| Author |
Message |
    
Daddysallgone
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 7:09 am: |     |
I just wanted to start a new conversation on Mr Roger Desiderio, our Township Attorney, and how he fits into the reval fiasco and the Paul Gizzo/Pool fund stunt. On the reval, I have a really basic question which I can't really find an answer to in the FAQ, the News Record Articles or any of the posts...that question is "What is the real legal basis for the doing the reval NOW ?" I read quotes from Vic and others on the TC (I don't think any of which are really lawyers) that it just had to be done, our hands wre tied, legally we had to do it Blah..blah..blah. Following the precept that "saying something (even numerous times according to Jerry R) doesn't make something true" why did it have to be done now ? The initial letter from the Town just says "The revaluation is being performed to assure that the tax levy is fairly distributed among property owners". What was the catalyst for this ?? A petition, a letter from Essex County..what ? It seems that Newark hasn't had a reval for 30 or 40years and Millburn is now putting it off. Is it that Town Attorney that sits amongst the TC with his bulging bag of NJSA's and other documents who gave this guidance or "legal opinion to Reval". Wasn't Roger the person who advised the TC (and perhaps Mr Gizzo as well) that it would be OK (legally) for Paul to take the Police Director's job so soon after his retirement from the MPD ? Didn't the pension board and an Administrative Judge later find that it wasn't really correct and some of the pool fund money go to helping pay the money Paul owned in pension funds he received ? Now, I like Paul Gizzo but if he and the TC were given bad legal guidance, why wasn't the person that gave the bad advice sued so his malpractice insurance could be used to pay for the mistake instead of our pool dollars (which aren't even tax or approriated funds). Does anyone know the story ?? Was Desiderio involved in this ?? If so, was he ever held accountable ? |
Franny
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 12:06 pm: | |
I've heard the reval was done now because of the Moody Bond rating and that may tie into the S'field Ave. project. Apparently the bond rating was going to be lowered, etc. I don't know much about Bond ratings, so someone who does can take it from here please! |
Golden
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 5:41 pm: | |
Daddysallgone
You brought up an excellent point- the actions surrounding the Police Director position and the reval process are very similar.
Some background information for those who may have forgotten or not lived in town at the time. The TC decided that there was an emergent need for the creation of a civilian Police Director. If my memory is correct, this position was the subject of two town meetings. The first meeting was standing room only, with numerous speakers asking for an explanation as to why this position was necessary. Keep in mind that we already had a sitting Chief of Police. The response from the TC was that there were major problems with the functioning and morale of the force. Other than generalities, the TC never gave one specific reason why they felt the Chief was unable to manage his department. We were told to trust them , since they were acting in our best interest. The same night they voted to create the position, they also acted to appoint Paul Gizzo. Due to oposition from at least one TC member, it was decided to put the matter off for the next meeting.Mr Gizzo was thus appointed.
As you know, Paul Gizzo had to leave this position based on a determination from the State of New Jersey Pension Board, and faced the possibility of repaying a huge sum of money. HOW UNFAIR! And it happened because he relied on the guidance of the TC and attorney.
And now whe have the reval situation. Similar? - Yes. Here we go again with another controversial item - brought on by the TC. Only this time it will not be just one person , but probably many hundreds, who will bear the price of poor planning.
Assume for one minute that totally differnt members sat on the TC during the PD controversy. Would it be too much to expect that the current TC could have researched the extent of resident participation on hot issues?
And please don't tell me that it is easy to place blame without proposing a solution. I have lived in this town for over 22 years, paid my taxes each year, attended town meetings on occasion, and voted in each and every election, including the BOE. I feel that I have more than met my responsibilities as town resident. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 7:20 pm: | |
Daddysallgone,
The answer to your question regarding the reval...by law the TC didn't have to do the reval when it was done, and the 10 year rule is just a good rule of thumb. The TC did the reval to distribute the tax burden equally. However once they hired an outside contractor to do the reval they had to notify the state and once the state was notified it had to be completed. I don't think the TC attorney had a lot to do with this process. This is my understanding I may be wrong but I beleive that this is how it was explained to me. Milburn was able to put off their reval because it did it in-house and didn't notify the state. But you can bet when the people on their "eastside" of town find out, they will raise hell too. (if there is an eastside in Milburn.)
