1991-06-12
@
New~18Iephone
A ~ Company
Mlch..1 Fortlet'
Tax Engineer
Legal Department
1095 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Phone (212) 395-6117
June 12, 1991
TOWN CLERK:
Enclosed is a copy of a Protest of the Special
Franchise Assessment for the 1991 Tax Roll, filed with the New
York State Board of Equalization and Assessment, dated
June 4, 1991.
Very truly yours,
/J!!d<<{ti{)7~
Enclosure
RECr:'~"~D
JUN f 7 1991
II.A~NE SNOWQIN
T,",WN OI.I"K
6566k
:""
.
STATE OF NEW YORK
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT
------------------------------------------x
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT UNDER
SECTION 610 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX
LAW OF
NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY.
------------------------------------------x
TENTATIVE SPECIAL FRANCHISE ASSESSMENTS
ISSUED MAY 8, 1991
FOR 1991 TOWN AND CITY
HEARING DATE: JUNE 21, 1991
RECEIVED
JUN 1 7 1991
E:;..',..: . ,OWDEN
TOWN CLERK
STATE OF NEW YORK
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT
__________________________________________x
NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY.
TENTATIVE SPECIAL
FRANCHISE ASSESSMENTS
ISSUED
May 8, 1991
(741 Towns and
45 Cities
1991 Roll)
COMPLAINT
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT
UNDER SECTION 610 OF THE REAL
PROPERTY TAX LAW OF
__________________________________________x
TO: THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT:
NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, a domestic corporation, having its
principal office at 1095 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York
10036, having received written notice (a copy of which is attached)
of the action on May 8, 1991 of the State Board of Equalization and
Assessment
( "state Board" )
in making tentative equalized
assessments of its special franchise property in the several
municipalities, assessing units and taxing districts as set forth
in Appendix A attached hereto, and New York Telephone Company
("Complainant"), being aggrieved thereby, complains of and objects
to these determinations as being unlawful, excessive and unequal
and alleges upon information and belief as follows:
1. The state Board's tentative assessments set forth ir. the
amounts indicated in the column "Tentative Assessment" of Appendix
A, are excessive and erroneous by reason of overvaluation,
illegality and inequality. The assessments are discriminatory in
that they are made at a higher rate than other similarly situated
special franchise property; and they are, in certain instances,
rnisclassified.
2. The full value of Complainant's special franchise
property on the tax status date ln each of the respective
municipalities, assessing units and taxing districts was not in
excess of the amount shown in the column "Claimed Full Value" of
Appendix Ai and Complainant submits that the tentative valuations
before equalization should be reduced to no more than these
amounts.
3. Complainant is aggrieved, is and will be injured by the
state Board's determination of the tentative valuations in that
Complainant will be required to pay a far greater amount of taxes
based upon the equalized assessments derived therefrom than it
would be compelled to pay had these determinations been made justly
and properly, and far more than its just proportion of the
aggregate taxes to be levied upon real property, including special
franchise property situated in the respective municipalities,
assessing units and taxing districts for the fiscal year in which
the taxes are based upon the equalized assessments.
4. The state Board has incorrectly and inaccurately employed
in connection therewith, its method or rule of valuation. The
State Board's use of Complainant's regulatory gross investment for
developing a reproduction cost is inappropriate as it results in
overvaluation. The state Board has sought to value bookkeeping
entries rather than property and in doing so it has valued costs
which are unrelated to special franchise property or real property.
