| Author |
Message |
    
Vicdeluca
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 9:36 am: |     |
Here is part 1 of the background information.
Background Information
Although municipalities are expected to revalue properties periodically, the last assessment of Maplewood properties was done in 1981. This Township Committee believes that if a revaluation had been done ten years ago, we would not be experiencing the significant increases in assessed values that we are today.
The New Jersey Constitution states that:
"Property shall be assessed for taxation under general laws and by uniform rules. All real property assessed and taxed locally · shall be assessed accordingly to the same standard of value · and such real property shall be taxed at the general tax rate of the taxing district in which the property is situated."
In January of each year, the Maplewood Tax Assessor files with the Essex County Board of Taxation the value of each property in the township as of October 1st of the prior year. For the tax year 2000, the 7,262 commercial and residential ratables in Maplewood had an assessed value of about $554 million. That amount equaled approximately 36 percent of true market value.
Since 1981, property across Maplewood did not appreciate in value at the same rate. This has led to inconsistencies and inequities in tax assessments among the various sections of town and even among different properties within the same neighborhood.
In 1998, the Township Committee started discussions about undertaking a revaluation. By mid-1999, a decision was made to move forward. The Township solicited proposals from qualified assessment companies and received the following three:
Realty Appraisal Company $461,800
Certified Valuations $397,960
Appraisal Systems $354,800
On November 15, 1999, the Township Committee interviewed representatives from the two lowest bidders, Certified Valuations and Appraisal Systems. Subsequently, checks were made with officials in towns where each firm had done reassessment work. Those checks found that the performance of both firms was satisfactory. On December 7, 1999, the Township Committee discussed the proposals from the two companies and decided to award a contract with Certified Valuations. Township Committee members felt more comfortable with Certified's record of defending tax appeals and with their record of fairly interacting with property owners. The Committee felt that Certified could meet the scheduled completion date since they did not have another revaluation scheduled in 2000.
On December 27, 1999, a contract between the Township and Certified was signed and subsequently approved by the Director of the NJ Division of Taxation on January 19, 2000. The contact calls for Certified "to appraise all taxable real property, including land, buildings, and other improvements located within the Municipality" with values to be established as of October 1, 2000. Certified was to follow the Real Property Appraisal Manual for New Jersey Assessors and to use two approaches in determining residential property values, Comparison or Market Data Approach and Cost Approach.
According to the contract, "where meaningful comparable sales data are available, the Comparison or Market Data Approach shall be utilized. The firm shall collect and analyze local sales that have occurred during the previous three years in its application of the Comparison or Market Data Approach. Sales analysis shall include the following market factors: address and neighborhood zoning, quality class, living area, year built, lot size, bathrooms, garage, heat and air conditioning, fireplace, exterior condition, interior condition, traffic flow, landscaping, sales price and adjusted sales price."
"The Firm shall calculate base unit foot, site, square foot, or acreage values for each block and lot."
"After examining each lot in the field and after considering all factors affecting market value, the firm shall apply such units of land value and determine the value of each lot. All final values set forth on the Property Record Cards shall be market value as of October 1, 2000."
"The Cost Approach shall be applied to all buildings to be appraised." |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:21 am: | |
Mayor De Luca and Township Committee Members: Hindsight is 20/20 but here goes anyway.
The entire Township Committee could have saved itself a lot of grief by posting and publishing this information a while ago. Please think about the value of positive communications when confronting controversial town issues in the future. The public trust and goodwill is an important part of your ability to govern. Proactive, rather than only reactive, communication goes a long way to foster that trust.
The same holds true for the scheduling of what was obviously going to be a contentious town meeting at the Town Hall. Much better to err on the side of inclusivity by utilizing another venue such as Columbia's auditorium. Although I believe the Township Committee is acting in good faith to deal with this most difficult situation, I wish you would not leave yourselves open to the easy criticism of failure or unwillingness to anticipate and plan for the needs of the community to have their voices heard.
Unfortunately, a large part of the community was not heard last night, at least not before 11:00 when I had to leave. The residents of the Hilton area remain extremely concerned about continuing to shoulder an unequitable burden of the property tax. The crowd last night was intimidating to speak against. Some community members, as you know, saw this as an opportunity to whip up negative sentiment, primarily against the TC. It made it extremely difficult to speak to the other side of the issue - equity for all taxpayers.
Thank you for posting the information. It is useful information despite its lateness.
