| Author | Message | ||
     Octofoil |
There are those proposing a "Local Budget Budget Review" by the NJ Dept of the Treasury. On another thread this has been met with some for and some against. Perhaps a separate thread will be useful and facilitate an expanded discussion. To sort of kick this thread off, I will say that personally, I was not especially in favor of the idea at all. Why have some folks from Trenton, of all places, poking their noses into our business? But after reading several of the reports produced by the group (thanks to the posting of the link by Nohero), I have become less against it. Not 100% for it, either, but the reports that I read (Morristown, Bloomfield and a couple of others), made me think that maybe there is something to be said for this after all and that further discussion might be useful. For those interested, please go and read not one, but two or three of these things and get a flavor. Then please share your thoughts! The link is NJ Dept of Taxation. | ||
| Interalia |
Octofoil: I am not an avid writer, but I am an avid reader. Aside from now living in a ever-increasingly splintering town, the posts clearly indicate that there is a rampant state of confusion over what property cards say; what maps indicate; what the TC has been doing with our money. I can't be sure what Trenton will find out. But we seem to be plodding along...filing our reassessment appeals today...and then on 4/15 filing our county appeals...barely understanding what has transpired. The TC apparently hasn't clarified anything for anyone...because I have yet to meet anyone who is satisfied. Reading these posts can make one's head spin. It is becoming more and more difficult to pick out the facts, and frankly I believe that is because (a) no one knows what they are; and (b) we still haven't been provided with them. So, I say, let's start at the bottom (the 'books'). Let's not forget, fellow tax payers, that $295,000 (of which 95% was paid prior to this debacle) was paid to Certified and now we (individually and as a town) are picking up additional costs to hire part-time co-assessors and someone to review what Certified was paid $295,000 to do. Unless I was given incorrect information by the County it costs $100 to take an appeal. When do WE ask for an accounting. For those of you who run a business or ever hired a contractor, when have you ever paid 95% for a job before you were satisfied with the end result (additionally when the contract was not complied with). I am not convinced that Maplewood is being run properly. The property tax hike is just one step (and quick fix) after the misappropriation of pool funds. Trenton will come in and cost us nothing. We are not obligated to accept their proposals. But not knowing if we are in trouble is sticking our heads in the sand. How much more are people willing to pay to cover up the problems? | ||
| Dacar |
Interalia For the record I and most of my neighbors are satisfied with the reval , the explantion by members of the TC, and the increasing taxes. By and large it appears fair and consistent with current market prices. It's not without a mistake or two but these issues can be addressed in due course. But then again I haven't been underpaying my share of taxes for the last 10 years | ||
| Eb1154 |
Inter, What if the state comes in and suggests that the Tc cut services and the TC listens to them? Will you be happy when you lose the services you use or need? Who will take the blame for that? Who will tell the residents who had no complaint with the reval that they lost services because you felt the reval was wrong? Why wouldn't the TC follow the states suggestions afterall this is what the people wanted wasn't it? | ||
| Octofoil |
Dacar, Eb1154 and Interalia, Interesting points by all. But no one has yet mentioned whether or not they read any of the reports published by the Local Govt Budget Review Board. Has anyone? And BTW, Dacar, just for balance purposes, I am not satisfied with my reassessment due to what I feel are several gross errors and did, of course, appeal. The majority of my neighbors are appealing one aspect or another of their revaluation. Nonetheless, none of us disagree with the revaluation from an equity and fairness point of view. But we all wish for more confidence in the thing being done fairly and correctly. The steps the TC has taken have been positive in that regard, but I can see how the fact that the TC had to take such steps in the first place does not increase one's comfort level with them. Consequently, I can see how some embrace the idea of the LGBR. | ||
| Ucnthndlthtruth |