5. The state Board's application of the reproduction cost
methodology in valuing Complainant's special franchise property is
incorrect in numerous respects. The State Board fails to apply
-2-
adequate depreciation including physical depreciation and economic
and functional obsolescence to Complainant's property. The
physical depreciation applied to Complainant's property is
inadequate because the state Board employs service lives and
salvage percentages in valuing Complainant's property which are
inaccurate and not in accord with those currently recognized by the
FCC and PSC. Further, due to the time gap between the last survey
valuation date and the annual assessment date of special franchise
property, and the state Board's position in assessing property
added by Complainant subsequent to the last survey valuation date,
recent property additions have been assessed without making any
depreciation adjustment. complainant submitted extensive
documentary evidence over two years ago in support of its request
for an adjustment in the physical depreciation applied to its
special franchise property. Also, the state Board fails to
account for the considerable economic obsolescence resulting from
the heavy regulation on the Complainant, including the limitations
placed upon Complainant's earnings by the Public Service Commission
and the highly competitive communications arena in which
Complainant operates. In response to a proposed rulemaking
concerning economic obsolescence, Complainant submitted materials
on December 30, 1987, objecting to the State Board's Rules and
reasserts those arguments here because the Rules fail to allow a
special franchise owner to demonstrate the existence and impact of
economic obsolescence on its property in contravention of judicial
precedent and established appraisal practice. The State Board also
-3-
fails to reflect in its application of the reproduction cost method
appropriate amounts for the technological obsolescence of much of
Complainant's equipment still in service. The Rules fail to
consider the use of a "replacement cost" valuation of Petitioner's
property.
6. The state Board has applied the "latest" state
equalization rate in fixing the assessments pursuant to RPTL 5606.
In those assessments where a rate in excess of 100% has been
applied, the assessment is void on its face as an assessment at
more than the full value of the property in violation of the
prohibition in the New York state Constitution.
7. The assessment roll upon which the assessments are
directed to be entered pursuant to RPTL S616 is unlawful, null and
void in that all property in each municipality, assessing unit and
taxing district is not assessed at a uniform percentage of full
value as required by RPTL S305(2).
WHEREFORE, NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, respectfully demands
that:
a. The determination of the tentative assessments of
Complainant's special franchise property in the several
municipalities, assessing units and taxing districts as set forth
in Appendix A be annulled, cancelled and withdrawn by the state
Board.
b. In the al ternati ve, that the full valuation of these
properties be reduced to the amounts set fort~ in the column
"Claimed Full Value" of Appendix A, and the tentative assessments
-4-
be reduced to the amounts set forth in the column "Claimed
Assessment" of Appendix A.
