| Author |
Message |
    
Bobk
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 11:53 am: |     |
I am setting this thread up in the hopes that the TC will review it and have answers at the Tuesday evening meeting at Columbia. Please, general questions only. |
Mlj
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 12:39 pm: | |
George Kraus, local realtor who spoke at the last meeting, indicated that many of the new assessments simply do not reflect fair market value, and offered his assistance, along with that of his colleagues, to provide comps based on factual real estate sales data. (Of course, this has been the argument of many residents).
Question #1: Is Mr. Galante's assessment review process, for the whole town, going to include the real estate comps?
Question #2: If so, to what extent, and exactly what other data is being used? And if not, why not? |
Ucnthndlthtruth
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:31 pm: | |
1) What is the exact criteria Mr. Galante is using for assessment ? Is he using a 3 year period of comps ?
2) Exactly what weight DID certified give to 98,99
sales comps? If it's 0, (as I suspect) isn't that just plain dishonest ?
3) Why did the west side revals come out after the election ?
4) How can the Township justify what appears to be
cross the board cuts (50,000, 5,000) in valuation being given according to neighborhood ?
5) What is the land tax assessment for the Country Club ?
6) Will Mayor DeLuca accept his reduction in taxes ? |
Jln
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 1:51 pm: | |
Here are some key questions/issues to be addressed by the TC, the Assessor and/or Certified Valuations:
1. What are the specific boundaries of neighborhoods used in the reval? Print up enough maps so everyone can have one.
2. With respect to land values, how was the $350,000/acre base land value arrived at? Was it applied uniformly to all neighborhoods in Maplewood?
3. With respect to land values, what neighborhood valuation adjustments were made, both originally and as revised? Come with details about these adjustments, both original and revised, as they pertain to every neighborhood in Maplewood. How were these neighborhood adjustments arrived at? Were these adjustments applied to every residence in a neighborhood on a flat per property basis, or were they applied in some other way?
4. Have other adjustments been made on a blanket basis to groups of residences (either neighborhood or otherwise) for other factors, e.g. busy streets, flood plains etc? Come prepared with specific details regarding the type of adjustments, the amounts of such adjustments, how they were determined, and to what group of residences they were applied.
5. Were comparables for the last three years used for every neighborhood? If so, how were they weighted? Were the same weightings utilized for every neighborhood? Come with lists of comparables (showing addresses and dates of sale) with the weightings, used for every neighborhood. Print enough so everyone can have one.
6. In light of revisions that have been made, redo the statistical analysis posted by Gerry Ryan on this board which showed a breakdown by neighborhood of the changes in valuation, and the tax increases or decreases. Gerry's format was excellent and should be duplicated, but the analysis should be enhanced by inclusion of information pertaining to commercial and rental properties. Print sufficient copies so that everyone can have one.
7. Will residents who didn't speak with Certified Valuations still get whatever adjustments were made on a blanket basis as they pertain to their properties?
Admittedly this is a tall order by Tuesday. But based on what we've seen so far, the process has had the appearance of being arbitrary and incomplete. Maybe it's fair, maybe it isn't, but in the absence of full disclosure, how could anyone ever make a reasoned judgement? Given the way the reval has been handled thus far, until the Township Committee, the Assessor, and/or Cerfied Valuations come clean with a complete, detailed, and public disclosure of all the underlying methodologies, definitions, comparables, assumptions and results, the presumption of unfairness is still the operative one. The TC should have to prove objectively and conclusively to all of us that what's been done is fair, and they should have to do it NOW. |
Townie
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 5:22 pm: | |
Questions I hope to hear answers to on Tuesday night:
1. Does the state or county insist that towns follow certain procedures in doing an assessment?
2. Who can authoritatively tell us whether Certified follow those procedures? (And will they be there Tuesday?)
3. If Certified made errors, does the County Assessor have the ability to correct them?
4. If Certified made multiple errors, is that a legal basis for rejecting the numbers and redoing the revaluation? |
Ffof
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 5:52 pm: | |
Another question-
If it was in Certified's contract to look at the last three years for comparables but we know (or prove or have proved)that they used only 2000 comps in certain areas, is this considered a breech of contract? or just error? (if error, then go to Townie's questions 2,3 and 4 above.)
When did the TC become aware of this, and other errors, and why did they continue payment to them even as miscommunications increased between Certified Val and the TC.
If the TC felt dispair or helplessness over the Miscommunication problem between them and Certified, why were no steps taken to alert the public? |
Crocamo
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 8:18 pm: | |
A few more questions to add: How are VIEWS calculated into the land value evaluation mix?
How much for a GOLF COURSE view, Memorial Park view, Maplecrest Park view, all the other parks in Maplewood views, and also the Manhattan view.
