| Author |
Message |
    
Vicdeluca
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 3:21 pm: |     |
The Township Committee's meeting schedule next week is as follows:
On Tuesday, February 20th at 8pm, the Committee will hold its regularly scheduled meeting at Town Hall. The agenda will include final passage of four ordinances and the adoption of a few resolutions. There will not be any action regarding the revaluation. There will be 30 minutes allocated for public comments divided among those wishing to speak but not more than 3 minutes each. This part of the meeting will be televised.
At the conclusion of the formal part of the agenda, the Committee will then begin a discussion of the 2001 budget. There will not be an overall vote on the budget but there may be votes on specific items to put in or take out of the budget. The budget is scheduled to be introduced on March 6th. The Tuesday night budget discussion, which is in open session, may be in the large meeting room or in the conference room, depending on the number of citizens in attendance for this portion of the meeting.
On Wednesday, February 21st at 7:30pm at Town Hall, the Township Committee is holding a special meeting on the revaluation. This meeting will be televised. The agenda is still being finalized but will include a report on the progress of the Assessor Review Process and verbal reports from the two experts hired to review the work of Certified Valuations. I expect the Committee will then have questions for the experts and after that, the meeting will be open for public comments. At the conclusion of those comments, the Township Committee is expected to make a decision on the revaluation.
A summary of the report will be distributed at Wednesday's meeting. The full report, which is expected to be voluminous, will be reviewed by the Township's Attorney and then made available for reading at Town Hall and the libraries. We have not yet determined how we will deal with requests for individual copies but there would have to be a charge to cover the costs of printing. |
Dave23
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 3:57 pm: | |
Vic:
Please convert the final report into a PDF file and post it. That will save us all a lot of trouble. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Friday, February 16, 2001 - 8:43 pm: | |
Mr. DeLuca:
Please include in your agenda an explanation of why the methodologies for land value calculations are not consistent throughout the township. Base values can vary, site values can vary...but the methodology needs to be consistent.
At the tax workshop last week, you and Mr. Galante both stated that the land value is split into two factors, the first based on minimum lot size and the second is the excess, to be calculated at $100,000 per acre.
Why is it that for a great number of properties this land value methodology was not followed? When will this be corrected? |
Richc
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 7:03 am: | |
Mr. DeLuca
I submitted my request for review by the Feb 14 deadline, but I had no clue about this land value calculation system--i.e., $350,000 per acre for the minimum, and $100,000 per acre for anything over that. If I read my Map entry correctly (M13), about half my lot is being incorrectly valued at the $350K rate (My lot is about 6,000 sq ft, and that "3" means only 3,000 sq feet should get the higher valuation, but actually all 6,000 feet are getting it.)
My question is, can we submit another request for review to the Maplewood Tax Assessor for this issue alone? Judging from the other postings, I'm not the only one who missed the boat on this one.
Thanks,
Richc |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 1:12 pm: | |
Mayor DeLuca:
The following issues must be addressed by the T.C. or by The tax assessor at the Wednesday nite meeting:
1. The class/quality numbers are a problem - there has been no postinng of what they represent, i.e, a general description of the type of home each category represents. THis should not be hard to do - Mr. Gallante said at the tax workshop that 18-20 are for homes with brick or stone, maybe slate roof, etc., and architectural details, curb appeal..etc. Many people with whom I have spoken havehomes categorized at 18 or even 19 for a typical wood framed dwelling, when Mr. Gallante said that 16 is average. We request a schedule of classifications with descriptions.
2. Depreciation is a problem. Mr. Gallante said at the tax workshop that depreciation is .5% per year and that the most homes in Maplewood were depreciated at 35% in 1981. So how do they decide to depreciate some homes now at only 10% or 20% etc. Unless a good deal of the home has been renovated it is essentially as old as it really is and the depreciation on such homes should increase above 35%, not decrease. We also need clarification of this issue.
3. The question of differences in the 1975 value is also a good one. It should not be inflated - the 2.98 factor is supposed to take care of that. So the differences should only be due to additions, renovations, etc. Theoretically, it seems that if the home has not been improved since 1975 (or since the 1981 reval), then that 1975 base number should be the same...SO there is more to be clarified.
4. We as citizens of the township need to know more about the lawyers and experts who have been hired for a review. The intentions of the T.C. in their hiring have become suspect. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 1:12 pm: | |
[duplicate post deleted] |
Bobk
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 6:53 am: | |
Good questions Winkydink!!!
I am especially concerned with the excess land charges that were not applied on the Westside!!
Why? |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 9:46 am: | |
One would hope that the individuals reviewing the property cards have received direction to check the land values. |
Franny
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 4:25 pm: | |
Overtaxed - but we don't know if the land values calculation is a valid point that will be considered by the tax assessor - No one has confirmed or denied - it's just a bunch of us on these posts talking about an alleged discrepancy in the methodology. |
Overtaxdalready
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 5:59 pm: | |
Ok...just want to make sure it's on someone's checklist if it's a valid point |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Monday, February 19, 2001 - 7:43 pm: | |
Franny-
This is not just a rumor...the issue of calculation of land values was discussed and land value formulas were stated and explained by the Mayor and Mr. Gallante at the tax workshop. This is not hearsay...this is a serious issue.
If you would have the opportunity to review the Televised workshop you would see and hear what all of us are talking about. |
|