Village Voices

Details: Written by: Joanne Wallenstein; Published: 03 August 2016; Created: 03 August 2016; Last Updated: 03 August 2016; Hits: 8401

This letter was sent to the Mayor and the Board of Trustees by Dorothy Finger, a former member of the Board of Assessment Review.
DOROTHY M. FINGER
27 Sheldrake Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583

July 20, 2016

Dear Mayor Mark and The Board of Trustees of the Village of Scarsdale,

It is with great sadness that I hereby tender my resignation from the Board of Assessment Review. Although I am personally and professionally qualified and believe I made a significant contribution to that board, the events of the last several months, precipitated by the unprofessional conduct of Robert Berg who also sits on the Board and who should also resign, have forced the Mayor into the position of requesting first my recusal from this year's deliberations and now that a replacement has been found, my resignation. I chose not to answer the various critics before this time because I did not want to embarrass others. However, now that ilie matter is being formally resolved I believe it is important to do so

I have lived in Scarsdale for 47 years (one could say my entire adult life) and I have loved Scarsdale all of that time. I raised three children here and they have all chosen to make their homes here. I have six grandchildren in the Scarsdale school system. I guess I am lucky. I have enjoyed my service on many boards and councils, as Chairman at one time of the Scarsdale Democratic 'Committee, and as Trustee myself. Many of my fellow Trustees have since moved from Scarsdale but while I have dedicated myself in recent years to other causes, I have continued to give of my time to continue to serve the community, most recently on the Board of Assessment Review.

With all of that in mind, I need first to reflect on a few broader issues. The Non-Partisan System has, in general, worked well even though I admittedly criticized various aspects over the years and recall that I was in the forefront of a movement to admit women into the Town Club, the repository of the system. I have known most of the "players" in Scarsdale over the years until recently as younger people moved into the community and I became more of a "grandma" and less active in community affairs. I have known Bob Harrison for 40 years, give or take, and never publicly criticized him even though I offered him advice privately and certainly had many opportunities to offer public statements about his conduct. I mention this so that whatever I say here is not misconstrued with regard to Bob Harrison or Bob Berg whom I only met last year while serving on the BAR. I have no personal animosity but with regard to the present issues they have overstepped many lines.

Thus, it is with some historical and personal perspective that I am qualified to comment on recent events and conduct. It is important to discuss the "reval" and the second "reval" in connection with the issue of my resignation. I obviously had nothing to do with either "reval" and last year's Board of Assessment Review process seemed to proceed in an orderly and fair manner. There were times when it was difficult to get a quorum then because members planned vacations and did not attend every meeting. That was the case again this year when Mr. Berg was on vacation, a fact which escaped mention during his recent public comments about scheduling meetings during which I understand I was disparaged. Similarly, there were other Board Members with scheduling issues. The implication that the only reason a recent meeting was rescheduled was my recusal is simply untrue as it was scheduled after my recusal and it was never anticipated that I would attend. Other Board Members, such as Bob Berg were unavailable and that is why there was no quorum. As long as I am resigning the record should be set straight. I would suggest that. in the. future members do not schedule vacations during the period that they will be needed to review grievances.

While I was serving last year, there was a second "reval" being done the results of which came out in time for this year's grievances to be filed. (Meanwhile, Bob Berg has continued his public attacks on the second reval and on me despite never even contacting me to discuss the matter.) I believe that he is entitled to his opinions on this matter but he should not then sit on the BAR which is sitting in judgment on those very cases assessed by the method he has repeatedly impugned. He has an obvious and blatant bias about the whole process and cannot look at individual cases on their merits. In fact, the presumption that BAR members are suppose4 to be guided by is that the assessment is valid until a grievance has been filed in an individual case and a determination made on the appropriate evidence. While we all harbor personal views, Bob Berg's views demonstrate the antithesis of what his perspective should be as a member of the BAR. Admittedly the job of the BAR is more difficult this year given all of the various reviews of the "revaluation" and the analysis by some very bright individuals in the community. However, a BAR member should not be prejudging based on his or her view of the matter which is clearly what has happened.

