 |
|
Town may forego state aid ATHENS - The Athens Town Board Monday discussed a range of issues, from employee salaries to dropping the town's participation in the state's sustained equity property assessment program, but failed to take any decisive action. Under the state assessment program, properties in Athens must be assessed at 100 percent valuation annually. If the town's assessments fall within state guidelines, the town gets a $15,000 annual "rebate," officials said . Board member Jack Lubera said he would like to see the town get out of the program. "The real estate market is very volatile," he said."I'm not sure if the assessors of the state really understand the market." Lubera said assessments would be completed annually regardless of the town's participation in the program, and with the real estate market experiencing great changes, he argued that town Assessor Francis Fuchs has a better handle on local property values than the state. To increase local knowledge of the assessment process, the state Office of Real Property plans a training session in the town in March, Lubera said. The purpose of the sustaining equity programs is to ensure properties are reassessed continuously to reflect the true market value and to keep properties from being undertaxed. The Town Board is expected to revisit the issue at its March 23 meeting. In another matter, the board received a letter from former Councilwoman Patricia McLoughlin questioning the salary policies of the board, in light of a recent $7,500 study by Amtek, a consulting firm. The purpose of the study was to ensure all town employees were being paid salaries equal to similar positions in neighboring towns. In her letter, McLoughlin said the board is not adhering to the study's recommendations. "It appears the taxpayers' money was wasted to conduct a study of wage equity as you have compounded the inequity again by granting another arbitrary salary increase," she wrote. McLoughlin said employees received raises ranging from 4 percent to the Amtek recommended 15 percent, some received no raises, and most elected officials received 3 percent raises, though one unidentified official received a 4.95 percent increase. Additionally, McLoughlin questioned the rationale used in determining who should get raises and what those raises should have been. "What possible rationalization could you have used in arriving at these arbitrary figures except the explanation given at the Dec. 15, 2003, meeting that it sounded 'Like a good number?'" she wrote. Board members tabled a response to the letter. İDaily Freeman 2004 |