Also, as stated above, how many years were used for the reval, 98, 99, and 2000, and/or what were the rates? If the 3 past years were used, then the numbers for my neighborhood were way off accord. to sales data for the last 3 years. That's if the 3 last years were used. It seems that only CERTIFIED knows. Please tell them to bring the data, this time. |
Allprohome
| | Posted on Sunday, January 21, 2001 - 10:12 pm: | |
Did Certified use any logic factor to lower the assessment value when it was known that the new assessment value would raise the taxes and lower the resale value of the home.
xx If they did use logic, what would the assessment be at the present tax rate.
xx If they did not use logic, is the assessment value based on the new taxes. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 3:52 am: | |
1/ How were the revised neighborhood charges arrive at?
2/ Do they reflect the street by street review by Ed Gallante promised last week at the TC meeting?
3/ What effect do these changes have on the $2.66 rate? What is the new estimated rate?
4/ Have any law suits been filed concerning the Reval?
5/ If Certified methodology involves mathimatical models as many of us suspect, how has the model been modified to relect the diverse housing stock in Maplewood, both as respects style and condition?
6/ Has the possiblity of delaying the Reval until 2002 been discussed with the State tax authorities? |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 3:54 am: | |
Another one:
1/ How are investment properties taxed? As commercial or as residential? I understand that there are a lot of houses in town owned as investmentts. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 9:35 am: | |
I hope members of the TC will address these BEFORE the meeting... It just might clear things up and make for a more productive meeting. Here are my points:
1) Would the TC please answer questions as they are being asked? Last week, 54 speakers said their peace. The TC responded with maybe 3-5 minute remarks each, but in no way answered specific concerns.
2) Why are the dates for filing in 2001 so important that we have to rush this miscarriage of justice through? Last reval was due in 1991. Ten years of due dates have come and gone with no apparent problem from the state or county. > OR IS THAT THE UNDERLYING MOTIVE??? Is the TC under the microscope from higher political authorities? Are they pulling a classic CYA move here?
3) Mayor DeLuca is quoted in the News-Record as saying that the reval is being done under the letter of the law. In the same paper, he states that NJ law requires a reval every 10 years. We have NOT had a reval every 10 years. Could Vic DeLuca explain this to the people of Maplewood?
4) The town pool runs on a budget derived from revenues from paid dues from town residents over and above their ridiculously high taxes. They run UNDER BUDGET, with a surplus of $175,000 that gets appropriated from the town. People who paid for the pool just paid more taxes, right? Isn't that unconstitutional? Taxation without representation? At the very least unethical and inappropriate? Financially unsound? Politically unwise? IS IT OK WITH EVERYONE?
5) Since the pool people can run under budget and the town can't, shouldn't we elect the pool guys to run the town?
6) Certified reported to the TC at the emergency meeting on Jan. 12th, that there was very little relevance given to 1998 sales, slightly more to 1999 sales, and the vast majority of weight placed on 2000 sales. Then, they stated that values were calculated to represent the values AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2000. They rounded UP the values of all the sales to reflect a HOUSING BOOM MARKET VALUE, not a FAIR MARKET VALUE. In two respects, this is a breach of contract. The averaging of three years wasn't done and the values are not FAIR MARKET. |
Euclidean
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 10:04 am: | |
Certified Valuations is out of appointments through the Tuesday, 1/24 extension period. What is the procedure for reviewing our assessments going forward? |
Ted
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 1:23 pm: | |
I have one question to add: Somewhere amid all of the discussion (online, intown, on the train etc.) I heard something really disturbing. If this is just an untrue rumour, please say so ASAP so that it does not linger (to the extent that is possible). After Certified was hired and before they started the reval process, the TC had a discussion with them to outline what the problems in town were regarding the "inequitable" distribution of the tax burden. If true, what business did the TC have discussing this? It's my understanding that Certified's job should be to assess each property's FMV in a totally objective manner using accepted standards and methodoligies. Perhaps they got the message from the TC (who awarded them the contract $$$) as to what the desired result was? Then maybe, they slanted their assements to undervalue the east side while overvaluing the west to an extent which suprised the TC and has led to the current furor? |
Golden
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 1:24 pm: | |
To any member of the town council:
Called the Tax Assesor's office on 1/22 at about 10:30 to make an appointment with Mr. Galante, since the second letter from Certified left the reval amount unchanged.
I was told by a secretary that Mr. Galante will not look at any individual request for review. I was told that I had to file directly with Essex County.
WHAT HAPPENED?
The TC had advised us that Mr. Galante would be able to complete a review within the required dates. I thought the deal was for the town assesor to work with the homeowner to see if in fact the reval by Certified was correct. If there was an agreement - fine - no need to go the the County.
Now I find out this is no longer an option,and that I must accept the Certified reval or directly to the County.