I harbored no such predisposition about the reval but just as Grievance Day was about to begin the Mayor and Village attorney asked me to recuse myself from this year's proceedings. I believe that this was a result of the pressure being brought by Bob Berg and Bob Harrison. I agreed to do so even though I did not believe it was necessary or required. There was no reason to question my judgment and I had made no comments about the "revaluation" either way. I was impartial. However, since I was asked I agreed to as they asked. I did think they should have asked the same of Bob Berg but as far as I know they did not. When thereafter the BAR did not have a quorum due to Bob Berg's vacation and/or other personal commitments, I was unavailable to serve as I could not undo the recusal which had been requested of me. It was suggested that I "unrecuse" myself so that I could appear and there could be a quorum but not vote on the cases. This was simply untenable if not impossible and would only lead to more confusion and issues. Nonetheless I have observed that Bob Harrison has seen fit to publicly criticize me evidently without knowing the facts and without so much as calling me to ask. A simple phone call after 40 years would have certainly provided him sufficient information to assess the situation accurately. I leave it to others to determine his motivations. The same is true of Bob Berg whose vacation plans were just as responsible for the lack of a quorum.

While I certainly regret the inconvenience caused to residents by these events, I understand that there was nobody to fill my seat on the Board of Assessment Review until now. I suppose it should not be a surprise that no prior member of the Board of Assessment Review was interested in being reappointed, given the tenor of the events and the recent public meetings. In my many years in Scarsdale I have seen most people conduct themselves in a direct yet polite and respectful manner, understanding that we all want what is best for Scarsdale. It is with disappointment that I see recent events and conduct to be substantially less civil at best and with little regard for the consequences or impact on our volunteers who have always been the backbone of Scarsdale. Volunteerism in Scarsdale has been a hallmark of our community but I cannot help but wonder if we continue to treat our neighbors in this way whether we will be able to rely on that spirit in the future. I also must comment that I am most disturbed by our present tendency to respond to those who "scream the loudest" rather than on substance which, I submit, may have changed the entire course of these events.

Respectfully submitted,
Dorothy M. Finger

Details: Written by: Joanne Wallenstein; Published: 20 July 2016; Created: 20 July 2016; Last Updated: 21 July 2016; Hits: 5870

libraryentry Proponents of a revamp of the Scarsdale Libray returned to Village Hall on Tuesday July 20 to present a more economical plan for the renovation and enhancement of the facility. In response to concerns about the price tag of the original proposal, the committee worked with their architects, engineers and village staff to identify economies that would not compromise the programmatic goals while reducing the amount of funding needed from the Village.

The plans involve renovations to all the existing interior spaces and expansions around the perimeter to allow the library to be integrated with its park-like setting. Wiring and equipment for state-of-the art technology will be installed to allow users to collaborate, do research and access new media. The entry will become a glass lobby and café where users can chat, relax and enjoy a snack or light meal. The new configuration will include several flexible meeting rooms and small group study rooms. The children's wing and children's program room will be updated and there will be a separate teen room as well. The main reading rooms will be encased in glass allowing users to look out onto library pond. The current reference room will be a quiet reading room with comfortable seating. Those who work from the library will have access to a technology suite with a printer, copier, laminator and other equipment to accommodate hands-on projects.

The original numbers called for the Village to contribute $12 million toward the $20.5 million renovation and expansion. Though the new plans were appealing, some residents feared the additional tax burden resulting from increased debt payments by the Village. At the time, Treasurer Mary Lou McClure said that borrowing $12 million would raise the Village's debt payments by $1 million a year or an average of $150 per household for 15 years.

After discussions with the trustees, the committee went back to work and identified $3 million in modifications to the project, to reduce the Village's share to $8.4 million. The Board hopes that some of these items can be funded at a later date, but believes that the changes will not "gut the project."

A complete list of the reductions and the rationale for each can be found on the Village website, but here is a summary:

One of the larger cost savings is the elimination of the basement under the new portions of the building Instead, the new portions of the building will be constructed on a slab. This will save $348,000. Another $348,000 in savings will be achieved by using less expensive flooring. Landscaping will be cutback, saving $155,000 and the outdoor reading deck will also be eliminated, for a savings of $53,000.

Original plans called for the Scott Room to be flexible space that could be partitioned to accommodate multiple groups or meetings. The reduced plan eliminates the partitions and the need for additional AV equipment, saving $227,000.