-5-
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO RPTL
I certify that all statements made on this application
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I
understand that the making of any willful false statement of
material fact herein will subject me to the provisions of the penal
law relevant to the making and filing of false instruments.
Dated: New York, New York
June L/, 1991
,I
NEW
YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY
0fr.f t( /
. \/
CARL: E. S.CHWA.~
AaalSTAta mEASURES
By:
Cullen and Dykman
Attorneys for Complainant
Office and P.O. Address
177 Montague street
Brooklyn, New York 11201
(718) 855-9000
-6-
STATE OF NEW YORK
ss. :
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
CARe F.. SCHWARZ
being
duly
sworn,
deposes and says: that he/sae is
AAiliIAN.I J:RiA$URER
of NEW
YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, the Complainant herein; that he/sAa has
read the foregoing complaint including Appendix A and knows the
contents thereof and that the facts stated therein are true to the
best of his/~ knowledge, information and belief.
Sworn to before me this
;I
~~ day of June, 1991
L ., ~a-u
-;~y PUbli..e! t
FAYTH INEZ TREANOR
Itotary Public. Stlt. 01 New York
No. 03-4014992
QUlllfled In Bronl County
r.rtItItd In New Yerk County
....-...... __ AId 30. 1_
/Zr.~
.uaISTAN.T. .tREASURER
-7-
, Page 5 of 16
NYTEL SPECIAL FRANCHISE COMPLAINT
.,
10 .. Name TentOltive Code Rate SBEA Claimed Ov.n/al UOlt I cn Claimed Overali...rament
\} Atioseliliment Full Value Full Value Ali5e..ment
35~C~=~__~~~~_.FaK=Q~~&"_~_a;~_.-_"g.a~_--a=.~c_E_..G~Q~._ag;~~...z._.._._..~__m_u_._D....._.--_.....-.-.._-.CD_.___._~.==--
63190- 1354 T OF UNION VALE $779,92:5 F 0.6734 $1,1:58,190 $:521,18:5 $637,004 $3:50,966 $428,959
.) 6319('- 135b T OF WAPPINGER $8,174,~16 F 0.9497 $8,607.893 $3,873,552 $4.734,341 13,678,712 $4,496,204
6~190- I-S:iB T OF WASHINGTON $464,260 F 0.1783 $2,603,814 11,171.716 11,432,098 1208. 'H 7 $2:55,343
COUNTY OF ERIE
) 63190- 1420 T OF ALDEN $1,718.395 F 1 .0848 $1.584.066 $712.830 $871,236 1712.830 $1.00:5.565
63190- 1422 T OF AMHERST 119.071,37~ F 1 . 0994 $17,347.079 $7,806,186 $9.:540,894 $7,806.186 $11,265. 193
6:!.190-- 1424 T OF AURORA $3,961,2:59 F 1. 0016 $3,954,931 11,779,719 '2,17:5,212 $1.779,719 $2,181,:540
) 6-~ 19')- 1426 T OF &OSTON '1,485,096 F 1.1977 $1,239,957 $557,980 $681,976 $557,980 $927, 116
0319('-- 1428 T OF [<RANT $992.267 F 1.2232 $811,206 $36:5.043 $446,163 $365,043 $627,224
63191)- 1430 T OF CHEEKTOWAGA $13,724,127 F 0.9800 $14,004,211 $6, 301 , 89:5 $7.702,316 $6,17:5,8:57 $7,:548.270
6319(1- 1432 T OF CLARENCE $3,934.039 F 1 . 0802 $3,641.954 $1,638,879 12,003.075 11,638,879 12,295,160
63190- 14:54 T OF COLDEN $:524,537 F 1.1266 $465,593 $209.517 $256,076 $209. :517 $315.020
63190- 1436 T OF COLLINS $1.411.017 F 0.8664 $1.628.:598 $732.869 '89:5.729 '634.958 $776.059
6319(1- 1438 T OF CONCORD '2,037,084 F 0.9603 $2,121.300 $954,58:5 $1,166.715 $916.688 $1,120,396
6319')- 1440 T OF EDE.N $1.601.223 F 0.9560 $1.674.919 $753.714 $921.206 $720.550 $880.673
6319('- 1442 T OF ELMA $255,358 F 0.1009 $2,530.803 $1.1:58,861 $1.391,942 $114.911 $140,447
63191)- 1444 T OF EVANS $3,883,666 F 1.2533 $3.098.752 $1.394,438 $1,704.314 $1,394,438 $2,489,228
) 6319'-,- 1446 T OF GRAND ISLAND $3,286,289 F 0.9229 $3.560,829 $1,602,373 $1,958,456 $1.478,830 U ,807.459
