| Author |
Message |
    
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:52 am: | 
|
I take it a reval includes commercial properties, too? (in otherwords, the entire tax base?). So the new downtown redevelopment would be factored in.
Mr. Rosner -- the $500k you cite -- is that all outside costs or also include village costs associated with the execution?
Seems to me given today's technology and software/actuarial models that this could be done more cheaply.
I think of a9.com, and its directory service as an example (put in an address, get photos of the buildings on the street).
The village (well, the tax consultants) ought to be able to get this kind of data, update as needed, then use sales records in SO (and Maplewood I would presume) to do this pretty much electronically.
Oh well -- I'm sure someone would challenge the results in court if its not done the "old fashioned" way.
Pete
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2038
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
Pete: That is the outside costs. A reval must be done by a firm that is certified and approved by the state. I think there are only two or three firms that do revals in NJ.
There is software available that will help control future reval costs although I have heard there have been some problems. It is something we will have to look at and consider.
And Pete, please call me Mark,
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 8889
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
My recollection is that Maplewood paid CVI around $250,000 for the reval involving a lot more buildings than SO has. Additional costs were incurred, but I believe this was because of the "problems" that came out of the process. These were also 1999 dollars.
Millburn did a reassessment (done inhouse) shortly after Maplewood's contentious reval and according to Mrs. K, they are getting ready to do another one as reported in their local paper.
Basking Ridge (Bernards Township?) reassesses every year based on sales for the prior year.
|
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Pete - The county has ordered a revaluation, and not a reassessment. The difference between the two is that a revaluation requires an onsite inspection of the properties. A revaluation is generally ordered when there has not been a revaluation or reassessment in a long time.
The reason an onsite inspection is required when there has been a long period since the last reval is to determine the condition of the property.
In the situation I referred to in Monmouth County, we had a revaluation two years ago. Monmouth County ordered a reassessment in two more years, which does not require another on site inspection. This reassessment will be done inhouse, using the available sales prices and building permits.
|
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 174
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
'Everyone's taxes went up because the town's expenditures went up significantly as a result of reval.'
this statement is incorrect. many homes saw a decrease in their taxes as a result of the reval. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 8890
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
An interesting point about onsite inspections. During the Maplewood reval CVI missed whole finished floors of houses, bathrooms and then just to be fair added non-exisiting rooms and bathes to other houses. Condition wasn't a criteria for the new assessments and this was admitted by the Assessor and the TC. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 1254
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
..so Spitz, between now and the 2008 reval do I stop painting the house, no new roof, no more landscaping, and should I leave the trash cans lying around? (if condition of the property determines my taxes) ;-)
(oh wouldn't the neighbors love that!)
Thanks for the explanation, didn't realize the difference.
Mark -- I can see why the costs are so high if it requires a person to go to every building.
Pete |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 2298
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
There are definitely property taxes in Texas ... not as high as ours of course, but not insignificant. I've seen the checks my parents pay for them. And their school slice is the largest, but they also have a municipal and county slice as we do, not to mention something called a "water district". (You don't want to know.)
It is income tax that is notably absent there and in a few other states, but I'm not sure it is because of oil, actually. They do have fairly high sales taxes. |
Spitz
Supporter
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
sac - You're right. Texas also has a "severance tax" on oil and gas production, which replaces the need for an income tax.
In any event, almost all states have a property tax and revaluations are necessary. If N.J. does in fact have a constitutional convention, the property tax is not going to be eliminated entirely, and there will always be a need for revaluations and reassessments.
Edited to add: One N.J. state senator has suggested that if someone brought suit to challenge the inconsistent way revaluations are handled thoughout the state in terms of timing, they would probably prevail. Most states are probably more consistent with reassessments. Florida, for instance, does a new reassessment annually. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5831
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Mark:
Will the reval costs have to paid within the municipal tax cap and if so, how will this affect the provision of services in South Orange during the year(s) in which South Orange has to pay for the reval? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2043
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 10:03 am: |
|
Joan: Interesting question. I can't imagine that we want to cut services. I have felt we should spread the cost over the next three years. The finance committee has said they will review the options and come back to the BOT with a reccomendation.
As for the cap, I still can't understand how arbitrators can award salary increases of 4% without some kind of give back (say an increased deductible for medical insurance). Medical insurance and pension funding are the two largest increases in the budget (percentage wise) and to some extent out of our control. At some point, one would think the state has to step up and say public medical benefits have to mirror those in the private world or we will simply tax ourselves to the point we will have no choice but to dramatically cut back on services (And some argue we are already at that point). |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 7971
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
It may make sense to have public employees shoulder a portion of their insurance because, as you say, those in private industry already do. But if I got a raise of X% along with increased expenses of Y%, I would consider it to be a raise of X-Y%. I think that's the only intelligent way to look at the raise. And if X-Y were zero or negative, I wouldn't be the least bit grateful for the raise. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 1163
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
Tom and Mark, while there are many similarities between working in the public and private sectors, there are many differences as well. Some are positives (for the employees) and some are not.