The new plan calls for less expensive furniture, shelving units and light fixtures, and also eliminates the furniture for the outdoor deck, saving $340,000.

What else? Reductions for AV equipment will save $299,735, modifications to the acoustic ceiling and architectural woodwork will result in $124,000 in savings and $150,000 will be saved by a redesign of the foundation.

Two environmental features will also be cut from the job including the solar panels on the roof, saving $459,000 and the green roof, for $53,000.

In total, savings add up to $3,009,513 including $391,000 in construction management and administration fees.

To compensate for the loss of space in the basement, 1,800 square feet of space has been added to the main level on the northwest side of the building. Architect Daniel Heuberger from Dattner Architects, called this addition, "more or less of swap of the space," and said decisions would be made down the road about its use. The new library would be 31,000 square feet, plus 1,800 square feet for the additional room.

Therefore, the estimate for the total project has been reduced from $20.5 million to $17.9 million, which includes $700,000 for the temporary library space at Supply Field.

The Library Board has pledged to raise $7.5 million in private funding, and says that many are waiting to make their donations until they know that the Village is on board. The Village will apply to receive $500,000 in grant funding for the temporary library from the NYS Dormitory Authority and also believe that they will save $1.5 million in operating costs while the library is being built.

There was discussion about the amount of funding the Village would need to bond. The Village Treasurer said that the $1.5 million in anticipated operating expense savings could not be considered "revenue." She estimated that if the Village borrowed $10 million for 15 years, total debt service would increase from about $2.8 million a year to $3.5 million a year. This would translate into taxes of $118 per year for 15 years for a household with an assessment of $1.5mm.

Temporary Library at Supply Field

Architect John D'Angelo presented plans to build a temporary library on the second floor of in the building at Supply Field. Village managers examined the use of the Supply Field building vs. the former Body Fit space on Scarsdale Avenue and determined that it made more sense to do modest renovations to the second floor of the Supply Field Building. This way, no rent would be paid, and the renovated space could be used by the Village for another purpose after the library reopens.

D'Angelo explained that the following work would be done:

Install heating and air conditioning and insulate the walls
Build a circulation desk and create offices for the library's administrative staff
Add toilets
Build a small children's area, reading area and space for copy machines and office equipment.

The overall cost to renovate the temporary library is estimated to be $700,000.

There are 40 parking spaces at Supply Field, and Library Director Elizabeth Bermel explained that the temporary library would work around field use schedules, and be open when the ball fields are not in use. Program could be held outside and in other village facilities, schools and houses of worship.

At the conclusion of the presentation, Trustee Marc Samwick asked questions about the accuracy of the financial estimates. He said, "What if we get to the end of design development and can't build what we planned; what will we do next?

Heuberger said we "never can tell that we are going to hit it on the money. But between contingencies and deduct alternatives we feel we have enough control over the project." He explained, that if needed, "we could take away the bells and whistles," and "defer items that can't be purchased to a later date." However, he assured Samwick, "you would still have a functioning library."

M.L. Perlman, who serves on the Scarsdale Forum, asked the Board and architects to consider LEED certification and requested that the solar roof be put back into the project. Simon replied, saying that there are environmentally responsible elements of the design, but it will not be LEED certified. She cited better energy conservation, rain gardens, new systems, and energy conserving windows." Heuberger added, "You don't need LEED certification to be a sustainable design. We will meet state energy code and deliver a healthy building that is economical to operate. LEED is not the only path to sustainability."

Concluding a two and a half hour meeting, the trustees thanked the board and Village managers and agreed to continue the discussion. See the proposal here.

Details: Written by: Joanne Wallenstein; Published: 14 July 2016; Created: 14 July 2016; Last Updated: 14 July 2016; Hits: 7343

nelsoroad A boisterous group of residents continued to press Scarsdale Village Trustees to rescind the 2016 revaluation at a protracted meeting of the Board of Trustees on Tuesday night July 12th. Though the critics' assertions were similar to previous meetings, their tone was decidedly angrier. They attacked the Mayor, the Board of Trustees, the Village Assessor, the Village Attorney, John F. Ryan and village managers both professionally and personally.

They questioned the validity of the model and the assumptions behind it, asked who supervised Ryan and argued that he had not met the terms of his agreement. Some pointed to individual trustees and asserted that their taxes had not gone up, while the residents in the audience suffered unfair increases.

