| Author |
Message |
    
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 9:23 pm: |     |
Wink:
So who has been overpaying and is now getting an increase? Seems to me that getting an increase is inherent evidence that they weren't overpaying. |
Lydial
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:33 pm: | |
I bought my house in 1999 (April) for 319,000 on Euclid (west side). In the year 2000 year I paid taxes close to $10,000. I have 1 full bath, 4 small bedrooms, 1950's kitchen & bathroom, unfinished basement & attic. Now with the reval I'm going to pay close to $14,000. My house can't command more than $360,000 if I decide to sell (according to my Realtor) and we still make an income that supports a $319,000 house. We have not been underpaying taxes.
I've been looking at houses around town and when I compare what I could sell my house for and the realtor's fee, bank fees and the beginning "fix-up" costs for a new house it will set me back 3 years. On the other hand, this tax increase will also set me back 3 years. I'm stuck. |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:57 pm: | |
Alidah: there were two ratios that they discussed at the meeting as being "triggers": the equalization ratio and the coefficient of deviation. The former expresses the drift in values from the last reval (36.47% in 2000). The latter measures the uniformity of the assessments. 15% or less is considered acceptable, over 15% indicates a need for a reval. Maplewood was at 21.87% in 2000 and was over 15% since 1997. What I understand is that rising equalization ratios indicate a softening of the market and rising deviations indicate a skewing of assessments in different parts of town. |
Alidah
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:01 pm: | |
I'm still very interested in seeing what our new tax rate is going to be. The last number I heard bandied about was 3.11. Any updates? |
Gerardryan
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 11:17 pm: | |
2.75% is what the rate would have been had the reval been in place in 2000. That 2.75% number is as of 1/19.
The 3.11% number that was bandied about was based on a misunderstanding and is not correct.
There will be a number associated with the assessments certified to the county. I don't know what that is, when I do I will tell you. It may be the same as the 1/19 number.
The 2001 number is unknown until budgets are finalized for town, school and county; none of those have even been introduced yet. |
Bobk
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 5:13 am: | |
Mr. Ryan:
Yes, but.. since we are now a town with $2 billion plus in real estate values wouldn't our share of the school budget and the county budget go way up? Did the TC factor this into consideration? Maybe the $3.00 plus rate isn't that far off when you take these factors into consideration and also factor in the reductions that Mr. Gallante's review and the tax court decisions are going to have on the rate.
At the meeting Wednesday night Mr. Househalter touched on this but did not elaborate and no one on the TC asked for more detail |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 6:49 am: | |
Lydial:
>>I bought my house in 1999 (April) for 319,000 on Euclid (west side). In the year 2000 year I paid taxes close to $10,000. I have 1 full bath, 4 small bedrooms, 1950's kitchen & bathroom, unfinished basement & attic. Now with the reval I'm going to pay close to $14,000. My house can't command more than $360,000 if I decide to sell (according to my Realtor) and we still make an income that supports a $319,000 house. We have not been underpaying taxes.
Based on what you say, I think I can tell from the database which house is yours and the taxes on it aren't going up anywhere near as much as you say. Are you sure you have current numbers? |
Bobk
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 7:50 am: | |
Just a couple of words to the wise:
To those of you who are getting substantial reductions, don't spend the money yet. It is going to take awhile for the reduced taxes to work their way through your escrow account. Don't lease that Lexus yet!!
To those of you who are getting substantial increases, escrow accounts are also going to be a problem. Very few of these accounts have a big enough balance to cover a $5,000 plus increase in taxes. You may have to make a cash payment or in any event you are going to have to fund the increase in arrears. If you increase in taxes is going to be (for the sake of argument) $500 per month, the good old mortgage bill is going to go up a lot more than that until you build up the escrow account. So, I hear Home Depot is hiring part time help!! |
Lydial
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 8:23 am: | |
LSeltzer - I stand corrected, I was going by the figure of 3.11 and not 2.75 - Let's hope that the rate hovers around 2.75 and then my tax increase will come in around $2,000.
