| Author |
Message |
    
Rssounds
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 9:45 am: |     |
Dear Jerry,
Thanks for your hard work in diffcult times. Could you address a few questions?
Can we refuse to pay the remainder of CVI's contract to them for the obvious problems that occured and we are now having to correct? Do you know how 2 and multi family homes were assessed? The next time there is a town meeting I would suggest to Mr. Galante or whoever will provide info to the public that they prepare themselves a little better. While I was able to follow Mr. Galante's reasoning for land value, I know that some of the audience left more confused than ever. The impression that some resident's land is valued at 1 million an acre is still very prevalent. The map didn't provide any illumination to the subject at all and wound up confusing people. The use of more, bigger and clearer visual aides, and a few lecture notes by Mr. Galante would have gone a long way to help people understand the process. |
Wineguy
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 10:08 am: | |
Well I can't find my post?
I just posted a long post and can't find it.
I attended the meeting on Tue night and need to take the proper steps in a re-assesment with CVI.
Though I'd rather not have it work against me as it did with the speaker who mentioned that he saw an increase of 260 to 290 (the gentleman who mentioned he was from Brooklyn). Looking for some guidance on what has worked best for all of you when dealing with CVI?
Thanks
"Wineguy" |
Rssounds
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 2:27 pm: | |
Dear Jerry,
Just thought of another one. In the interest of continuing to verify the accuracy of the reval, will info from property value cards other than one's own property be available for review? I understand that the cards are supposed to be ready sometime Monday. Is this date still correct? |
Citizen
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 4:21 pm: | |
Mr. Ryan...
Could you please give us a brief update on the late-hour motion passed Wednesday am on bringing on board a third-party, independent "assessor" to review the revaluation. Many of us felt that was an excellent idea. We also believe it would be helpful (and perhaps cost effective) if a panel of 3-4 residents also participated in the selection of the independent reviewer and the review itself.
If cost becomes an issue, we may be able to find someone who would donate their time and services.
Thank you. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 10:19 pm: | |
Rssounds:
1. I can't make any public comment on CV contract payment
2. Don't know the answer on multifamilies yet; it came up at the meeting and am waiting for an answer
3. Trying to pull together some notes and an electronic version of the map for everyone
4. I think the cards will be in our hands early next week, Monday or shortly after
Citizen:
There were 2 motions:
1. 1. a motion to spend a maximum of $2K for additional part time/temporary help (up to 4 head count) to process requests into Galante's office
2. a motion to get quotes and a scope of work statement for an outside expert review of the work done on Maplewood's reval. It was suggested later by a gentleman (whose name I've forgotten, sorry) that we might approach the Public Administration school at Rutgers for this. Weâre just looking for quotes at the moment and have not discussed or determined the process to use to select or how we'll specifically conduct this. The problem with the "Citizen's Committee" suggestion that I see is from a practical standpoint: how to pick, who to pick, etc. Cries of "cronyism" from all sides!! :-) In my view the best process is public on scope of work and selection and a large public readout that everyone can hear and be comfortable with
Jerry Ryan |
Eliz
| | Posted on Friday, January 26, 2001 - 9:53 am: | |
Jerry - thanks for saying that - I was a little concerned about a citizen's panel and felt this could ultimately be more divisive. |
|