Bacata |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:40 am: | |
Bacata,
Almost all of that information has been posted before. What did you just learn? |
Oxford
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 3:34 pm: | |
Bacata/Nakaille, why did you feel the crowd last night was "intimidating to speak against"? I watched every minute of the meeting, saw every speaker, even took n otes, and not once was a personal attack levied from one community member to another, nor were any voices raised. There was no intimidation, and in fact no vitriol, no venom just passionate, angry people. In fact, despite their anger, people presented cold, hard data about how incorrectly their homes were valued. How is that intimidating? You must be quite timid indeed if you are scared off by mild-mannered residents who merely speak the truth, none of whom said anything the least bit inflammatory. Maybe you were so intimidated because you know you and your cohorts haven't got a reasonable leg to stand on. If this TC pushes through this flawed revaluation, with all those reasonable comments on the record, on videotape, it will expose itself to lawsuits. Mark my words. There will be attempts to hold each individual on the TC responsible for this fiasco. There will be more press coverage. There will be investigations. There will be budgetary oversight from the state . There may even be civil disobedience. Now THAT might be something a little more intimidating than a few calmly spoken words at a town meeting. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 4:36 pm: | |
I can't believe you don't see why it would have been intimidating for Bacata/Nakaille to speak out last night. Oh yeah it's always easy to be the one naysayer in an angry mob - let's see- do you think she would have been loudly and soundly booed???? |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 4:41 pm: | |
Eliz, someone did speak up on behalf of the east side last night. Said that he understood why folks were upset that their taxes were going up but he felt he was receiving a much deserved decrease. He got a round of applause for his words. |
Eliz
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 4:43 pm: | |
Thanks for the correction - must have been when I dozed off.... |
Oxford
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 4:46 pm: | |
Eliz, not one person was booed last night. There was no reason for anyone to feel intimidated. As the poster above notes, the one or two people who did speak out in favor of keeping the reval were applauded. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 7:25 pm: | |
IF you wern't there you can't comment on whether someone should have been intimidated. I was there and yes the crowd was intimidating. They were very loud and obnoxios!!! I know everyone wants to save every penny they can but to act the way that crowd did last night was simply uncalled for. Most of the people who spoke last night were suppose to be the "professional, upperclass, and well mannered " people of Maplewood. If that is the case this town is in a lot of trouble!!! I was never so embarrassed for this town as I waslast night. They were screamming like animals who just got let out of a cage. They were insulting the committee, they wouldn't let them talk and they made serious threats. These committee members were not out to "screw" anyone, they were trying to do what was right for the whole town. I know these residents will have you believe that they are civilized and concerned about the whole town, but that only counts if it doesn't cost them anything. In fact, the one man got up there and stated that it is their fault for not appealling their tax (referring to the residents on the eastside.) There is some real compassion for his neighbor!!! Ooppps that's not his neighbor that's and eastsider.
The "we need to work together as a town" and "we are one town" is all crap!!! What they meant was as long as they get their way. This was also proven by the "throw out the reval or we will recall you" comments that were made all night long.
My comments were not intended for those of you who acted like human beings and presented your case in a civilized manner, it's for those of you who acted like animals. Sorry if the truth hurts.
P.S. If having money makes you act like this...I prefer not to have money. My mother raised me better than that!!! |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 8:11 pm: | |
Eb1154, what meeting did you attend last night? I was there, and after the initial confusion settled down (another example of unpreparedness by our bungling TC) the meeting was very orderly. Nobody made any "threats", short of asking for a recall. If you were embarassed by the behavior of the folks who spoke last night then you have some problems that need to be dealt with professionally. Either that or you are intentionally misprepresenting what took place last night, which is despicable. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 8:33 pm: | |
The audience was loud and rude and occasionally crude from start to finish. Many speakers were well prepared and spoke eloquently. The reactions they got and the reaction the TC got when they tried to speak were something else. When you are in the majority, that kind of boisterousness feels good. When you are not, it can feel rather threatening. EB and Elizabeth got the sentiment right. I am not generally a timid person as you may have guessed from my usual posts. But I am not a fool, either, in a large angry crowd that is out for blood in some form.
Bacata |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:18 pm: | |
They got the sentiment wrong. The crowd was angry at first when it looked like the majority was going to be excluded. Once that problem was taken care of, it was well behaved and respectful of the speakers. The individual who spoke up on behalf of the east side received a round of applause from this "large angry crowd out for blood". I didn't hear anyone being crude. Again, after the initial problems with addressing the ENTIRE assembly were addressed, the only thing that you could remotely classify as "rude" behavior was when the crowd would not let the TC cut off anyone until his/her remarks were concluded ("let him finish"). |
Mlj
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:38 pm: | |
Egads, we can't even agree upon the atmosphere at the meeting. As if two different meetings altogether were being described. |
Lizzyr
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 - 11:47 pm: | |
Vic,
Thanks for your clarification. As I sit here and try to make sense of my property record card (PRC), how am I assured that the various factors that are added and multiplied together are the same across town? Since the COST approach is being used, I don't think a sink or toilet costs any different whether I live on Euclid or Boyden, so these formulas should be the same across town under the COST approach. (the MARKET approach may yield something different, but you state that the COST approach is the appropriate method and Certified calculates the cost of my dwelling, not the market value, on my PRC.)
If most residents would review and compare their PRC with their neighbors next door and across town, I would hope the primary differce is land value. This is what the TC and Mr Galante should be focussing on, as there should be no difference in the appraised value of a similar dwelling if the COST approach is being used. |
|