I've heard 10 years, 20 years. Where are people getting these time frames from for the years (decades) of overpaying/underpaying claims ? Who's been on the TC for the last 10 years ? I can't believe there are still folks "wondering" whether the town is being run efficiently. What will it take ! Hellooooooo !!? We paid $295,000 for a seriously flawed revaluation and are continuing to pay more, daily, to desperately try to cover/correct the flaws. "Creative financing" of the town's budget through the use of the pool fund and library fund. And we haven't even begun to look at the disastrous effects on taxes the upcoming school budget presents. Free advice and a good look at the books sounds right to me. What could they (the TC committee) afraid of ? They (we) are not bound to follow suggestions. The TC has surely proven their resolve and ability to NOT follow advice. | ||
| Bak |
Even without the revaluation, our taxes have risen every year. Not insignificantly, either. Now that M/SO will not receive additional funding from the State for the school budget coupled with the fact the physical plant needs upgrades (where do you think that money will come from?) services should be cut to balance out the tax burden. What is the harm in bringing in experts from the Treasury Department of NJ? That services will be cut to hasten increases in taxes going forward? Great. | ||
| Melidere |
Yes, Octofoil...as i mentioned in another thread...i took a peek at the analysis done for west orange. Many large corporations call in consultants to do 'analysis' when they already know what the answer is, and the answer is unlikely to please the troops (like mass layoffs). Consultants allow them to shift the blame to outsiders. This review reads pretty much the same way. Cut benefits and services (particularly police and fire...out of the 3 million that could be 'saved' in West Orange, almost a third of it came out of the fire department) and raise fees. Raise parking fees, raise meter fees, require the leaves to be bagged...lots of that sort of thing. Given the extreme love and affection our current police department has for the tc...i'm sure that an outside review that suggests cutting them even further...will be warmly received. heh. | ||
| Joancrystal |
Even though the time for submitting revaluation review requests has come and gone, we still do not know the definitions used for the criteria on which the revaluation was based. It is time that this information was made available since we need to know the criteria and how it was applied before we can frame meaningful appeals to the County. I have been told by friends who live elsewhere in the State that the County appeals should be based soley on comparables (houses of approximately the same size (square footage of livable space)with the same number of bedrooms, bathrooms, etc.) Can anyone tell me where this information is located on any of the spread sheets or informational handouts made available thus far? It may not matter. If I understood what Mr. Galante said during the Record Card Workshop presentation, these facts wouldn't help us much because normal comparables criteria were not the ones actually used by Certified. What are we to appeal to the County on if it turns out that the County won't address the factors Certified used in arriving at their values? When I moved into my house about 20 years ago, I thought I was moving into into a single town called "Maplewood" which provided a single set of municipal services to a single constituency who identified themselves with a single town persona. Now I am faced with a statement by Certified that we are not ONE but 42 distinct communities (43 if you include Dicken's Village). Unfortunately, neither Certified nor the TC has been able to provide us with the basis for spliting the town into 42 pieces or the factors that were used in developing this concept. Do we file our appeals based on being in neighborhood *.*? Can each of us cite only those comparables in the neighborhood in which we were placed by Certified? What if the the houses of comparable size and number of rooms are all in another neighborhood that may be as close as next door? Do those properties count? If we see a manifest error in our neighborhood placement what facts can we quote to support our claim? Zoning by itself won't help since some neighborhoods adjacent to eachother are zoned the same. The second ambiguous factor that was applied is something called depreciation, which normally is based on the age of the structure. Mr. Galante claims that Certified didn't use this factor in the normal way because so many of our homes are so old that most of us would have qualified for maximum depreciation. Instead they looked at the current state of upkeep of our homes. I understand why they did this but unless we are supplied with the basis used in arriving at the exact per centage applied to our homes: recently added additions or other structural changes (and what is recent? since the last revalution?) add so much, outward appearance (peeling paint, hanging gutters, missing roofing tiles?)subtacts so much, inner appearance (cracked