The trustees listened respectfully and allowed many to speak far longer than their allotted time. However, they said there was little they could at this point except to let the grievance process take it's course, permitting those who believed their assessments were too high to have their cases considered by the Board of Assessment Review.

In his opening remarks, Mayor Jon Mark referenced a letter from Brice Kirkendall-Rodriguez that was published in the Scarsdale Inquirer and on Scarsdale10583. Mark said, "Characterizations are the opinion of its author." He said, "Detailed criticisms were made to the 2014 reval as well and are made nationwide. The comments received do not change where we are. 2016 is done."

To those who raised concerns about the Village's financial health he said, "Assertions that bond issues will receive less support is a matter of speculation. Moody's reiterated its AAA credit rating and indications are that there is strong demand for the $6.6 million debt refinancing which will be made on Thursday."

Addressing those who questioned the need for this second revaluation, Mark said, "The 2016 reval was initiated in good faith to address perceived inequities in the 2014 reval... Hindsight is 20-20 and here we are." He reiterated his belief in the strength of the non-partisan system and urged those in the audience to participate more regularly.

Robert Berg, who serves on the Board of Assessment Review, (BAR) speaking on his own behalf said, "We are reviewing 1,056 grievances. Calling the burden "overwhelming and unfair," he told trustees that BAR member Dorothy Finger had recused herself from the proceedings but failed to resign, leaving the remaining four members of the BAR with even more work. He said, "Given the crazy workload, we need a replacement as soon as possible." He urged the board to recruit another member and said, "You just keep your head in the sand and hope this will go away."

He also reported that the BAR had thus far granted reductions to 61% of the cases they heard, calling the number of reductions, "unprecedented." He said, "We have already reduced valuations by millions. My guess is that the tax rate will go up significantly. We cannot increase those that are undervalued. This is a terrible state of affairs."

Mayra Kirkendall-Rodriguez spared no one in her remarks. She said, "We are 42 days into this disasterous revaluation. You failed to bring Ryan here. The assessor is not here even though she is supposed to be here. There is no transparency."

She raised concerns about Ryan's firm, his credentials and oversight of the model and the process. She told the Board, "We'll be here every week because we don't trust any of you. Many forgot the trust in trustees. Maybe we should just call you "ees" from now on." She mentioned a possible lawsuit saying, "On the basis of this, as well as the statistical analysis quite a number of quantitative Scarsdalians have presented to you, we believe that courts likely would find that we have met the very minimal burden of proof that is required for an unequal assessment challenge."

Turning to Trustee Carl Finger, she said, "Two weeks ago, you said you were sorry that we are upset. The more you kept talking, I was convinced that you were going to break out a bottle of bourbon and a banjo and sit on a three legged couch to sing a country song about how you feel our pain. Mr. Finger, I am from Texas. I did not like country music then, and I am not about to start liking it now. You do not feel our pain."

Others joined the chorus. Woody Kraut, a former president of the Edgewood Association said, "2014 seemed to be a very professional job while 2016 looked like a superficial job. I think this is a flawed process – I think you should rescind it. You'll be seeing me a lot more."

Jane Curley of Hamilton Road said, "I don't have a sexy job. I look at models all day and see if I can find flaws. I write my own code and see if I can validate models." Holding up a graph she said, "There is a problem at the bottom and the top of this model. ....Not everyone understands this stuff ...It's infuriating that you're saying this is a matter of option."

She then showed another chart and said, "After the Tyler revaluation, all the .012 acre lots on Hamilton and Nelson Roads were valued at $467,000. The 2016 revaluation valued these same lots at $675,000 on Hamilton Road and $575,000 on Nelson Road. This is a sloppy, indefensible job. What will it take before you acknowledge the model is flawed?"

Jordan Copeland added, "The community needs to be heard. It doesn't look like it was fair. My property went up 50% in two years. Something has to be done. I have to pay half the amount to the grievance company. It could be $5,000 to $10,000 out of my pocket. .... You should be able to go to the state and throw this out!"

Kai-Hong Tang of 22 Ridgecrest East said, "You accused us of not participating, but when Bob and others participate it falls on deaf ears ..... You have a problem! Many have pleaded and begged, but why should we participate if you're not listening."

