| Author |
Message |
    
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:07 pm: |     |
Does anyone really think that the reval totals will come out exactly the same as our current property tax totals? How could they? With the drastic increases there will be more revenues. Yes, the pie will remain the same and the excesses will go into the reserve fund which the Township Committee has already spent. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:14 pm: | |
Sorry, Nil, you're wrong. |
Papa
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:18 pm: | |
sorry gerry he is right. |
Dave
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:24 pm: | |
Sorry, Papa, Nil's wrong. |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:41 pm: | |
Nil,
If you would look at the actual numbers you would see that most residents are actually getting a tax decrease. I know I'm supposed to. So, just in case you never took math, when you subtract the tax decreases from the tax increases, the answer is 0. |
Jur050
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:47 pm: | |
Hey Nil, I too have heard that the reserve fund has been depleated and the enhanced revenues generated thru the increase in total revenues generated will be used to offset this? What other uses will be found for the $1.7 million excess generated from the total increase in revenues?
Ex-Mayor Ryan, do you know? How about you Vic? I did the math, checked the figures and that is the new suplus in excess of past revenues! |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:51 pm: | |
For the second (or third) time, the numbers in the spreadsheet are residential only. They do not include vacant land or commercial properties.
Continual repetition of incorrect information doesn't make it so.
The reval does NOT generate new revenue. |
Kap
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 10:56 pm: | |
What is so difficult about all of this!!!! Jerry stated in another thread that the $1.6M difference is due to residential assesments accounting for a larger portion of the total pie and that it is offset by an equal reduction on the commercial side of the tax pie. He also stated that there is no calculation for the surplus until the year 2000 budget is closed out.
If you don't believe what Jerry has said just say so. Don't pretend on a separate thread the issue has not been addressed. Your actions are very transparent. |
Jur050
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 11:08 pm: | |
I am reminded of the pool fund situation, and comments made concerning that reserve fund. |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 11:15 pm: | |
The pool fund issue is exactly why I am leery of believing our officials. I understand the revals don't include the commercial side but how could you already KNOW that it will be a decrease of $1.6 M? This makes no sense. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Monday, January 15, 2001 - 11:24 pm: | |
"I understand the revals don't include the commercial side but how could you already KNOW that it will be a decrease of $1.6 M? This makes no sense."
Total up the net change in the spreadsheet of residential properties. It is $1.6M. That's where the 1.6M came from. The total change across the entire town (all vacant land, commercial, and residential) is 0. |
Kathy
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 11:25 am: | |
Tax revenues are determined by the budget, not by the valuation. A revaluation only changes how the raising of those revenues is distributed. Why is this such a difficult concept? |
Movingtotown
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 4:57 pm: | |
I am confused. How do some people know what their reval taxes will be and others do not? Or does everyone know? Please advise |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:00 pm: | |
Movingtotown, if you know the new assessed value of your property, you multipy it by the new rate of 2.6% (approx) to derive the new property taxes. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:01 pm: | |
meant to say "multiply". |
Movingtotown
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:13 pm: | |
Overtaxedalready, thank you. Two followup questions. (1) Do all homeowners already know their new assessed values already? (2) Is the 2.6% a new rate? If so, what was the old rate for comparison purposes? |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:22 pm: | |
Yes, they now know their new assessed values. To the best of my knowledge, the 2.6% rate will be the new rate (I've heard it in dicussions around town, and it's been referenced several times on these boards). As far as the old rates go, you can't really compare them to the current rates because they were applied against lower assessed values. I can't recall the exact numbers, but my old rate was slightly over 10% of the old assessed value. |
Movingtotown
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 5:24 pm: | |
Thank you. Are these new assessed values a matter of public record? |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 6:06 pm: | |
Overtaxdalready is right that the old rate was just above 10%. Actually, I believe it was 10.21 or 10.22 (the increase factor for the town was 3.84 and 2.66*3.84=10.214)
The assessments will be public record once they are finalized. I don't think they are public record yet. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 8:28 pm: | |
Moving to town - they are not public record (yet) in fact we had to fax our deed of sale to Certified to get our reval number since we bought in October and the original letter was apparently sent to the previous owners. If you are in contract I suggest you have your lawyer look into it for you. |