| Author |
Message |
    
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 497
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Monday, December 8, 2003 - 10:42 am: | 
|
Howard,
I posted the original email, and am reasonably satisfied (but not happy) with the current information. I doubt very much that Pulte would "get in bed" with the tax assessor. They have too much to lose. The concern was around the comment "The assessor has really been working with us." But keep in mind that that is from a salesperson, so they want buyers to think they're getting a better deal from Pulte than they would if they were to simply buy an existing house.
The combination of the new assessment percentage and this make me think the saleswoman was just trying to blow smoke somewhere. It's no more misleading than any other sales or marketing pitch.
I have not had a chance to contact Ellen about all this (new baby and conflicting schedules), but I'll let everyone know when/if I am able to speak with her.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 591
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 8, 2003 - 12:14 pm: |
|
doublea,
Based on your calculation, it would appear that this now means at least $4000 less in taxes per unit per year (compared to the 63% assessment). Multiplied by 69 units equals $280,000 less in taxes per year than was originally forecast when this plan was concocted. I sure hope the budget projections are being updated now. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 498
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Monday, December 8, 2003 - 2:27 pm: |
|
MHD,
Where did you get the tax forecast for this property? I'm interested in finding out if there was a tax forecast for the Jessica Way development. Or are you assuming that the budget was based on receiving taxes based on the 63% number?
Keep in mind that the homes will not likely be paying anywhere near full taxes in 2004. In fact, I'd be surprised if all 69 homes were available to be purchased before late 2004. So the 2004 budget shouldn't be impacted too significantly.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 592
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 8, 2003 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Woodstock,
I am assuming that a budget was created at some point using the 63% number. I agree that it is unlikely to affect 2004, but I am quite sure that the Village does 3 or 5 year budget projections which this would affect.
In fact, it is my understanding that it is these "projections" that were created in the late 90's which ASSUMED that the supermarket, Beifus and maybe even SOPAC would already be online by now. Since these projects have not yet materialized we are now faced with a potential 20% increase next year.
My point was that these revised projections for the quarry townhouses should be updated NOW, so we don't find ourselves with ANOTHER shortfall 3-5 years from now. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4023
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:48 am: |
|
Ok, you guys got me thinking, which is always kinda dangerous. My question is; how are condominiums assessed?
My understanding is that you own everything inside the interior walls and the condo association owns the exterior of the building(s) and the land, amenities and whatever.
My assumption is that when you buy a condo, you also buy shares in the condo association, right? Or am I mixing up condos and coops?
The association’s real estate (land, amenities, structures, etc.) would be assessed separately and my presumption is that the condo association would pay taxes on the value and this would be part of your assessment. If this is the case, wouldn’t the assessed value of the condo be considerably less than what you paid for it?
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 391
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:30 am: |
|
Hmmm Bob --
Actually I think it depends on how the association is set up -- eg. fee simple vs condo.
If fee simple -- then each unit is assessed on its own then separately the rest of the property that owners share (yards, roads, pool or whatever, etc.) In the developments that I am aware of that are fee simple, the monthly fee covers not only maintance but the owner's share of taxes for the common area.
If condo -- then a share of common property is added to the condo value -- taxes calculated on that amount - and the owner pays it directly. I believe this is most common in NJ.
Wonder what they are doing with the single family homes? They might carve those up into individual lots without any interest in the association, or they could become association members and have commom property like the townhouses.
good thinking! Pete
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 605
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:36 pm: |
|
According to the Village website (which is about as accurate as the News Record), "When completed, the development will bring the Village as much as $1.5 million in new property taxes" http://www.southorange.org/news.asp?page=1
So, let's see...since the VILLAGE receives about 25% of the property taxes on each unit, that means each unit will be paying $86,956???
Who are the geniuses in Village Hall that put out this garbage?
Based on the thread above, if each unit pays $25,000...the Village receives $6,250 for each unit. For 69 units, that would mean $431,250 to the Village. A far cry from $1.5 million!!!
|
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 395
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:48 pm: |
|
ummm...$25,0000 x 69 = $1,725,000 -- guess it depends if you use "village" in the strictest or broadest sense (hah!).
happy weekend ;-)
Pete |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 606
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Pete,
Of course I'm sure that is what they meant...however you must admit it is quite deceiving.
The interesting point...is that using the total $1.5 million figure and the assumption that the 7 units on Harding will pay $25,000 each...you can extrapolate the sales price & taxes of the remaining 62 townhouses:
$1.5 M - $175k = $1.325M for the 62 units.
Each of the 62 units would then pay taxes of $21370 per year. If the ratio is 55%, that means an approximate sale price of $725,000 for each of the attached townhouses. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 396
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 1:38 pm: |
|
...the calculation was probably done long ago...
about the time the "coming soon signs" were printed?
..so somewhere between $1.5M and $1.75M -- in very r o u n d and gross numbers...
alas  |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 607
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 1:47 pm: |
|
"Gross" numbers? Pun intended?  |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 619
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 8:06 pm: |
|
Just received the latest Gaslight & the same ridiculous article appeared. Except for the Toter pickup schedule, that rag is really worthless. Is there anyway to be removed from the mailing list to eliminate the extra junk mail?
Mark/Allen - who is responsible for this tabloid journalism? |
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 47
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Mhd: The Gaslight is written by a consultant, Robin Patric(See p. 4)and is checked over by our administrative staff. It strives to be informative and non-political. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 104
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 6:21 pm: |
|
For once I agree with MHD. What is the cost to produce and mail the Gaslight? Why not post it on-line and have a limited number of copies available at local stores for free? |
NCJanow(akaLibraryLady)
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, December 21, 2003 - 6:43 pm: |
|
I think you suggestion doesn't work on a generation basis. You and I would log on and check the website or pick the Gaslight up in a local store. But many many citizens never (and don't want to ) access the 'Net and often, especially our seniors, are not able to get out to the stores.
