Transparency, Equity, and the Case for Keeping Property Tax Local with Mike Fouassier

About this Episode

Mike Fouassier is the assessor for the Town of Ossining in Westchester County, New York. Before that, he spent 12 years as the Director of Operations and Quality Assurance for New York City's assessment operation. He also holds a PhD in public affairs, with a dissertation focused on inequities built into certain assessment systems. In this conversation, Mike makes a compelling case that the property tax's legitimacy lives or dies on two things: transparency and frequency of revaluation. If the public doesn't understand how you arrived at a number — or if the number itself doesn't make intuitive sense — you've already lost.

Start With a Number That Makes Sense

Mike is blunt about what he considers the single most important reform in assessment administration: frequent reappraisals at 100% of full market value. No fractional assessments, no caps, no transitional values. When he sits down with a homeowner in Ossining, he points to one number, and it should be a number the homeowner can roughly verify against their own sense of what their home is worth.

Contrast that with jurisdictions where the assessed value is a fraction of market value, subject to caps, adjusted by exemptions, and layered with policies that were well-intentioned 40 years ago but have since eroded equity across the roll. Mike describes the moment a homeowner's eyes glaze over as you try to walk them through that calculation. "Based on a topic that's already sensitive to them," he says. You're asking people to trust a system they can't follow. That's a structural problem, not a communication problem.

The takeaway here isn't just about simplicity for its own sake. It's that complexity breeds distrust, and distrust undermines the tax itself.

Assessment Limitations Erode What They Were Meant to Protect

Mike has written academically about assessment caps and limitations, and his position is clear: they erode equity over time. The legislative intent behind these laws — often enacted decades ago — was to protect homeowners from sudden spikes in their tax bills. That's a reasonable goal. But the long-term effect is that similarly valued properties end up bearing very different tax burdens, depending on when they were last sold or reassessed.

He's diplomatic about it. He wishes those jurisdictions luck in finding their way out of what he calls a "sticky problem." But there's an unmistakable edge to his argument: if your system produces values the public can't understand and outcomes that aren't equitable, the system needs to change. Ossining operates without caps or transitional values, and Mike clearly sees that as an advantage — not just administratively, but in terms of public trust.

The Property Tax as a Governance Tool

One of the most interesting threads in this conversation is Mike's argument for the property tax not just as a revenue mechanism, but as a tool of participatory democracy. Drawing on his public policy background, he points out that when funding comes from the federal or state level, local residents lose their voice. They become passive recipients. But when you pay locally, you have skin in the game. You show up to the town meeting. You sit in the chairs and challenge how money is spent.

Mike frames this from personal experience — he's traveled internationally and seen what happens in places that lack a robust local property tax. The services are worse, but more importantly, the democratic feedback loop is weaker. "Keeping it local" isn't just a slogan for Mike. It's a governance philosophy rooted in the idea that the people who pay should have a direct line to the people who spend.

This is an argument the assessment community doesn't make often enough. We get caught up in valuation methodology and ratio studies — important work — but we rarely articulate why the property tax matters as a civic institution.

Technology as Force Multiplier, Not Replacement

Mike is enthusiastic about technology — GIS tools, AI-assisted appraisal production, street-level imagery, 3D mapping — but he's careful to frame it as a force multiplier rather than a replacement for fieldwork and human interaction. The talent pipeline is thin. Qualified applicants are hard to find. Technology helps a smaller team do more, faster.

He cites a specific example: using AI to produce preliminary appraisals during the petition season. What used to take weeks can now take days, freeing up staff to do the relationship-based work that actually builds public trust — meeting with homeowners, walking them through values, matching them with exemptions they didn't know they qualified for. That last point deserves emphasis. Mike says a "shocking number" of eligible residents don't take advantage of available exemptions. Half of his office's work is value-related; the other half is making sure people get the benefits they're entitled to.

Building the Pipeline

Mike is candid about one of the industry's most persistent problems: young people don't know these careers exist. Government doesn't do a good enough job of getting in front of career counselors, civil service commissions, or university programs. If he could talk to a younger version of himself, he'd say: the sky's the limit. Assessment can lead to careers in technology, consulting, policy, law, and beyond. But first, people need to know the door is there.

Key Takeaway

The property tax is only as legitimate as the public's understanding of it. If your system produces values people can't follow, wrapped in policies that create hidden inequities, you're not protecting taxpayers — you're eroding the very trust that makes local self-governance work. Frequent revaluation at full market value isn't just good practice. It's the foundation of a tax that people can believe in.