Albinder Altman & Block LLP

Legislation signed into law by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on June 30
imposes a cap on property tax increases for local government entities, including
counties, local municipalities and school districts.

The cap will provide relief
for New Yorkers burdened by “backbreaking” property taxes, Cuomo said in a statement, which are 96 percent higher than the rest of the
country -- a median $3,755 in New York vs. $1,917 nationwide.

The new law forbids local
entities from increasing their property tax levies by more than either 2 percent
annually or the rate of inflation -- whichever is lower -- beginning with the
fiscal year that starts in 2012.

The new law may serve as a
check on local property assessors whose judgments may sometimes seem arbitrary,
said Edmund Viele, a member of the Taxation of Individuals Committee, who added that a cap will
also allow property owners to forecast cash flows more accurately.

Alfred Grillo, chair of the
NYSSCPA’s New York, Multistate and Local Taxation Committee, made a
similar point, saying that having a property tax cap makes tax planning easier,
as people will no longer be surprised by “large increases out of the
blue.”

This cap could encourage
real estate development and purchases on both the commercial and residential
side, Viele said.

“Skyrocketing” property tax
costs have impeded growth, said Harry Dublinsky, chair of the Real Estate Committee, who noted that the rates make both
commercial and residential real estate buyers hesitant about purchasing property
in New York. A property tax cap makes it less expensive for this kind of
investment, he said.

While he acknowledged that
local government entities often have costs that are beyond their control, having
a cap in place can help the real estate industry reposition itself. Dublinsky
added that having a cap in place sends a message to businesses that New York is
working to make itself a friendlier environment for development.

“I believe this is
definitely a positive move,” said Dublinsky.

This part of the legislation
goes into effect at the beginning of municipal governments’ and school
districts’ 2012 fiscal year.

Skeptics

Not everyone is happy with
the bill’s passage, namely those in municipalities that will have to cut
services as a result of reduced tax revenue. In addition to the services over
which the entities have direct control, such as police or public works, local
governments must also contend with a number of fixed costs, such as local worker
pensions, regardless of how much money is available, said NYSSCPA
Secretary/Treasurer Scott M. Adair, a member of the Government Accounting and Auditing Committee and CFO of the
Monroe County Department of Finance. Many local governments are also locked into
multiyear union contracts that were negotiated before the property tax cap was
passed into law.

However, the law allows the
cap to be exceeded to pay for growth in pension costs in the event that the
contribution rate increases by more than 2 percent from the previous year. In
such a case, the amount of contributions above that 2 percent figure will be
excluded from the limit.

The cap could also be
exceeded if a local governing body were to pass a new law with at least
two-thirds of the vote by the governing body or, in the case of school
districts, 60 percent of the voters in a referendum. Local entities can also
exceed the cap by up to 5 percent if a court order or judgment rising out of a
tort action requires it. Further, if a local entity manages to budget under the
cap one year, it may take the difference and increase its cap by that much the
following year. It may also adjust the cap upward to account for growth in the
property tax base during the course of the year, by a factor calculated by the
commissioner of tax and finance.

It is this last exception
that makes Kenneth B. Laks, a Suffolk Chapter member who cochairs his chapter’s General Taxation Committee, skeptical that the cap will
provide real relief to New Yorkers. He noted that pension costs for government
workers is a large part of a resident’s tax bill, and it grows every year, so
“if they allow the cap to not apply to the pension costs, then what’s the point?
We’re right back where we started from. “There’s too many loopholes,” Laks
said.

New Jersey implemented a 2
percent property tax cap last year. Like New York, local government entities in
New Jersey are subject to a number of rising cost factors beyond their control,
such as the status of union contracts, the price of gasoline and rising
insurance rates.

“Towns had to adapt to the
cap whether they wanted to or not,” and so having to accommodate this cap while,
at the same time, fulfilling all the costs out of their control made “many towns
[feel] somewhat helpless,” said Chuck Chiarello, the mayor of Buena Vista
Township, N.J., and the president of the New Jersey League of
Municipalities.

One thing that the property
tax cap did do, however, was force New Jersey’s local government entities to
reexamine their programs and work toward greater efficiency, he said. Because of
the large number of entities that need funding, though, tax bills are still
increasing. The property tax cap, he said, didn’t so much bring relief, but hold
the line on individual tax bills.

Isn’t holding the line the
point of a property tax cap? asked Grillo, who noted that while people don’t
need to pay income taxes if they’re not getting any income, property taxes,
however, must be paid no matter what -- even if the taxpayer is recently
unemployed, is a business owner who had a bad year or is a senior on a fixed
income.

“It could keep going up even
if you’re not making money, so it’s a very difficult [tax],” said Grillo. “As a
taxpayer, I would rather pay the income tax than keep seeing property taxes go
sky-high.” Enhancing efficiency in government is another laudable aspect of the
cap, Grillo said, adding that many governments have multiple areas where waste
can be cut back or positions streamlined.

“How many administrators do
you need earning half a million dollars?” he said.

School districts face
challenges similar to those of local governments in that the amount of money
over which they have direct control is quite small compared to the amount that
is required to go toward various mandates by the state and local governments,
such as funding for special education, according to Brian Butry, communications
coordinator for the New York State School Boards Association. Because money
can’t be cut from these areas to bring budgets under the cap, he said that
schools will likely make cuts to services such as tutoring and extracurricular
activities, and programs like the arts.

Other
Provisions

In addition to establishing
the 2 percent property tax cap, the bill also includes a provision that is
intended to increase the number of rent-stabilized residences in New York.
Landlords are currently allowed to turn rent-stabilized apartments into standard
market units once the regulated rent reaches $2,000 per month for vacant units,
and $2,000 per month for units occupied by tenants with a combined income of
$175,000 or more for two consecutive years. The bill increases this threshold to
$2,500 for vacant units and $2,500 for units occupied by tenants with an income
of $200,000 or more for two consecutive years. This provision of the bill took
effect upon signage of the law, and is applied retroactively as of June 24,
2010.

The bill also has measures
intended to make it easier for local government entities to cut costs. For
example, local municipalities and public authorities would be authorized to
exchange services, material and equipment; the competitive bidding threshold for
highway improvements would go from $100,000 to $250,000; municipalities would
have the expanded ability to use their own labor for highway improvements; and
they would no longer be bound by statutory salary requirements for municipal
chiefs of police