| Author |
Message |
    
Vicdeluca
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 4:57 pm: |     |
Maplewood Township Committee
Press Release
January 12, 2001
On Friday, January 12, 2001, the Maplewood Township Committee held an open public meeting with Certified Valuations. Township Committee Members asked questions of Certified about the revaluation and members of the public who attended the meeting were given an opportunity to make comments.
Originally, the meeting had been planned as a closed executive session to discuss contract performance issues. On Thursday evening, it became apparent that the scope of questions with Certified would go beyond contractual issues and that such questions would most appropriately be asked and answered publicly.
Following the open meeting, the Township Committee met in closed session to discuss Certified's contract performance, possible breaches of contract provisions, and potential remedies. The two issues discussed in depth were the standards for the revaluation and the property owner review process.
The Township Committee feels that there were some contractual performance issues but that these issues can be addressed administratively without litigation.
The Township Committee agrees with a recommendation from the Maplewood Tax Assessor that he review, town-wide, sales data from 1998 through 2000 as part of his determination of current market conditions. The Maplewood Tax Assessor will make adjustments by neighborhood and for individual properties where, in his opinion, they are warranted.
The January 12th meeting was one of the steps the Township Committee is taking to insure that the revaluation meets its original goals of being fair and equitable as required by the New Jersey Constitution and New Jersey statutes. As part of this effort, an extension of reporting deadlines has been requested and obtained from the Essex County Tax Board. In addition, on Thursday, January 11th, the mayor and other Township officials went to Trenton to meet with administrators from the New Jersey Division of Taxation to discuss the legal parameters of revaluation and the options available to municipalities.
The members of the Township Committee will continue to work with residents to explore solutions to this issue and they ask that the public discussion on this topic be conducted at a level that does not create divisions in the community along the lines of geography, property value, race or other negative threads. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 6:37 pm: | |
Nice going Vic tell everyone the meeting is closed so not many show up and than say its open at the last minute to proptect yourself.
way to go politics as usual |
Shakespeare
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 6:47 pm: | |
There is a meeting on Tuesday, as well, no? |
Thomas
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 7:16 pm: | |
Yes thats right but will Certified be there? I heard in letter from Fartax that certified stated land value on the west side of town is 1 million per acre. Where are we Beverly Hills? |
Buddy
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 7:25 pm: | |
Mayor DeLuca,
Here is your recent post regarding the justification and process for declaring a closed meeting today:
"Friday's meeting at 8:30am is an executive session of the Township Committee to determine if Certified fulfilled its contract terms with the Township and if not, to determine whether litigation is a viable alternative. There is also an agenda item dealing with a personnel matter. State law permits legal and personnel topics to be discussed in a closed session.
The public notification process for this meeting was the same as all of our meetings: a posting on the bulletin board in town hall and a legal notice in the NewsRecord. That notice will appear in Thursday's paper. "
What process was used to update the public that today's meeting had been changed to an open forum? Was a posting placed on the bulletin board ? (By the way, not many of us traipse through the town hall to review the bulletin board postings daily)...
Should we rely on NEXT WEEK'S NEWS RECORD after the fact???????????????????????????????
At a time when everyone in town has really got to calm down and think rationally about the overall situation, it becomes enormously critical for you and the rest of our public officials to clearly communicate what is going on at every point in the process. This INCLUDES -if necessary - postponing meetings if the notification process becomes inacurate or is not timely.
We all recognize that the Committee, Ed Galante and even Ceritifed are under enormous pressure. All intelligent people in this community hope that you will steer us towards a universally equitable solution.
But please take the time to help us participate appropriately. |
Cfa
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 7:54 pm: | |
Thomas...actually, it's a whole lot better than Beverly Hills. |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 8:32 pm: | |
Hey, hold on a second !
Get this :
"the mayor and other Township officials went to Trenton."
Now, correct me if I'm mistaken but didn't both Mr. DeLuca and then Mr. Ryan both clearly say pre-election that going to Trenton was a "waste of time." ?
What happened to change their minds? and so quickly !! |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 9:11 pm: | |
Sorry, U, time to correct you. What I said was that I'd been to Trenton already on numerous occasions, and that we'd also met with various officials on various topics locally as well.
Find me a posting or a quote where I of Vic said that going to Trenton was a waste of time. You used "" marks in your posting so I am certain that you can show everyone the place where I said that.