Farley Baker told trustees that he has lived here since 1992 and had a 41% increase in the assessment on his 1,100 square foot home. He said, "There is a lot of anger here. Now I am just disappointed in you guys and in the system I participate in....
Take some responsibility here and find out what happened. I respect all of you. I love this place."

Bob Harrison said, "I have been outspoken. The Village still owes Ryan $40,000 and wants some answers from him."

Trustee Stern replied, "We all have a lot of angst about this. We prepared questions for Ryan and gave them to him. We feel your pain. We are all stakeholders and taxpayers and we are all very upset about what happened. We are handcuffed by the laws of NYS. We are all extraordinarily upset with this situation. If we can find a way to correct it, we will."

Harrison then lost control and started screaming at the Trustees, saying, "Did your assessment go up? You don't have pain. We're talking about pocketbooks and people who want to age in place. I move to void the 2016 revaluation."

Carl Finger attempted to interject to answer Harrison's call to void the reval and said, "If we take an illegal action and the other 4,000 people file a lawsuit against the village it will cost thousands to lose and we will be right back to where we started before."

Details: Written by: Joanne Wallenstein; Published: 05 July 2016; Created: 05 July 2016; Last Updated: 06 July 2016; Hits: 4136

thomascain The Fire Department will hold a Transfer of Command Ceremony on Tuesday July 12th at 1 pm. James Seymour will be appointed to replace Chief Thomas Cain who will retire from the department after nearly 32 years of service including 10 years as fire chief. A committee was assembled to interview the four candidates who applied for his position. They named two finalists who were interviewed by the Mayor and the Village Manager who selected Seymour to serve as the new department chief.

The ceremony will be held at 1pm in the Scott Room at the Scarsdale Library.

At this time, Captain James E. Seymour will be appointed as the new Fire Chief and command of the Fire Department will be transferred from Chief Thomas Cain. In addition, one firefighter will be promoted to captain and several firefighters will receive commendations.

Details: Written by: Joanne Wallenstein; Published: 29 June 2016; Created: 29 June 2016; Last Updated: 02 July 2016; Hits: 5302

Fairness The Village Board sought to appease disgruntled residents at a special meeting on Monday night June 27 to update residents on the status of the 2016 revaluation and grievance process.

Mayor Jon Mark said, "We are aware of the anger and frustration of many residents of the results of the revaluation. Trustee Jane Veron and I attended a portion of the Board of Assessment Review proceedings and saw an orderly process conducted in a civil matter. Residents were allowed to state their case .... and the BAR treated all with respect."

To those who called for the Village to invalidate the new assessments, Mark said, "We are not presently considering voiding the model. We have no independent basis for doing this. The only way to fix this is to do a 2017 reassessment."

He also noted that almost 82% of residents have not contested their assessments, saying, "We are cognizant of the silent majority who have not grieved and effectively accepted the results of this revaluation."

According to the Mayor 1,050 grievances were filed, representing 18.4% of taxable properties in the Village of Scarsdale. The Board of Assessment Review met on June 14, June 23 and will hold additional meetings on June 29 July 1 to allow everyone who wishes to be heard to have a hearing. The BAR will review grievances during the summer and the Mayor said that appraisals can be submitted until September 1, but its preferable to get them in earlier to give the board time to consider the data.

Deputy Village Assessor Patrick McEvily said that 193 people were scheduled to have hearings before the BAR. He said that the BAR will mail out decisions on the grievances on September 15 and that those who are unhappy with the results can file a small claims review (SCARS) between September 15 and October 17.

In response to those who questioned John Ryan's credentials and the Village's process for selecting him, Village Manager Steve Pappalardo shared the following:

Ryan was selected based on the completeness of his proposal and the qualifications of his staff during the process to select a firm to audit the 2014 revaluation. Only two responses were received.

Ryan has 30 years of experience in mass appraisal and holds the Certified Assessment Evaluator (CAE) designation and is licensed as a certified general appraiser in several states. He provides expert witness testimony on matters of property assessment and mass appraisal modeling.

Pappalardo said that an FAQ sheet with answers to more questions as well as charts analyzing the outcome of the revaluation can be found on the village website. An analysis of the data, can be viewed here:

At the meeting, critics continued to express outrage, concern and anger.