Still paying too much on my house -- similar(but bigger and more sellable) houses that were bought in this neighborhood at the same time didn't increase in value anywhere near the way mine did. I'm waiting to see what the assessment # is in March and then I might be one of the "anomalies" that has to do a county appeal. If I go with an attorney, that will cost about $2,000. Ironically, I'm still paying private mortgage insurance to the tune of $1,800/yr to a bank that insists my house is worth $329,000.
ë called mortgage brokers yesterday to try to refinance my home and pay the tax and escrow separately and it's going to cost $2,500 to refinance plus my interest rate will increase.
Wherever I turn I'm going to be out around $2,000. This is a setback that my family will recover from, slowly but we'll be OK. It's causing a lot of stress and some financial decisions that bring us closer to the financial edge than I planned for when we bought this house. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 8:45 am: | |
Lydial, I certainly sympathize with you, and hope you have filed for a review or an appeal.
However, I'd like to ask you, and the board in general, if they are asking real estate agents for an estimate of the sale price as a way to fight the assessment. Why not just talk to a real estate agent about selling your house with NO mention of the reval, and see what numbers you get. I think that a real estate agent would be very like to give you a number you're looking for, rather than a number based on the market.
In my Midland Park neighborhood, there were several open houses on Sunday. I went to them all. Smallish houses that needed some work of one kind or another (generally kitchens and basements), plus some sprucing. One was for $305K, but the others were in the $379K range. These houses would have sold (and one did) for low to mid-200's in 1999.
Maybe the east side is getting hot, since the tax bills are going down? Or maybe the taxes aren't dampening the market the way we all assumed? Still, compare a Maplewood house to a comparabel So. Orange house. As long as So. Orange continues to rise, Maplewood should, too, although the comparable house may be have a lower asking price to compensate for higher taxes. Is So. Orange hurting right now? |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 8:50 am: | |
Lydial, with regard to your PMI, you should stop paying when you have 20% equity, right? Therefore, a higher appraisal should benefit you. For example, if you put 10% down on a $305 house, and paid off about $500 ino principal, you'd have a mortgage balance of $274K. Once your house is appraised at $342.5K, you have 80% equity, and you shouldn't be paying PMI any more -- saving you $1800/year. If your assessment went to that $342.5K, you'd pay an additional $1031 in taxes at the 2.75% rate. Therefore, you'd be saving over $700/year with a higher assessment.
O.K. Maybe I'm reaching a bit. But if you're going to play the numbers game, play all of them! :-) |
Bobk
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 9:03 am: | |
Lydial:
A number of attorneys are soliciting tax board business on a contingency basis. The fee is usually 1/3rd of what they save you over a three year basis or 100% of the first years savings since the savings is usually locked in for the first three years. |
Mtierney
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 9:39 am: | |
L. Selzer: "So who has been overpaying and is now getting an increase? Seems to me that getting an increase is inherent evidence that they weren't overpaying."
I hesitate to correct a man with such computer and math abilities, but believe me there are many, many people who have been struggling with taxes of $10 to $12G (particularly those famous overlooked taxpayers in the middle) for many years. They may have bought their homes 15 to 20 years ago at prices they could afford ($50 to $60G) then (double income and all). They actually supported the idea of the reval thinking it would HELP them!
It is tiresome to restate that just because someone has decreed that your house is worth 5 times what you paid for it, you can now easily afford to fork over another $5000 a year.
Most people have not seen their incomes go up 5 times as far as I know.
As I have said previously, if the plan was to change the demographics of Maplewood big time, this reval will make that happen.
Tah dah! social engineering at work! |
Mlj
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 9:43 am: | |
NJJoseph, I had a market analysis done for my home about two months before the reval. The suggested listing price the realtor arrived at, based on comparable sales of similar homes in my area in year 2000, was a great deal lower than CV's first new assessment. Maybe this addresses your point. I don't see how the market analysis would be different now, regardless of the reval. Are you thinking a market analysis would lower the price further due to increased taxes? In any event, individuals going forward with a county tax appeal will learn what is required and hopefully keep us informed on this board.
(P.S. After meeting with CV to show them my comps, and asking them to show me how they arrived at their figure (ha, ha, of course, I did not get an answer), their first assessment was lowered. Then, I went through the review process with our local TA, and a field guy came out to my home and remeasured and informed me that I would get a second decreased assessment because the measurements were wrong, and my attic was not described accurately on CV's report.) |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 9:44 am: | |
Mtierney, I know you understand this all, but I think Larry was pointing out that you can't be overpaying if your taxes are going up strictly from an assessment point of view.