walls, broken tiles, torn screens?)subtracts so much, age of kitchens and bathrooms (are antique lovers getting a tax advantage over those of us who favor a more modern look?)up or down due to Certified's impression of each homeowners interior decoration skill? Do dark spaces with low ceilings depreciate more quickly than light spaces with high ceilings even though the former is far more energy efficient and therefore might have a higher market value? I was rather hoping that my record card might contain the same attention to detail on depreciation as it did to square footage since the effect on my overall assessment due to depreciation could be much greater than the livable square footage awarded. Certified has just given us a figure in a box when we need objective criteria to take to the County. The quality/class factor is supposed to be defined in the State Manual. It is supposed to contain objective descriptions and photographs of each category. Why couldn't these sheets have been made available somewhere so that a concerned citizen could understand these criteria and see if they were fairly applied? Note that the quality class factor was applied to virtually every square inch of livable space in arriving at the final assessed value. I realize that I have raised a lot of questions here. Does anyone have any meaningful answers? | ||
| Joancrystal |
I don't know if the Town would be bound to implement the suggestions made by the State. If the appeal is strictly advisory I don't think we have anything to lose. At the very least, such a review by the State might lead Trenton to realize that we do need some of the State funding that we have lost over the years. For all we know, the Trenton team might actually have some valid ideas that haven't occurred to us because we are too close to our problems. Lets give it a try. | ||
| Melidere |
They seem to love municipal employees. 1. $163,000 'saved' by requiring a 20% premium for an increased co-payment for health coverage 2. Another $20,000 'saved' by negotiating a 20% increase in the co-payment for prescription drugs. 3. A modification in the work-schedule for police 'saves' another $165,000. 4. They 'restructure' police for another savings of 118,000. 5. Establishing an 'alarm registration fee' raises $49,000. 6. Increasing parking meter fees raises another 11 grand. 7. Increasing parking violation fines raises another $45,000. 8. Restructuring the fire department saves another 895,000. That's the big bucks. I'm sure the West Orange fire department loves the changes. 9. "modifying' the street sweeping provides a savings of $58,000. 10. Increasing the fees for the summer park program raises another 59,000. These guys hate unions. They target some of the big guns at AFSCME. 1. Restructuring sick leave saves $32,000. 2. Modifying the cap for sick leave saves another $45,000. 3. The big bucks come from modifying the vacation leave benefit....$439,000. 4. 'Restructuring' the clothing allowance saves $60,000. All for a total savings of something like 7% of the budget. Score: budget cutters 1 Quality of life 0 | ||
| Melidere |
As to your suggestion that such a review might convince the state that we actually need some of the revenue we have lost...they point (with pride) in the executive summary that the savings may only be 7 % of the budget...but the savings amount to 54% of the state aid for the town. It sure doesn't sound to me like they are looking for reasons to hand out more money. | ||
| Overtaxdalready |
If it cuts waste then let's do it! I think it's time some outside eyes came in and looked at the numbers. | ||
| Livinwestwless |
Seems like revals might be a countrywide issue (This from Allegheny County, PA) ***** Judge Orders Sabre To Explain Assessment Methods City Requests Tax Relief For Property Owners City officials have said that there appeared to be neither rhyme nor reason to Sabre Systems' reassessments of 560,000 Allegheny County properties. Soon, they will know whether their instincts were correct. Judge R. Stanton Wettick on Tuesday ordered Sabre to provide the city of Pittsburgh with a written copy of its assessment methodology. Officials said that they will use the information to try and determine how land values in some city neighborhoods rose as much as 600 percent as a result of Sabre's assessments. "It's the position of the city that Sabre either had no methodology, or the methodology that it used to determine land values in the city of Pittsburgh is essentially flawed," assistant solicitor Ronald Pferdehirt said. (Partially Edited) "We're asking the court to hold that all residential land vales in the city of Pittsburgh should be 15 percent of overall values," Pferdehirt said, "and we're asking the court to direct the county to conduct a re-evaluation of land values in the city for the current year to take effect in the 2002 tax year." No ruling on that request was made. Officials from both the city and Sabre are scheduled to be back in court Wednesday. | ||
