Followup to Township Committee Meetin...

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post Archive through February 7, 2001 Mlj Alidah 20  1  2-7-01  10:32 pm Archive through February 8, 2001 Gerardryan Jennie 20  1  2-8-01  1:27 pm Archive through February 8, 2001 Njjoseph Gerardryan 20  1  2-8-01  7:15 pm Archive through February 8, 2001 Teach66 Ffof 20  1  2-8-01  10:34 pm Archive through February 9, 2001 Eb1154 Nakaille 20  1  2-9-01  1:37 pm Archive through February 9, 2001 Ffof Njjoseph 20  1  2-9-01  4:18 pm Archive through February 10, 2001 Yvette Nakaille 20  1  2-10-01  4:13 pm Archive through February 12, 2001 Eb1154 Townie 20  1  2-12-01  4:43 pm Archive through February 13, 2001 Octofoil Interalia 20  1  2-13-01  12:40 pm Archive through February 13, 2001 Jfb Dytunck 20  1  2-13-01  8:39 pm Archive through February 14, 2001 Mwood Nakaille 20  1  2-14-01  2:50 pm Archive through February 15, 2001 Mtierney Jfb 20  1  2-15-01  9:46 am Archive through February 15, 2001 Jfb Njjoseph 20  1  2-15-01  1:49 pm Archive through February 15, 2001 Njjoseph Townie 20  1  2-15-01  5:41 pm   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Townie Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 5:46 pm:        Dyntunck and Willfallaise1, Thanks to you both. Very informative.   Octofoil Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 7:02 pm:        Dyntunck and Wilfallaise1, Excellent work! Thanks! A question for Jerry: "Your ratio is allowed to be plus or minus 15% of the average." Would you define "allowed"? Is that "allowed" as in by muni ordinance or is it "allowed" as in an assessor's rule of thumb, or ????   Interalia Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 8:28 pm:        I was hoping someone could apprise me of the tax situation with the Maplewood Country Club. I was curious as to how they were assessed and reassessed.   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 9:55 pm:        Octofoil: It's not by ordinance, and it's not by rule of thumb. It's in the statutes. NJSA Title 54 (Taxation) defines the "common level range" as plus or minus 15% of the average ratio for a taxing district. You can search the NJ Statutes at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/html/statutes.htm Search for the phrase "common level range" (quotes included) and you will find 7 hits that define it and explain how it is used in appeals. Interalia: if anyone knows the address or lot-and-block of the country club, we could just look it up in the database. They are not tax exempt.   Lseltzer Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 10:03 pm:        Here's the data on the Country Club: 28 BAKER STREET Block: 18.03 Lot: 24 Vcs: AC40 Old Assessment: $2,236,000 New Assessment: $9,845,300 Old Taxes: $228,519.20 New Taxes: $271,008.31 Change In Taxes: $42,489.11   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 10:14 pm:        Wouldn't they have multiple blocks/lots? The Baker St address is the clubhouse I guess, but there is a non-contiguous piece across Pierson.   Dytunck Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 10:34 pm:        Hi to all on MOL, Here's a new fun fact just divulged by someone on the TC: The overall township assessment is now (ready?) .... (sure?).... approximately $1.8 Billion. That's down from $2.1B a fortnight ago. Where did wonderful Certified Valuations "accurate" assessment go? You mean $300,000,000.00 just went away like that? People? Hellooooooo? This means that the estimated tax rate went from 2.66 (Tax revenues of $56M divided by $2.1B) to 2.75 at the CHS meeting to now 3.11 percent. The numbers are still sliding pending the assessor's review. Take your latest assessment and multiply times .0311. Better yet, multiply 3.11 times 1.05 (conservatively) to allow for the new budget that was delayed public announcement until March 6 - (after certification of the new assessment) and you get 3.27. Now take out your calculators again. My guess is that the new budget numbers are so much of a bitter pill that an even higher increase is in store. Check out today's News Record. Five or six articles on the front page all with the word TAX. It's coming folks.... that other shoe is ready to fall. Dytunck   Gerardryan Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 11:07 pm:        Dyntuck: When I read this, I called Vic and spoke to him. I think either you misunderstood what you heard or Vic misspoke. The "total number" is still $2.056B. $1.8B represents residential properties only. The TC has not received an update from the assessor yet, and as I think I said, when we get it I will post it like I did the last time.   Overtaxdalready Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 11:24 pm:        Yep...saw the articles...I think we really do need that group to come in and take a look at the books. Also, did you see that South Orange is concerned that Maplewood might not have been paying its "fair share" of school costs? One of their officials is quoted as saying "...we still pay more per capita student in South Orange than they do and we have for a long time." Vic countered that by saying "I don't necessarily agree with the analysis. I think we've been paying our fair share".   Octofoil Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 11:42 pm:        Jerry Ryan, Thanks for pointing in the right direction to the 15% statute. As always, your continued responsiveness and input on this board is appreciated.   Dytunck Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 11:52 pm:        Jerry, (phew) Thanks for clearing that up! Sorry if I misunderstood that. H   Lseltzer Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 7:32 am:        Jerry, I just looked up its address and then looked that up in the database. But there aren't any commercial (4A) properties on Pierson or Pierson South, so I think that's it.   Jfb Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 9:09 am:        Townie, f.y.i I hired a legitimate contractor who was using illegals. I had nothing to do with it. So thanks for you offer for not turning me in, but not needed. I dont' believe that study. Students costs money, they don't pay income taxes or FICA taxes etc. Now, how can that be beneficial? Consume resources but not add anything? How much sales tax would the be generating? They don't buy much because they don't have much money or room. Cannot get licenses or buy cars etc. Getting off track here..   Octofoil Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 9:12 am:        Talk on the train this morning was that the Caldwells, Essex Fells and a couple of other Essex Co municipalities have now rec'd a mandate from the county to do a reassessment. Anyone able to confirm?   Mwood Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 9:59 am:        Jfb - doesn't it make sense to then make the illegals legal and let them pay tax??? re yr contractor - suggest you not get appointed to any cabinet positions (unless you're a man....) ;-/   Sac Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 10:10 am:        We are not (necessarily) supposed to pay the same as South Orange per capita for the schools. It depends on the distribution of property values. Just as individual families don't pay school tax based on the number of children in their families using the schools. The reassessment may change the balance between Maplewood and South Orange, but not because of relative numbers of students in the schools.