63190- 1448 T OF HAM&URG $12,846.079 F 1 .2719 $10,1)99.'H3 " $4,544.961 $5,554,952 $4,:544,961 $8,301,118
.J 6319')- 1450 T OF HOLLAND $834,422 T 1.0909 $764,893 $344,202 $420,691 $344,202 $490,220
6319')- 1452 T OF LANCASTER $8,502,146 F 1 . 3090 $6.495,14b $2,922,816 $3.572.330 $2,922.816 $5.579,330
b3191)- 1454 T OF MARILLA $706,399 F 1 .0335 $b83.:502 $:507,576 $375,920 $307.576 $398.823
..; 631 c/(I_ 1458 T OF NORTH COLLINS $1,205,614 F 0.8974 $1.343,452 $604,553 $738,899 $542,526 $663,088
63190- 1460 T OF ORCHARD PARK $4,6:n.439 F 1.1893 $3,895,'n8 $1,753,172 $2,142.766 $1,753,172 $2,880.267
63190- 1462 T OF SARDINIA $629,706 F 1.1458 $~49,57e $247,310 $302.268 $247.310 $382,396
6'>190- 1464 T Of TONAWANDA $9,549,964 F 0.9428 $10,129,364 $4,558,214 '5,571.150 $4,297,484 $5,252,480
"J 0-51 '1(1-- 1466 T OF WALE.S $718,928 F 1 . 1 380 $631.747 $284,286 $347.461 $284,286 $434,642
6~ 190- 1468 T OF WEST 6ENECA $6,425,840 F 0.9147 $7,025,079 $3,161,280 '3,863.794 $2.891.628 $3.:534.212
COUNTY OF ESSEX
--' 1>~190- 1520 T OF CHESTERFIELD $4,501 F 1.4185 $3.173 $1,428 $1,745 11.428 $3.073
6 ~.191)- 1:522 T OF CROWN POINT $237,205 F 1.6164 $146,786 '06,054 $80,732 $66,054 $171.211
63.19')- 1524 T OF ELl ZAI1E.T1HOWN $645,374 F 1.4297 '451.405 $203,132 $248,273 $203.132 $442.242
-' 65191)- 1:526 T OF ESSEX $395.582 F 1 . 7093 $231,429 $104,143 $127.286 $104,143 $291,439
6J 1 91)- 1530 T Of H::ENE $478,404 F 1 . 51 27 $316.258 $142.310 $173.942 '142.310 $336,008
6:~ 1 91)- 1:532 T OF LEWIS '227.758 F 1 .2622 $180,445 $81,200 $9'1,245 $el.200 $146.558
-' 6319')- 1536 T OF MORIAH $56,720 F 0.0380 $1,492,632 $671.684 $820,947 $25,524 $31,196
63191)- 1~40 T OF NOIHH EL&A $1,962.400 F 1.7151 '1,144,225 $514,901 $629.324 $:514,901 '1,447,~59
6319(1- 1542 T OF NOf-\TH IlUDSON $1>1.978 F 0.1961 '316,053 '142,224 .,73.829 '27,8'"10 $34,088
.J 6"~ 191)- 1~44 T OF ST A"MAND $496,576 F 1.3877 $:5:57,841 $16 1 , 028 $196,813 $161,028 $335,548
6"51 '/0- 1::'4b T Of SCHkOUN $861,973 F 1.7549 '491,101 '221,031 $270,149 $221.031 $640.942
6S 191)- 1~48 T OF T _I CONDEROGA $1,61>4,476 F 1. 7261 $964,299 $433.934 $530,364 $433.934 U, 231), 542
-' 1>31 "1)- lS::'c) T OF WESTf'ORT $173,798 F 1 .6336 $W6,390 $47,875 $58,514 $47,875 $125.923
1>3191)- 1552 T Of WILLS!:lORO $565,427 F 1.4210 1397,908 $179,05'1 $218,849 $179,059 $386,368
CDUNTY OF H~AN"L IN
..., I> J 1 '/(1- 1620 T OF AL T Ar10N T .413,255 F 0.2894 $1.635,297 $735.881 $899.413 $212,965 $200, 29l)
6-!.190- 1622 T lIF 1JANhrJR $60.057 f 0.0710 'U4~,U73 $380. b4:S $465, :no $27,026 $33,0:51
6 "!.1 '1(1- 1624 T OF &E.LLl10NT $623,54~ B 1 . 0000 $1>23,545 $200,59:5 $342,950 $280.595 t342,950
" 6H 9(1- 1626 T llF ImMIJAY $34,034 F 0.049:5 $703,717 '310,073 $387,044 t15,675 t19,159
6 -!.1'/')- 16'28 T OF I.JnANUON .02,020 6 1 . 0(1)0 tE12, 820 '37.269 $45,551 '"!.7,269 $45.551
.. tdl'i,'- 1630 T OF BhIbtilUN $12,216 F 1 . :5334 $9, 162 $4,123 $5.039 $4,123 $8,093
tdl'l"- 1632 T OF [<UI\I" E $:!o,e'1~ F 0.0608 $3113.668 '154,650 . 1 89, 017 $9,403 '11,492
6'.I'}(l-- 16!4 T OF CHI'ITU\llhAY $:)9,6t)9 .: 0.0868 $61l6,740 $-!.09, 033 '-~.77, 707 ,20,824 $32,7115
6 '1'/1'-- 16"~.b T Of- [lIN:, I {lUl.l $71,9':>7 F 0.2228 $322,967 '145,33:5 $177,632 ,:.2,301 $39,576
. b ~ I 'fll-- 16~ij T Of Pll:t INUON '19,~46 f 0.0614 . -~ 1 8, :S3'1 $143,252 '11:5, (186 t8,/96 $ 1 I), 7':-,0