| Yvette |
It seems to me that the government can't run itself, how could they come and help us? I also feel the TC has been doing an okay job, maybe they need to fill those vacancies, such as the CFO, and then you wouldn't have a council trying to run the town as well as managing its finances. I am satisfied with my assessment, and I know alot of people who are and I know just as many who are not happy. I don't think we will ever reach a point where everyone will be happy. | ||
| Townie |
When I stop to think about it, it sounds like a GREAT idea to have people who don't know Maplewood come in and look us over and tell us what things are worth! And when they leave, they just disappear and they have no accountability to the voters of the town for what they've done! And even if a few people in town get really hurt, the pressure on the TC to accept these "expert" recommendations will be enormous, and there they'll be a big fight about it. If you love Certified I, you'll love Certified II! Ever notice how great Trenton looks? I'll bet the bureaucrats from the review board worked really hard on it! ;-} But hey: It's free! Business mind that I am, I always say: You get what you pay for. | ||
| Townie |
Joancrystal, The town has hired an auditor to review Certified's and Gallante's work. But I'd also like to point out to you that this discussion has been going of for weeks and it's hard to see the point of your questions. But assuming they're sincere: If your house isn't assessed at market value, you need to appeal it. If you don't know the market value of your house, ask some realtors. If you haven't asked your neighbors yet if their houses are assessed at market value, do so. If none of theirs are, you may have the basis for a neighborhood appeal. There are no assessors who hang out on these boards. If you feel you need to know the answers to the questions you pose, you'll probably have to hire a professional. If you and your neighbors are thinking of filing a neighborhood appeal, you might do best with a professional. Most people in town now feel their house in assessed at market value, which is the law. If the independent auditor says the reval process was unaacceptable, it will be done over. Otherwise, the numbers will stand. I'm not sure that understanding your assessment needs be as burdensome as you are making it out to be. If it is, well, no wonder people in Maplewood who were overassessed for years didn't appeal. | ||
| Dytunck |
Townie, Are you for real? "Most people in town now feel their house is assessed at market value?" Are you some kind of pollster? Are you the official voice of "most of the town?". Speak for yourself. Let the rest of the town post their own opinions. You sound like the others who claim that "all my neighbors are happy." Do these messages count more than the "I am not happy" ones? Now that I think of it, you ARE starting to sound like certain TC members who make broad statements of "fact." Your opinions are appreciated and respected. When you start speaking on behalf of "most of the town," however, your credibility and objectivity come into question. And that is the opinion of most of Maplewood, South Orange, Millburn, all of Durand Road, all people named Kathleen, and some of the people named Burt in drag. Dy | ||
| Mtierney |
Townie - Certified was hired without it knowing anything about Maplewood. This is obvious as all those adjustments are taking place! At some point, employers gave many perks to employees, such as fully paid health insurance. Along the way, perks became rights. In the real world, not many folks can look at 14 paid holidays, 3 weeks vacation, 4:30 p.m. closings, fully paid health, precriptions, and amazing retirements inducements. I worked in education administration before retirement. In the mid-90s, the inability to maintain the employee packages caused the rampant downsizing. If we can eliminate wasteful spending, it might result in efficient operation of the town. But those numbers translate into people. People will get hurt when asked to accept less and have to contribute more for their own benefits. But this reval is hurting alot of people too. There are alot of tough decisions to be made. Is the TC up to it? Doesn't look like it from my perspective. If an outside agency can offer a clear-eyed examination of our finances, why not? We need all the help we can get. If no strings are attached, we the taxpayers can decide which steps we can support. No forever to parking meters! | ||
| Melidere |
well, there is no way they will approve a new sound system, mtierney. but whatever you say. and the parking meters will come. heh...when they cut into *mine* it's unconscionable...when they cut into *theirs* it's a clear-eyed view of reality. |