As far as the Police Director issue is concerned...yes the TC attorney was consulted and it does now appear that his position was incorrect but from what I remember about the lawsuit, it wasn't as cut and dry as everyone thinks. Even the state wasn't quite sure how it should have been handled so they reached a settlement.
I do agree that the TC went ahead and appointed Paul against the wishes of the people. But I do beleive that at that time they needed to do something with the PD. Looking back at it now, it may not have been the right answer.
I don't know about the pool fund issue. I have only heard one side so I can't help you there. |
Eb1154
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 7:32 pm: | |
Golden,
Do you honestly think that the residents would have supported a reval? There would have been very few people to support this issue because a lot of people don't understand the process and would have been in fear that their taxes were going to go up even if they were going to go down.
I don't think that these people should have ben taken advantage of just because they are ignorant to the process. I don't think the real problem is with the reval as much as is with the company who did the reval. And you can't have expected the TC to see these problems when this company came highly reccommended to them. |
Waynecaviness
| | Posted on Sunday, February 4, 2001 - 9:09 pm: | |
According to the news articles quoted elsewhere on this BB, Millburn officials were in contact with the state and received approval from the state to postpone implementation of their reval while they monitor sales prices versus assessment suggested values. |
Aruba18
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 5:59 am: | |
Golden-to fill you in on the PD issue-at the time,we had a "figurehead" Police Chief who wasn't concerned about the moral of the department;he was more concerned about his house at the shore,etc. However, the dept.did NOT support the hiring of Gizzo.Somehow,the Police Chief was very chummy with the TC,so his behavior was overlooked (including a lawsuit he cost the town), and Gizzo was hired.
Eb1154-the problem is not just with CV,it's also with the TC.What person in his right mind would hire a company that has no jobs lined up? Wouldn't you worry about their ability/performance,etc.? I certainly would, and I think the TC should have gotten a list of past jobs done by CV and checked out the other town's satisfaction with CV before hiring them. We have an excellent reval company located in So.Orange-wouldn't it make more sense to hire them since they know the area, etc.? |
Tracks
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 9:53 am: | |
By the time the reval is completed it will have been more than 20 years since the last one. It was clearly time to do another one. I think, based on reading about other towns, that no matter who does the reval, there are always complaints (from anyone who gets more than a nominal tax increase). The whole property tax system in NJ is stupid and that is the problem. |
Daddysallgone
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 7:29 pm: | |
The point is that the TC keeps claiming that their hands were tied, that they "legally" had to do a reval. I don't think that's the case...it's like EB wrote..once they got the reval going and told the State, they were compelled to complete it..but there was no legal obligation to initiate it. I just don't like the TC hiding behind things like "the law"..if it's only a half truth. They seem to be good at only telling half the story. The Gizzo thing was a fiasco. We could argue that the court and the pension board may have erred, but they ruled and it points to the Town's Counsel as giving some bad advice..why then should out Town Pool fund be used to bail Paul out ?? |
Nilmiester
| | Posted on Monday, February 5, 2001 - 8:39 pm: | |
As your tax dollars are spent to settle the Gizzo fiasco and your pool fund gets looted, blame everything on the NJ property tax system! |
Davel
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 6, 2001 - 1:40 pm: | |
No one has mentioned that one of the reasons the town felt compelled to do a revaluation was that persons were increasingly challenging their assessments and were winning. But this has been mentioned by the TC many times. Of course only those that thought they were paying too much were challenging their assessments, so the town was losing money. When I purchased my home 2.5 years ago I knew our property taxes were not equitable with other areas of Maplewood that we looked at. I considered hiring an attorney to challenge our assessment, but then I learned about the reevaluation and decided to wait. |
Yvette
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 7, 2001 - 3:18 pm: | |
I believe the TC also initiated the reval after the lawsuit in Long Island --- where residents won a class action suit because they were overpaying and other parts were underpaying. |
|