Or can you? |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 9:53 pm: | |
For Jerry or Vic:
Was today's meeting televised? Will it be rebroadcast on 35? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 9:58 pm: | |
No it was not. |
Papa
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 10:45 pm: | |
I think the township comm. as it always does is a coverup for what it is doing behind the public show. this is a crime which is going on and it should be condeemed .I am so upset that I can hardly contain myself I like most people that are realy upset are just waiting for the right time to leave this town to get away from the politics.... |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Friday, January 12, 2001 - 11:02 pm: | |
Excuse me. Mr. Ryan, I recall you saying at the DeHart Rec. Center words to the effect that you felt the lobbying Trenton for tax relief issue, as it came up repeatedly in the debate, was in essence a waste of time and a non-issue. The real problem, you said, was with our Republican Governor. You further suggested that the only real solution for Maplewood's tax woes was for voters to vote out the Republican Governor in the next election.
Perhaps, "waste of time" may not be an exact quote. Nonetheless, I believe it fairly represents the point you were trying to make since your opponent, Ms. Marzano, had made taxes and lobbying Trenton for tax relief one of her main priorities.
When I read the above Maplewood Township Committee Press release, I found the announcement of your trip to Trenton ironic, to say the least. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 12:02 am: | |
No, U, sorry, never said it was "in essence a waste of time" or a non-issue. You don't "Go to Trenton", you go to meetings wherever and whenever needed, just as I did when I was Mayor and just as Vic did yesterday.
I *did* say that the best long term solution was ditching the property tax for an income tax. And I certainly will be supporting a gubernatorial candidate and legislators that support real property tax relief.
You've not at all fairly represented my debate position. Surprise, surprise.
Obviously, though, you were at the debate... it was not on TV and it was pretty lightly attended. So, U, we've narrowed down who you are to a pretty short list. So is it Michael? or Marie? Come clean! Why hiding behind cutesy names? I can certainly handle the truth! |
Nohero
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 7:37 am: | |
Oh great, the "going down to Trenton" business again.
During the election, the argument raised by Ms. Marzano was that she would go to Trenton to ask for funding. At the DeHart debate, the discussion was over whether going to Trenton for funding was the best strategy. Mr. U, your attempt to spin that into a general position by Mr. Ryan that any contact with Trenton is a waste of time, is just plain wrong.
Have a nice day. |
Eas
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 9:28 am: | |
Mr. U--
Enough with Trenton. I for one am more concerned about how this whole revaluation issue has been handled. To wit:
--Why in a town where high taxes are THE issue of the day was the revaluation process handled so poorly from a political and PR perspective? It seems to me that clear communication to the public on this issue has been lacking. (Witness the last-minute change in Friday's meeting from closed to open. I definitely would have gone to this meeting if I had knows it was open but had no idea about the sudden switch. A change like this, in the current atmosphere, does raise eyebrows.)
--I realize that the time to question the reassessments has been extended, but this really should have been the case from the beginning. By the time I knew I could contact the assessment company, the time to do it had already run out. Again, that time period has been extended but it just served to reinforce the view that this whole thing is being shoved down people's throats with very little time to react.
--Why hasn't the mayor or some other village official sat down for a front page interview with the News Record to lay everything out clearly and concisely. It seems like the flow of information if scattered and piecemeal (e.g. last night's meeting suddenly turning public).
Just my 2 cents, but I feel like the problem with the reassessment is not just higher taxes, but a lack of communication to the public on what is one of the biggest issues in this town. |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 10:47 am: | |
Mr. Ryan :
I stand by my interpretation of your comments but hey, If you say that's not what you meant, then that's the end of it.
As for coming clean. I'm as clean as at least over 100 other posters on this board!
(Perhaps you have me confused with Nohero who apparently was also at the debate.)
Anyway, enough about me, let's talk about you.
I'll let you go since I'm certain you have more pressing issues to attend to other than attempting to "uncloak" poster's pseudonyms on Maplewoodonline. |
Debby
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:05 am: | |
Hey Gerry-
Now that you're not Mayor anymore, you probably have more time on your hands. Go ahead, bubbaleh, uncloak! ( I just LOVE it when you do that!) |
Jur050
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:37 am: | |
I for one, have been uncloaked! And by the Ex-Mayor Himself! I am proud to see that someone is finally, agressively, seeking funds by visiting Trenton. During the campaign, Ms. Marzano's pledge to do just that was met with distain by both Mr. Ryan and Mr. DeLuca. However, I am pleased to learn that there is an effort a foot to do precisely that. Or was there another reason for their visit? Specifically, who did they meet with? And why? |
Davidbuckley
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:46 am: | |
It is clear that statements made anonymously in ANY forum carry less weight than statements made publicly.
Those who would have their words mean something to the people with whom they are communicating would be well served to use their REAL NAMES.
There is a legitimate reason to be careful if one is saying things that could be cause for fearing physical harm. Anyone who felt this was the case could simply use their REAL NAME for things they really believe in and stand behind and use a pseudonym when saying things that made them feel their personal safety was compromised.
Be well, all.
David Buckley |
Ejt
| | Posted on Saturday, January 13, 2001 - 11:48 am: | |
Bubbelah? Don't you mean Bubba? |
|