| Author |
Message |
    
Gskrltr
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 3:36 pm: |     |
I was able to get the property card from the last re-valin 1981. On this form is a category that calculates the" COST TO REPLACE IN 1975".I seem toremember Mr. Gallante stating that on the new cards the "base cost" was also the cost to replace the dwelling in 1975. That number was then brought up to current cost by using the CCF rate of 2.98 Can anyone figure out why the"cost to replace in 1975" on the old card states 55,400. and the new card shows that figure to be 91,433.? It makes a huge value increase. Shouldn't they be the same? |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 3:48 pm: | |
26 years of inflation? A 65% increase seems conservative. Unless I'm misunderstanding your numbers. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 4:05 pm: | |
Gskrltr -- were there any improvements to the property since 1981? A new kitchen, bath, finished basement? Is there an enclosed porch that was open in 1981? What about a shed? Change from furnace to boiler? Change in roofing materials?
If there's been no improvement since 1981, I'd definitely question Mr. Galante for an explanation. |
Gskrltr
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 5:24 pm: | |
Njjoseph: Good points, but the only thing "new" since 1981 is a deck put on 10 years ago, and a new bath last year. No additions or enclosures. Doesn't seem correct.
Lseltzer: Should there be any inflation on a cost to replace in 1975....the cost in 1975 should be the cost in 1975, the "inflation" istaken care of by multiplying by the CCF number of 298. Maybe I am missing something. |
Jennie
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 6:08 pm: | |
Maybe there was a decision to increase 1975 house values so that land values wouldn't be so high. Remember, they start with an amount and back into it any way they like. For example, the 65% depreciation of the 1981 reval was rejected in favor of 25% (meaning my house has a useful life of 400 years!) simply because to use a higher depreciation factor would result in land values that were too high.
BTW, my understanding also is that the 298 factor is to account for appreciation from 1975 to the present. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 7:55 pm: | |
Gskrltr -- I'd appeal (too late now for review).
It's possible that they're using different formulas and multipliers for the cost method. However, if you've really kept up maintenance, or the owners since 1981, it could account for part of it. I suspect something fishy, however. |
Gskrltr
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 4:25 pm: | |
Njjoseph.....guess I will have to appeal....seems after speaking to another assessor.....she never heard of an "18.5"class code......why does that not surprise me..... |
Gskrltr
| | Posted on Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 4:34 pm: | |
Maybe Messrs. DeLuca and Ryan could check with the assessor as to why this may be happening...there could possibly be an easy explanation as to why the cost to replace in 1975 should almost double between re-vals. |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 2:25 pm: | |
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. Perhaps we can 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 dpreciated at 35% in 1981. So how do they decide to depreciate some homes now at 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 this home should increase above 35%, not decrease. We also need clarification of this issue.
3. The question of differences in the 1975 value is a good one. it should not beinflated. The 2.98 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.
Does anyone out there not think there is too much not revealed or clarified here such that the reval should be postphoned for at least a year to clarify issues and rectify errors?? |
Winkydink
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 2:26 pm: | |
Gskrltr - did you get the old property card at the town hall? |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 6:28 pm: | |
Hopefully, the report from the independent folks that the TC brought in to review CV's work will help clarify whether or not some delay or re-do is advisable. In general, I will say that I have not been in favor of delay. But, the possible errors and questions just seem to keep magnifying.
One can envision three scenarios:
1. The independent reviews support the essential correctness of the reval process. In which case, those of us who are appealing are left to the mercy of the TC, the township assessor and the Essex Co Board.
2. The independent reviews are neutral: they are not conclusively in support of the essential accuracy of CV's work nor can they affirm errors or negligence on the part of CV. The worst of all possible worlds: we spent a bunch of money and learned nothing definitive. Those appealing are in the same position as in 1.,above.
3. The independent reviews affirm errors and/or negligence in CV's process and say that their work product should not be relied upon. A re-do.