For example, you cannot get real merit raises in the public sector, except in a few instances. Many in the private sector believe this leads to only having people in public service who could not succeed in the private sector.
Similarly, However, it is much more difficult to exclude an employee from an across the board pay increase, or to not provide an increase based on years of service.
My point is not that people working in public service have it easier (or more difficult). Just that there are enough difference in the way things work, that either the entire civil service system needs to be revamped, or we can't really compare compensation & benefits packages public and private sector work. |
Brett Weir
Citizen
Username: Brett_weir
Post Number: 698
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
A good public employee cannot parlay his expertise into a higher paying position in another jurisdiction. They are stuck where they are and cannot move freely if a better position opens up.
A bad public employee can wallow in his job and never be removed except under the most extreme conditions.
If both were in the private sector, one would be promoted expeditiously to keep him from jumping ship. He would get annual bonuses and incentives that would make his health benefits look like chump change. The other would be shown the door and would look for a job with Civil Service.
|
aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 313
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
"A good public employee cannot parlay his expertise into a higher paying position in another jurisdiction. They are stuck where they are and cannot move freely if a better position opens up. "
Tell that to Michelle Meade. Or 80% of the Maplewood cops over the last ten years.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5835
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:05 pm: |
|
When the Maplewood CBAC raised the question of health insurance for employees, we were told that the employees belonged to a group insurance plan run by the State, which does not provide for employee contributions. We were also told that there are too few employees in Maplewood for the town to break from the State plan, develop a health insurance plan in which employees contributed to the cost, and save the tax payers any money. I assume the same is true for South Orange.
The solution to the problem of escallating health insurance costs is to lobby the State for a fundamental change to the health insurance plan they administer which would enable participating jurisdictions to require municipal employees to contribute to their health insurance costs.
|
Howard Levison
Citizen
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 306
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
The same was the case when the SO CBAC raised the this question. |
Two Sense
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 272
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
Perhaps this could be a simple, non-structural area where Maplewood and South Orange could merge services -- a joint healthcare plan for its municipal employees. There would be absolutely no impact on everyone's most cherished government services, employees might even get a better plan, and the two towns could work together to create an up-to-date plan in which employees shared some responsibility for the cost of their healthcare. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2044
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
|
The carrier for the health insurance is not the problem nor is whether we merged with another town. The plan is a very rich one and has become too expensive over the years. GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc all have the exact same problems.
I am in the life/health insurance business so this is an area where I know fairly well. |
Two Sense
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 274
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Thanks. Is S.O. truly bound to "a very rich" state plan, or could it pursue its own coverage with its own cost-sharing plan?
P.S. Are trustees currently eligible for health coverage and, if not, would they be if they were paid for their service to the Village? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2045
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 10:59 am: |
|
Trustees are not eliglibe for health benefits and they would not be if they were to get a stipend/salary unless the charter was modified. They would be eligible for pension benefits if they received compensation in excess of $1,500.00/year and had enough years of service.
The benefits are negotiated (unions). This leads to a whole different discussion and many other issues. |
Two Sense
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 280
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
So, could the Village purchase its own health plan to reflect what it agrees to with its unionized employees? Also, does it have to provide the exact same benefits to its non-unionized employees? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 2046
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
We could purchase our own health plan either way. The benefits can be different for non-union employees.
This discussion could lead to many different issues and to some extent future negotiations. I can anticipate some of the questions that you might have going forward and I can't participate in that discussion (in public). |
Two Sense
Citizen
Username: Twosense
Post Number: 283
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Perhaps the CBAC officially could revisit this topic, since this thread reveals some obvious opportunities for bringing municipal employees health insurance coverage and cost-sharing in line with the other employees elsewhere. Or, are taxpayers relying on the same employees, who would see their own benefits diminished and/or payroll deductions increased, to investigate and negotiate alternatives? |
xavier67
Citizen
Username: Xavier67
Post Number: 552
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Going back to the original question posed by Otis & Elvis, Maplewood now has Freeman's running its town pool food vendor service, which is a big plus. I think that makes up for Maplewood's "hysteria" (as opposed to SO's "laid-backness"), which is a minus.
(...no doubt, Maplewoodians will soon be hysterically complaining about Freeman's as well...) |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5840
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Two Sense:
Even if we were to merge our health insurance pool with South Orange, the resulting group would be far too small for us to achieve a saving for tax payers. If anything, the cost to both the two municipalities and the municipal employees could go up significantly if we were to pull out of the State plan.
The State plan needs to be revised to include a cheaper (for municipalities) plan in which municipal employees contribute to their health insurance costs, if we are to see a marked decrease in this budget item for either town. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page