admin eyes Mojave Desert groundwaterThe Trump administration is contemplating endorsing a contentious proposal to pump ancient groundwater from beneath the Mojave Desert and sell it to parched customers in Arizona, write Annie Snider and Camille von Kaenel. The proposal from the Los Angeles-based water company Cadiz Inc. comes as the Colorado River water supply situation becomes increasingly dire. The waterway's flows have shrunk 20 percent since the turn of the century and climate scientists say it's not unreasonable to think that another 20 percent could be lost in the coming decades. Suits on suits: California AG is sued by his office California Attorney General Rob Bonta's decision to hire an outside law firm to handle a high-profile climate lawsuit has drawn its own legal challenge — from lawyers in his office, writes Lesley Clark. The labor union that represents attorneys in Bonta's office has filed a lawsuit, arguing the Democratic AG should not have enlisted an outside law firm in the state's lawsuit against some of the world's largest oil companies. In Other News Summer's first heatwave: A heat dome is about to bring extreme heat and humidity to more than 200 million people. Scientists warn: The world has three years left to limit warming below a critical threshold. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. Trump's actions to purge the federal workforce and budget threaten to undermine one of his goals: getting wildfires in the United States under control. The Supreme Court opened the door Friday for fuel producers to challenge California vehicle emissions standards in a decision that sparked a stinging rebuke from one of the court's liberal justices. The Trump administration is arguing that Congress' watchdog overstepped when it advised lawmakers they could not nullify California's clean vehicle waivers via the Congressional Review Act. That's it for today, folks. Thanks for reading, and have a great weekend!

Business Wire

9 hours ago

• Business Wire

Blackstone Completes CDN$7 Billion Equity Investment in Rogers in Partnership with Leading Canadian Institutional Investors

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Blackstone (NYSE: BX) has successfully closed its previously announced CDN$7 billion equity investment in Rogers Communications Inc. (TSX: RCI.A and RCI.B; NYSE: RCI). Under the terms of the transaction, funds managed by Blackstone Credit & Insurance ('BXCI') and leading Canadian institutional investors have acquired a non-controlling interest in a newly established subsidiary of Rogers that owns a portion of the company's wireless backhaul transport infrastructure. The Blackstone-led investor group includes Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPP Investments), Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (La Caisse), the Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP Investments), British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (BCI) and the Investment Management Corporation of Ontario (IMCO). Robert Horn, Global Head of Infrastructure & Asset Based Credit at Blackstone, said: 'We're thrilled to close this transaction with Rogers to further their growth and balance sheet objectives. This is another example of Blackstone providing flexible and efficient capital solutions for the world's leading corporations, while delivering what we believe is a highly differentiated opportunity for our investors.' Mark Rutledge, US Head of Infrastructure Services at Blackstone Credit & Insurance, added: 'Rogers' backhaul network is positioned to enable the powerful megatrends we see in mobile data usage. We are excited to support Rogers in its next phase of investment and growth.' BXCI's Infrastructure and Asset Based Credit platform manages over $90 billion and has over 70 investment professionals, among the largest in the asset-backed marketplace. About Blackstone Credit & Insurance Blackstone Credit & Insurance ('BXCI') is one of the world's leading credit investors. Our investments span the credit markets, including private investment grade, asset-based lending, public investment grade and high yield, sustainable resources, infrastructure debt, collateralized loan obligations, direct lending and opportunistic credit. We seek to generate attractive risk-adjusted returns for institutional and individual investors by offering companies capital needed to strengthen and grow their businesses. BXCI is also a leading provider of investment management services for insurers, helping those companies better deliver for policyholders through our world-class capabilities in investment grade private credit.

UPI

10 hours ago

• UPI

Supreme Court OKs challenge to California stricter emission standards

1 of 2 | Electric cars sit on a Tesla parking lot in Fremont, Calif. (May 2020). Fossil fuel companies can challenge California's stricter standards to reduce pollution from vehicles, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday. File Photo by Terry Schmitt/UPI | License Photo June 20 (UPI) -- Fossil fuel companies can challenge California setting stricter emissions standards for cars, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday. California has stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035, with a phased increase in ZEV requirements for model years 2026-2035. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a fleet-wide average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, with higher standards in the following years. In the 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that oil producers have legal standing to sue over California's clean car standards approved by the U.S. EPA. Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices. "This case concerns only standing, not the merits," Kavanaugh wrote in the 48-page opinion that included two dissents. "EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA's approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers' challenge to EPA's approval of the California regulations is evident." The Clean Air Act supersedes state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California. Other states can copy California's stricter standard. The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia. The EPA, when Barack Obama was president, granted a waiver for California, but President Trump partially withdrew it during his first term. When Joe Biden became president in 2021, the EPA reinstated the waiver with the tougher emissions. Last week, Trump signed a bi-partisan congressional resolution to rescind California's electric vehicle mandate. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called this move illegal and will sue over this order. "You couldn't buy any other car except an electric-powered car, and in California, they have blackouts and brownouts," Trump said last week. "They don't have enough electricity right now to do the job. And, countrywide, you'd have to spend four trillion dollars to build the firing plants, charging plants." Gasoline and other liquid fuel producers and 17 Republic-led states sued, arguing California's regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars. The lead plaintiff was Diamond Alternative Energy, which sells renewable diesel, an alternative to traditional petroleum-derived diesel. Valero Energy Corp. also joined in the suit. Automakers were involved in the case. California lawyers argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff's injury. The EPA said consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California's mandate and hence the regulations wouldn't have an impact. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit. "If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?" Kavanaugh wrote. "The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell." Sotomayor and Jackson separately wrote the case may become moot. "I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below," Sotomayor wrote. She said she would have sent the case back to the lower court to look at the issue again. Jackson said her colleagues weren't applying the standing doctrine evenhandedly and it can erode public trust in judges. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent," Jackson wrote. The ruling does not prevent California and other states from enforcing standards, Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian. "The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money," Patton said. "While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself."