| Author |
Message |
    
Vicdeluca
| | Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2001 - 10:05 am: |     |
Harry Haushalter
Attorney at Law Lexington Square Commons 2119 Route #33
Suite A Hamilton Sq., New Jersey 08690
February 20, 2001
Honorable Mayor and Township Committee
Township of Maplewood Municipal Building
574 Valley Street Maplewood, New Jersey 07040?2690
Re: Review of Revaluation Conducted by Certified Valuations Inc. for the Township of Maplewood
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Township Committee:
I was engaged by Maplewood Township to review the revaluation program completed by Certified Valuations, Inc. (hereinafter "CVI") pursuant to a contractual agreement. Participating in this review process was the appraisal firm of DeMartin Schwartz, Inc. DeMartin Schwartz prepared a separate report regarding its review of the revaluation.
VII. Summary and Conclusions
The revaluation conducted by CVI was reviewed and analyzed by DeMartin Schwartz and me to determine whether the contractual provisions were complied with and whether the residential assessments comported with acceptable standards of uniformity and market levels. The latter analysis was the primary obligation of DeMartin Schwartz and is reflected in a separate report prepared by said firm.
DeMartin Schwartz and I were engaged in early February 2001 by the Maplewood Governing Body to conduct this review, which needed to be completed by February 20, 2001. Within a framework of approximately 2 weeks, the review was conducted. Time limitations prevented a comprehensive review of all of the phases of the revaluation. Data prepared by CVI was spot checked and evaluated to determine if CVI honored its contractual commitments. DeMartin Schwartz conducted spot checks regarding the data collection phase and produced ratio and coefficient of deviation studies to determine the propriety of the revaluation.
Based on the noted review and analysis, it appears that CVI complied with the critical requirements of the Maplewood revaluation contract. Thus, neighborhoods were established, for valuation purposes, land maps and land values on a site basis were developed for each neighborhood, data collection and field inspections were made, field cards and property record cards were prepared, sales, cost and income data was assembled and utilized where appropriate in developing assessment values, informal reviews with taxpayers were conducted and final values were prepared and submitted for the tax assessor's review.
The proposed assessments prepared by CVI were submitted to the tax assessor for further review. Thus, the proposed assessments reviewed by DeMartin Schwartz and me were produced by CVI, with adjustments by the assessor.
The mere fact that the terms of the contract were honored by CVI does not per se insure the quality of the end product, namely that the proposed assessments reflect acceptable valuation parameters. DeMartin Schwartz, therefore, focused its attention on evaluating the relevant assessments by means of market data.
The most important statistical studies prepared by DeMartin Schwartz relate to the ratio analysis using the last 6 months of usable sales (July 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000) for Maplewood. These sales reflect the most current market data available and, when used in comparison to the newly proposed assessments, provide the most current indicator of the validity of the assessments. This sales ratio study, which tested only residential assessments, reflected that the proposed assessments were at an average of 95.24% of market value on a weighted basis and 96.94% of market value on an unweighted basis. This study also reflected a general coefficient of deviation of 6.83%. Since a coefficient of deviation of 15% or lower is deemed an acceptable standard of assessment uniformity by the Director of Taxation, a 6.83% coefficient establishes a very good level of uniformity for the proposed assessments.
It is obvious but necessary to state that no revaluation program will result in a perfect assessment pattern. Many residential properties in Maplewood were constructed prior to 1940. Individual properties may thus reflect property specific problems which may warrant special valuation attention.
Such attention was made available to taxpayers through the informal review procedures conducted by CVI. Maplewood, through its tax assessor and his staff, has provided taxpayers with an additional opportunity to seek further review of assessments. Some 825 taxpayers have filed such review forms with the tax assessor. These filed forms are in the process of being reviewed and may serve as the basis for further adjustments by the tax assessor. In addition, once the tax rolls are finalized administratively, any taxpayer in Maplewood has the right to question his/her assessment in the context of a formal tax appeal filed either with the county board or Tax Court.
It is also important to stress that CVI, as part of its obligation under the revaluation contract, provided the Maplewood tax assessor with a computerized software program. Said program provides the assessor with the ability to track new market data and utilize such data to further adjust the tax list in the future.
In summary, based on the aforementioned discussion and analysis, the revaluation program was properly completed and reflects valuations which are reasonable and uniform.
Very truly yours,
Harry Haushalter |
|