On the other side of things, even people whose taxes are going down will be overpaying, because our tax burden is too high. But Larry isn't saying that -- it's only in respect to assessments. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 9:55 am: | |
Mlj -- you did exactly what you should do, and I hope Lydial follows your example. I still wonder whether or not the real estate agents are lowering the selling price when they realize they're not going to list the house -- but to use it as ammunition for a tax appeal. Once an agent knows it's to fight the reval, all objectivity is suspect. |
Lydial
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 10:02 am: | |
Njjoseph - The problem witht the PMI is the bank says that my house is worth $329,000 and they won't accept the assessment from CVI. I am going to get my house privately assessed and maybe the numbers will arrive somewhere between the bank figure of $329,000 and CVI's figure of $429,000. Either the PMI goes because I have 20% equity in the house or the assessment comes down because the value hasn't risen 33%.
My measurements as done by CVI were wrong but no one has come out to remeasure.
I resent the burden of proof resting with me. |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 10:10 am: | |
Lydial, unfortunately this is the fate of many Maplewoodians. We're left to correct all the mistakes of others.
When you have your house privately assessed, that will be ammunition for your tax appeal. It doesn't sound like you should be anywhere near the $429K you mentioned. (And I hope you won't get too many drive-bys and gawkers this weekend, as you really gave out your address -- courageous!)
Good luck in your journey through tax appeals! |
Melidere
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 10:32 am: | |
Lydial,
i'm missing something. (well, i'm getting one thing and you are absolutely right that the whole thing is a hassle....)
An appraisal couldn't cost more than a couple of hundred bucks. If it comes out anything north of 380 (and you put nothing at all down on house) then your pmi payments go down by 1800 and your taxes go up by 2000 or something shy of that
You are out hassle, time, inconvenience (with the escrow account) and some amount of money....but over the next 5years close to 10000 of your money goes to invest in the town you live in instead of to an insurance company.
The reval has actually given you the opportunity to make your dollars work for you instead of going into a black hole.
(heh...and njjoseph thinks HE'S stretching.) |
Njjoseph
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 10:36 am: | |
Mel, not just that, but Lydial would be helping out her neighbors by alleviating their tax bills!
Win-win as far as I can see. ;-) |
Lseltzer
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 11:00 am: | |
MTierney,
It's one thing to claim that taxes are too high or that government is too big or that property taxes are unfair. It's entirely another to claim that people who are now getting increases wre overpaying before. If we accept that we have to raise a certain amount of tax and that property taxes are based on market values then it's just a matter of whether the assessments are accurate. Anyone up on Euclid or Ridgewood who went into this thinking they would get a tax cut clearly had no idea what the situation was near the Irvington and Newark lines. |
Mlj
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 11:22 am: | |
Since the reval is going through, I think now would be a good time to quit pecking at those who are struggling as to what to do now that they are facing tax bills of $12K and up. Just a thought. |
Lydial
| | Posted on Friday, February 23, 2001 - 11:27 am: | |
Mel, njjoseph - good points - with the private assessment I'm trying to time it just right so I can make it do double duty for the county appeal and the battle with my mortgage company. Remember, I just paid $300 for a bank assessment in 1999 - so this will be another $300 on top of that first assessment. Naively when I first received my assessment from CVI I thought my bank or CVI would see the huge discrepancy and one of them would acquiesce.
Meanwhile, today's the effective deadline for the town review and no one has come to check the sq. ft. here, so I think I'll be looking at the county appeal. I'd like to avoid paying a lawyer $2,000 -- what I'd save yearly if I appeal and we win and it's a contingency basis. If I represent myself, as the saying goes, do I have a fool for a client?
It's a lot of hassle and money and stress...I just want to pay accurate property taxes and be done with it. |
Thomas
| | Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2001 - 12:15 pm: | |
Lydial
Forget the $2,000 lawyer, do it yourself. Your chances of a reduction with the county are slim.
I would concentrate on your PMI, the $300 will be well spent. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page