A personal guess: some elements of 2. and 3. For the most part, CV's work will be found to be reasonable. Nonetheless, a few bits and pieces will be found to questionable, forcing a short-term delay while these perhaps minor pieces are re-done. The number of households affected won't be large relative to the population, even though the dollar amounts may be significant to those so affected. The question then arises: who pays for it? Who does the re-do portions and at whose expense?
Other guesses? Scenarios, anyone?? |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 7:42 pm: | |
Octofoil,
Here's some more information upon which you could base your guesses/scenarios:
In May of 1998, the Township of Scotch Plains hired an attorney to represent the Township against tax appeals.
In April of 1999, the Township of Union hired the same attorney to represent the Township against tax appeals. At the same meeting, Union Township Committee also hired Certified Valuations, Inc. to represent the township in an assessment appeal contest.
In January of 2000, Princeton Township hired the very same tax attorney in defense of tax/assessment appeals made by taxpayers of the township.
In February of 2000, the Township of South Brunswick hired that same attorney to represent the town in tax/assessment appeals.
In September of 2000, Princeton re-hired that tax attorney to again represent the township against the taxpayers appealing their assessments.
In October of 2000, Oldbridge Township hired that same attorney to represent the township in tax/assessment appeals cases.
So who is this famous tax attorney who makes a living defending Townships against the tax appeals of its own citizens?
His name is Harry Haushalter, Esq.
Now go back and re-read Mayor DeLuca's original announcement of the engaging of the "independent" expert: "Last night the Township Committee approved of two resolutions to hire experts to review the work of Certified Valuations. Those hired were Harry Haushalter, a tax attorney from Mercer County, and Thomas DeMartin, a real estate appraiser from Trenton. The two will work in tandem to complete the review within the next two weeks."
A search of Thomas DeMartins in Trenton turned up a very prominent figure: New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Thomas DeMartin. I have no idea if there is any relation to the namesake appraiser from Trenton.
This is just info to help you discuss your scenarios.
Dytunck |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 11:09 pm: | |
So, in other words, the Township Committee hired someone very familiar with the law in this area to advise it on the law in this area, and to answer legal questions raised in all these discussions. Someone with a lot of expertise. Are you suggesting this is a bad thing?
And if you "have no idea if there is any relation" then why did you make the DeMartin insinuation?
I don't know what the expert review is going to say, Henry, but I have a feeling I know what YOU will say about it if it says anything favorable about CV, Galante, or the process used. |
Dytunck
| | Posted on Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 11:34 pm: | |
Don't be so defensive Jerry, I'm just giving the facts. Did I strike a raw nerve here?
Henry |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 12:05 am: | |
My dictionary says that the definition of "smarmy" hasn't changed. |
Jennie
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 12:39 am: | |
Hmm, made a career out of defending government against taxpayers. Wonder if that's his assignment here. Very enlightening Dytunck.
(Does smarmy mean enlightening? I lost my dictionary) |
Gskrltr
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 7:28 am: | |
Gerry........any insights as to why the cost to replace is double on this year's card as compared with the one in 1981? Keep in mind that the house wasn't enlarged and only one bath was re-done since that time. |
Franny
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 10:27 am: | |
Dyunck - thank you for the info on Haushaulter -
Jerry, you could have mentioned that the att'y you hired specialized in representing towns against tax appeals! |
Octofoil
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 11:51 am: | |
Jerry,
I hate to say it, but it begins to sound very much like a not-so-independent review.
The information provided by Dytunck portrays a stacking of the deck in favor of a "CV, and more importantly, the TC, did nothing wrong" scenario. If true, such a lack of independence is very disappointing. Look, if one is on the defensive, one hires the Johnny Cochrans, the F.Lee Baileys, etc., to go to work for you. You hire the folks that specialize in defense work. Which it now appears that the TC may have done here: hired a specialist in defending townships against citizens. Why?
Whats the point in us, as citizens, even bothering to participate in this process if the deck is stacked against us? If this "independent review" turns out to be a blatant rubber stamp, you'll see a for sale sign in the front yard. |
Shakespeare
| | Posted on Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 12:53 pm: | |
Octo,
Or, from another perspective, the town has hired an attorney to fight for the rights of those citizens who have been overpaying taxes. |
|