Josh Frankel questioned the model formula for square footage of a home, which he said, "Values an 8,000 square foot home at only twice the price of a 2,000 square foot home ...four times as large at twice the price... I believe this is a bug."

He also questioned the number of sales that were not used in the model and claimed that too many were invalidated, or thrown out of the equation. He questioned why the reasons these sales were invalidated were not available.

Brice Kirkendall Rodriguez continued to question the validity of J.F. Ryan's model. He said he believes that Ryan manipulated 16 construction grades to correct the model. He said that when some of the grievers receive reductions, these will raise the taxes for everyone else and told the Mayor that even "more people will be unhappy." He asked the Village to retain an independent auditor.

Mayra Kirkendall Rodriguez repeated many of the points she made at the prior meeting asking the Village to retain an independent auditor to back test the model. She claimed that her group had "uncovered many flaws in the model," including questionable assumptions that had not been vetted. She asked why this second reval had been done, why the results were late and why no one had validated the data. She said, "Was there willful blindness?"

She said that her group uncovered information that showed that other municipalities have had trouble with Ryan's work. She claimed that in Rockingham, Vermont Ryan's assessment was "riddled with inaccuracies and mistakes," and in Westport, CT the town won a one-year delay from the state to cope with irregularities and errors."

She chided the Board saying, "You may claim that you had the best intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You certainly have unleashed living hell on many of us..." She then turned to the audience and said, "Fellow Scarsdalians, I urge you not to let the disgust and revulsion over what is happening lead you to inaction. .... Unfortunately village personnel and elected officials have chosen to abandon us. But, by no means, will my team and I relent in our quest to get this travesty of a revaluation overturned. Please join us, in our pursuit to restore order and decency, in our much beloved Scarsdale."

Lee Fishman suggested that the Village convene a standing committee to explain to residents how their valuations were done. He said, "When you switch a model, results will vary and can really whipsaw the valuation. If Ryan intended to correct outliers why were all assessments revised? The model should have been made fully public. Maybe we would have had fewer problems if it were revealed. ...Was there any consideration given to providing a year over year break for those than changed dramatically?"

Bernard Kobroff asked, "How will the assessor defend this?"

Norm Rosenzweig said, "It is questionable whether the model meets New York State standards. If it is not qualified can't it be voided?"

Another woman in the audience yelled out, "Why are we here if there's nothing you can do? Why don't you just tell us to go home."

Mayor Mark replied, saying "I thought it would be good to listen to you and explain.
There seems to be the impression that we can just toss this thing out and we are unable to do that."

Howard Weitz said, "I would like to suggest a different approach. Has Ryan complied with his contract? Did his people drive by all the homes in the Village? Perhaps we can question his performance and also charge that he had a conflict of interest as he was the monitor of Tyler, just a short time ago? He suggested that there was a breach of contract, and urged the Village attorney to take the matter away from real property law.

Sherry Berkowitz of Ross Road said "I was one of the lucky ones whose tax assessment went up 62%. She asked, "Why were we not given the opportunity to speak with Ryan? Why were we not given the same courtesy the second time around?" She wanted to know if the trustees plan to continue to do revaluations, saying "I will need to have money ready."

Bob Harrison, who was a former trustee questioned the need for the revaluation and said his petition to void the revaluation has 440 signatures on Change.org. He demanded, "Are you going to force us to bring a class action suit?" He said that Dorothy Finger had recused herself from the Board of Assessment Review and called for her resignation so that she could be replaced.

Mayor Mark explained that training was necessary before serving on the committee so that the trustees could not simply name a substitute.

Trustee Carl Finger said, "I think it is worth taking a moment to address the idea of how we feel. When I got on the board last year, they had already taken this step. Some questioned the second reval. Was it appropriate? I said at the time, the board that decided to do the first reval was in the best position to decide on the second reval. On many nights we heard people who were unhappy with the results from the first reval. It is difficult to see the community in such distress. I did not anticipate seeing so many unhappy people. We are listening to you and looking at what we can do better in the future. We are aware that there are things we can do better in the future. We are not in a position to do what you like. We are going to try to look at what we will do moving forward. We are all very distressed – and wish we could assess everyone at a fair value that they believe is right."