Interested to know:
Are the members of the TC aware of the fact that Mr. Galante will not see or speak to anyone. If this is not correct information than you should know that is what's being told by the assesor's office.
PLEASE PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION |
Mayorlb
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 2:24 pm: | |
As a former Mayor in NJ, with experience in revals, I would be glad to share my experience with the TC regarding what can make them work. Even at this late date steps can be taken to ensure the process is both equitable and acceptable to the vast majority of property owners. Individual, ad hoc, property reassessments will not solve the real problem.
An initial suggestion is that property valuations, by neighborhood, should be reviewed
by a committee comprised of the reval company, tax assessor, TC member, and two residents (one preferably a realtor). While the final say rests with the TC, of course, directly involving residents is the best way to defuse large scale issues from being created. The current state we are in must be seen for what it is, a political and analytical dilemma. The best way to address both is to leverage the talent in this town and bring what are at times adversarial parties together in a common solution. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 2:57 pm: | |
Does anyone care that we Middle-of-Maplewood homeowners have been paying more than our share for years? Our tab is already $12G and it will go up another $2500 if the reval goes through. We don't seem to have many people from this area up in arms. I had actually believed the reval would result in a reduction of our skyhigh tax rate! Incidentally, I met someone today who said he had been planning to buy a house in Maplewood but has shelved the idea until "the prices of homes starts to drop." |
Ffof
| | Posted on Monday, January 22, 2001 - 3:13 pm: | |
Mayorlb- Do you know anyone on our TC? Have you contacted them? When were you mayor? What town? Your suggestion sounds reasonable, but as far as we know, the TC has not taken steps to do this. Are you a resident of Maplewood? Would you come to the meeting on Tuesday at CHS? |
Mayorlb
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 1:52 pm: | |
Ffof - I was Mayor in Boonton (Morris County) in early 1990's and I live on North Terrace. I have not met anyone from the TC to discuss this. Newborn triplets are limiting my time for meetings (like tonight) for now. While I applaud the (belated) data on assessments that is being shared now, there is more than adequate time to review each and every assessment to ensure accuracy.I am sure that if taxpayers were part of the process, in neighborhood based committees, reviewing property assessments, then everyone would benefit. Let's be honest, this is not rocket science. Rather than fix assessments piecemeal a completely new process is needed. If we adopt a sound new process this issue can and will be fixed.If not, the ramifications of the current flawed process will be felt for many years to come. |
Ffof
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 2:44 pm: | |
Unfortunately, I think the TC feels that they are tied into the current reval based on the amount of $ they've already forked over to Certified Val. Whether we can work out a sound process based on what CV has already done remains to be seen. Tune in tonite on CH 35! |
Bobk
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 2:55 pm: | |
Triplets! Oh my Gawd! Congradulations! (I think)
Thanks for your input. This is the second Reval I have been involved with here in Maplewood and Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Ryan and the rest of the TC have been more open than was the case back in 1981.
I also hope that this doesn't end up with hundreds of people appealing to the Tax Board.
Basically, those that appeal will,on an overall basis, do better than those who don't. The ultimate in unfair systems. |
Ashear
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 4:13 pm: | |
After taking a look at the numbers in the spreadsheet Jerry provided it occurred to me that part of the reason that some people are facing such high increases is that the old assessment may not have been very good. The reason I say this is that in looking at the numbers I saw that neighbors who had assessments similar to mine had very different changes in their tax payment (down in most cases where I am). The critical difference was in their old assessment, not their new one.
For example one house was assessed at 194,700, another at 194,400. Yet the house with the higher assessment got a greater tax reduction (-1467.52 v. -1383.8) because of the higher old assessment. I am not enough of a geek to figure out how do search for this on a large scale but I thought it was interesting.
While I realize some people feel their assessments are just wrong others are upset mainly by the increase they are seeing. While it may not be much consolation it might at least help people to understand if inconsistency in the old assessments is part of the problem. Just a thought.
(If this is all wrong, sorry, math has never been my strong suit) |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 6:11 pm: | |
>>For example one house was assessed at 194,700, another at 194,400. Yet the house with the higher assessment got a greater tax reduction (-1467.52 v. -1383.8) because of the higher old assessment.
Ashear: Your use of the word 'because' is ambiguous. I don't think you meant otherwise, but it's worth noting that the old assessment has no impact on the new assessment. The new assessment is a function of (perceived) market value. In the time since the old assessment, one house might have had improvements that the other did not (central air, an extension, etc.). |
Melidere
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2001 - 9:09 pm: | |
No, Larry, but Ashear is exactly right that the CHANGE in the tax is driven by the old assessment.
You are correct that there may have been improvements in one house vs another that resulted in there no longer being a difference in value that existed then.
Or there could have been an error then that stood uncorrected all these years. |
|