| Author |
Message |
    
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 10:06 am: |     |
The Township Committee asked Certified Valuations to provide some statistical information regarding the revaluation, which I am posting here at the request of Mayor DeLuca and on behalf of the Township Committee.
As you know the deadlines to meet with Certified have been extended. The analysis here is current through January 10.
Certified has met with 1,042 property owners thus far, and has applied 510 adjustments. These adjustments are reflected in the numbers in this posting.
There are a total of 7262 properties in Maplewood, of which about 94% are residential.
The total ratables for 2000 are $533,870,400
The new ratables for 2001 are $2,125,298,800 under the revaluation
The overall ratable base thus increased by a factor of 3.84
Current total property taxes are 10.21% of assessed valuation. Thus the calculation of the new taxes is 10.21/3.84, or 2.66%.
This means that:
- 50,000 in assessment represents $1330 in taxes
- 37,594 in assessment represents $1000 in taxes
The table below shows the distribution of evaluation change (and thus tax change). In the table I show
- a range of increase in ratable
- what the 2000 taxes would have been had the new assessment been in place, expressed as a percentage of the old taxes
- the number of properties this applies to
- the percentage of the total
| | | ratable change | tax change | number | percentage | | Under 2.00 | 52.12% | 20 | 0.29% | | | 2.00 - 2.99 | 52.12% - 77.92% | 2112 | 30.86% | | | 3.00 - 3.50 | 78.18% - 91.21% | 1091 | 15.94% | | | 3.51 - 4.00 | 91.47% - 104.24% | 686 | 10.02% | | | 4.01 - 4.50 | 104.50% - 117.27% | 1315 | 19.22% | | | 4.51 - 5.00 | 117.53% - 130.30% | 841 | 12.29% | | | 5.01 - 6.00 | 130.56% - 156.36% | 653 | 9.54% | | | Over 6.00 | 156.36% | 125 | 1.83% | |
You can make some observations from this table:
- 31.16% of properties, or 2132, will have a decrease of at least 22%
- 47.1% of properties, or 3223, will have a decrease of at least 8.8%
- roughly half of the properties in town will see a decrease
- 11.37% of properties, or 778, will have an increase of at least 30%
For your information, with a change of 6.83 on my property I am looking at a 78% tax increase. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 11:19 am: | |
Some more analysis on the rate numbers and how sensitive they are to changes in assessments.
I calculate that a reduction in total valuation across the entire town of about $5.5M would change the increase factor down to 3.83, and would change the tax rate as a percentage of assessment to 2.67%.
That .01% difference represents an increase of $5 per 50K assessed value.
An example to illustrate: Suppose there were enough changed assessments to make this happen. In that circumstance a property evaluated at 550,000 reduced to 500,000 would gain $1330 then lose $50 for a net gain of $1280. |
Bak
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 12:26 pm: | |
If this eval goes through, and my taxes go up, my home value (to a buyer simply calculating their monthly cash flow)then becomes less than the assessed value overnight.
Thus I now have a home on October 1, 2001 worth 15-30% less than its assessment.
Do I then go to the tax assessor and reduce my valuation?
Do the homes who's taxes are decreasing by >22% then get revalued higher and taxed with a new number in 2002?
Why isn't any historical data being used in the reval to satiate all parts of town? Isn't a more prudent way of evaluating a property to take a sampling of its worth over the course of several years versus pointing to one place in time?
Sorry for the ramble, it's confusing. I can only imagine what retirees facing a >50% increase must be feeling. |
Jfb
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 1:52 pm: | |
I believe the best course would be to spread out increases / decreases over several years. Let's say that you cap it by 20% a year.
So, If your total liablility is 60% more, it would be phased in over three years.
Same for a tax decrease. If your taxes are 60% less, they would decrease the 20% a year for three years.
This would provide some stability as the prices of the homes would adjust themselves over a period of time.
To whack someone with a 60% increase overnight is not fair, especially if it's someone who purchased thier home recently.
Some people on this board are besides themselves with glee over this, but it's presented a very serious sitution. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 2:06 pm: | |
I think JFB's suggestion is reasonable. The fact remains that the money has to come from somewhere and the distribution needs to be fair. It is definitely not fair to slam people with a huge increase overnight and risk the stability of the house prices.
There still remains a need to increase the business base in town to bring in more money otherwise taxes will continue to rise.
Perhaps this will mobilize some high powered corporate types in big houses with newly big tax bills to form a committee and use their business acumen to do something that hasn't been accompished to date. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 3:57 pm: | |
The problem with phasing in increases over several years is that the only way to make up the deficit in taxes collected is to increase everybody's rate, so the people who have been overpaying for years will continue to overpay. Why is this fair? |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 8:54 pm: | |
Jerry why can't you admit Certified has blow this reval with their incompetence. |
Tgb
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 9:05 pm: | |
By the way I don't live on West-side, and my question is this, many are saying that there will be no additional taxes raised, that this is just a shift in the tax burden. But if the "west-side" is getting hit with 5,000 - 8,000 dollar tax increases, are the "east-siders" getting a 5,000 - 8,000 dollar tax decrease?
My neighbors on Richmond or Norfolk aren't getting any tax relief, so who and how much tax relief are these eastsiders getting |
Thomas
| | Posted on Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 9:19 pm: | |
Here is where Certified screwed-up on the west side, a house assessed at 525k based on property that sold at that price with taxes of $9,000 is no longer worth 525k with taxes of 14,000. The value should decrease $59,500 based $7.00 per thousand in mortgage money.
This needed to be factored in when assessments approached 2x difference in change from one side of town to the other.
Just get the values right and one should have a problem.
If prices fall do to increases in taxes factor that in and but not 2 years after this mess is over, do it now, its easy to calculate just get a good appraiser to consult with. |
Tomr
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:38 pm: | |
Gerardryan, I do appreciate the information posted above as well as in your neighborhood detail spreadsheet. However I may be missing the obvious. I've played with my spreadsheet and am not getting the same ratable base increase factor which you acheived of 3.84.
Are the figures given for the 2000/2001 ratables inclusive of all Maplewood properties or only the 94% which are residential?
Why is the tax rate for 2000 posted as 10.21%? I had understood that the rate for 2000 had been 10.22%.
How much, if any, of the data was provided by Certified Valuations? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:47 pm: | |
Tomr: The spreadsheet is residentials only.
The info is all from Certified EXCEPT the columns that I added:
pct (factor/3.84)
old, new, chg and total chg columns
I have posted the rate at 10.21, others have said "about 10.22". The .21 number is right according to my property and my 2000 taxes. |
Tomr
| | Posted on Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 11:56 am: | |
Jerry,
Thanks for the information, but another question if you will allow.
In reviewing the spreadsheet you posted under the "More Detailed Reval..." thread, one of the neighborhoods is defined by boundaries of Park Avenue, Harvard, Tuscan. In that these streets basically run parallel to one another I was a bit confused and am assuming that the area includes the streets from Tuscan on the north to Park Avenue on the south and running from Springfield Avenue to Valley Street east to west.
If my assumption is correct please confirm that, or if wrong, please help me with the correct information, if you can.
I am considering an appeal of my assessment and don't want to waste the Certified representative's (or my own) time by gathering and presenting information not germane to my neighborhood.
Thanks again for your help, and your participation in the several threads throughout this message board. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2001 - 7:49 am: | |
Tomr: you are correct in what your definition is. -jerry |
|