The meeting included a discussion of assessments and the need for a citywide revaluation. Revaluations in Hudson have in the past been beset with agony and complaints from property owners who see their assessments rise and, although in theory this is not supposed to happen, see their property tax bills increase proportionately. It is recommended that a revaluation be done every five years. Hudson's last revaluation was done in 2019. The previous reval was done in 2011. This post from April 2019 gives some sense of the ordeal that is a reval: "Assessment Angst."
Kaszluga spoke of trending as a way to ease the huge increases in assessed value experienced with a revaluation. The following explanation of trending comes from a document published by the City of Philadelphia:
Trending is a mass assessment valuation methodology where a factor is applied to a group of properties to reflect any changes--increases or decreases--in property values since the last revaluation. Properties are grouped by location, property type, and style (for example, single, twin, row home, or small multi-family within residential category). Market values are compared to sale prices to develop the market trend factor. For example, a 1.05 trend factor would indicate that property values in a particular group have increased by 5% since they were last valued. A 0.95 trend factor would indicate that property values in a group have decreased by 5% since they were last valued.
In order to start trending, of course, Hudson needs a revaluation, the prospect of which strikes terror in the hearts of longtime homeowners. Nevertheless, a revaluation might correct some glaring problems with the current assessments. For example, the historic Charles Alger House, now on the market for $1.7 million (it was sold in September 2o23 for $1.65 million), is assessed at $490,000, while humbler houses just up the street have assessments of $580,000, $680,000, $626,000, $610,000, and $715,000.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
The biggest crime in Hudson.
ReplyDeletePfffh, it's the biggest crime in Greenport. We're the real victims here.
DeleteMy town is now assessing at 100% whereas your mismanaged city is trending towards 70%. The result of which has been that our school tax has gone up. Ironically, yours probably went down because of your mayor's spineless cowardice.
Meanwhile, Claverack is reassessing, or has already finished it. You'll get another school tax relief soon when their new assessments kicks in.
Hello Carole, as I explained at the budget meeting that the main reason for the $3,000 increase is to replace the laptop that I had purchased with my personal funds during Covid to be able to work remotely. I would also like to address Welcome Stranger again. I will give an example, if Union Jack owned a home assessed at $180,000 for many years and the residence had been renovated without the assessor being aware, until it was listed for sale or as a rental, the assessor can increase due to improvements. Welcome stranger comes into play when an assessor ONLY increases to the full sale price without any improvements. Now about the equalization rate, I was pleased with 71% for the last two years with the sales being much higher than the assessments. Now about reassessments, I work in Dutchess County, where I am in a reassessment program to stay at 100% with the help of trending for the last five years. An example of the trending numbers were as follows, 4%, 17%, 13%, 6%, 9% and waiting for 2026 numbers. I also did a reassessment in one of my Columbia County towns in 2024 to be at 100% and will be trending in 2026. The assessor cannot do a reassessment without government approval. Every municipality has a different opinion on this subject. I am happy to add that the newly appointed Real Property director may be making changes as to mandatory reassessments every five years along with trending. There will be many new and exciting changes coming. :)
DeleteThe Spark of Hudson pay less in taxes than working families who bought their homes at approximately the same time. But the Spark building is ~4 times larger (commercial / residential / not for profit?) and experienced far greater capital investment.
ReplyDeleteThis is not their fault. Surely they will pay their fair share of taxes when asked by the City... but just another example of the unfairness of infrequent tax re-assessments.
Tax re-assessments should be done on a fixed schedule, every 2 or 3 years, ideally using objective criteria and software. Or whatever the optimal point is between cost and fairness.
This way it is not political, more fair, and leads to efficient use of land and fair treatment between residents.
Kamal and Tom kicking this can down the road is perhaps their most egregious and cowardly (in)decision, and that is saying something. Recall that at the last re-assessment Tom assaulted/pushed John Friedman.
A triple example of bad government processes harming taxpayers.
~
As with all questions Hudson, there is a more optimal answer, and the state or another country or city has figured it out:
Operational playbook for a small city: do annual market value updates using mass appraisal and ratio studies, and complete a full field review on a 4–6 year cycle. New York’s technical guidance and IAAO materials provide templates and metrics, and many states offer aid to offset costs of cyclical reassessment.
https://www.tax.ny.gov/research/property/assess/reassess.htm
It is my strong belief that Ms. Kaszluga has, whether knowingly or not, supported the Mayor’s deeply troubling “Welcome Stranger Tax” — a policy that I view as immoral, unethical, and discriminatory.
ReplyDeleteIn my case, Ms. Kaszluga used a Zillow estimate to assess the value of my property, despite the fact that I had purchased the home just a few months prior for significantly less. This decision led to a staggering 140% increase in my property taxes, which in turn raised my mortgage payments by $900 per month. When I sought clarity and assistance, I found Ms. Kaszluga’s demeanor to be unprofessional, unhelpful, and — most dishearteningly — seemingly indifferent, if not pleased, with the financial burden placed upon me.
The underlying assumption appears to be that anyone moving to Hudson from the city must be wealthy — and therefore deserves to be penalized. This is both unfair and deeply damaging to our community. It fosters resentment and undermines the very spirit of inclusivity and fairness that our city should represent.
I sincerely hope that under Joe Ferris’s leadership, there will be meaningful relief for those of us who have been negatively impacted by the “Welcome Stranger Tax.” If the current administration had firsthand experience as homeowners in Hudson, I believe the policies and attitudes might be very different.