I don't know if there would be much cost savings, but an "opt out' option could be looked into. If half the households wanted online access only, would enough be saved in printing and postage to make it worthwhile? I don't know.
BTW, I think Robin does an admirable job in putting the Gaslight together. She never misses listing the Library events, even if it means several calls to various library staff members to gather the info!
MHD.. for someone who is always calling for more info and openess I am shocked, absolutely shocked that you would not appreciate info from the village sent right to your door. Maybe your jealous that you were never Villager of the Month
NCJ aka LibraryLady
On a coffee break..or something like it.
|
singlemalt
Citizen
Username: Singlemalt
Post Number: 74
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 8:28 am: |
|
I think the Gaslight has a lot of information that is useful - however, it has become a PR publication of the BOT. It is no different than the mailers we get from our congressmen in DC a few times each year. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 107
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 10:54 am: |
|
I don't view it as PR for the BOT, if that is what they are trying to do they need a new PR strategy.
What is the total cost, art, design, writing, printing and mailing? I would like to know. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4109
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 11:05 am: |
|
Maplewood put a floor plan of the new police building up on their official website as a Pdf file. I imagine SO could do the same thing with the animal shelter. |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 844
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Monday, December 22, 2003 - 11:33 am: |
|
Sylad: To get the complete financial info, you can contact Robin Patric (info is in the Gaslight).
The plans for the shelter are several pages (vs. one page for a floor plan) and would include information on the elevations, site plan, etc. To a layperson (myself included) most of the pages would not mean much. What most people would probably prefer to see are before and after pictures of the site as viewed from Walton Road. In my opinion, I do not think that there is any reason to post all the plans for the building at this time. The plans were displayed (at village hall) during the planning board hearing(s) and were available for anyone to inspect and to ask questions.
The objections to the animal shelter have nothing to do with how the building will look or whether the project is worthy (most agree that the shelter is a good thing). It has to do with the location of the building. The association fighting claims that it is being built on park land. One objector claims that even if it is not park land, the shelter takes away from the park setting because there will be less trees even after new ones are planted by the fence and parts of the building as well as some cars will be also be visible. (I am not agreeing nor disagreeing, just merely trying to be informative on this issue).
By the way, the picture of the shelter and a full story was in the gaslight some time ago. Old issues of the Gaslight are available online (I did not check through them to see when the story ran).
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 847
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 2:56 pm: |
|
bobk: I was checking the village website and there is a link to the JAC and they have a picture with the floor plan of the shelter along with information. Here is the link http://www.jaconline.org/s1/our_shelter.html
|
Addy
Citizen
Username: Addy
Post Number: 13
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 3:00 pm: |
|
Can someone post the menu? |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 625
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 3:16 pm: |
|
To return from the thread drift, Mark any comment on the statement on the Village website & the Gasbag...uh, I mean Gaslight that says "the development will bring the Village as much as $1.5 million in new property taxes"?
A tad deceiving, don't ya think?
Nancy - I am sorry to hear you are so "shocked" that I don't appreciate Village propoganda in my mailbox. If you look at the some of the older Gasbag articles..."69 single family homes to be built in the quarry", "Beifus to start construction in Spring [2003]", "SOPAC construction to start in March [2003] " etc, you would see it is the same inaccurate and "Coming Soon" SPIN that is constantly used by many members of the BOT and not meaningful "info".
Other than the toter schedule, the rag goes straight into the recycling bin. What a waste of tax money. To Sylad's question - exactly how much does this publication cost us each year? |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 849
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 3:32 pm: |
|
MHD: It does say in "property taxes" and does not specify municipal taxes. I think most people understand that this means that 56% (approx.) will go to the schools, 19% (approx) will go to the county and the balance to the municipal portion.
I looked online at several issues of the old Gaslights. There is some good information in there. SOPAC did report that construction was going to start. Beifus has repeatedly stated that he is planning to start "very soon". At this point, maybe the Gaslight should hold off on printing any story about SOPAC or Beifus until the construction actually starts.
If you want specific information on the net cost to the village, please contact John Gross at jgross@southorange.org |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 626
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 3:39 pm: |
|
C'mon Mark....it clearly says "the development will bring the Village...." implying that it all goes to the Village. It's misleading, admit it.
"maybe the Gaslight should hold off on printing any story about SOPAC or Beifus until the construction actually starts."
Finally a statement I can agree with.
Just be sure to add in the Village Market to that list, too.  .
Last month, we heard that SOPAC construction would start on Jan 1. Since that is only 9 days away, is anyone able to confirm that date is still on track?
|
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 851
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 4:22 pm: |
|
MHD: When someone says they pay $15,000 in property taxes to the village and they expect a certain level of service for their money, I don't say well, the village gets less than $4,000 and the rest goes to the schools and the county. Most people view their property tax bill in total and most are not interested in what portion goes where. In fact, I have seen you post on here about people people might have to pay over $25,000 in taxes on the new homes in the quarry, but you don't clarify that "only" a portion goes to the village. Nobody cares what portion goes where only that they want their total tax bill lowered (or at least no further increases).
Technically the village will get the full $1,500,000 and then pay the schools and county their share. It would be an oversimplification to just say that the village will get $350,000 to $400,000 because it is only part of the picture. However the bottom line to the municipal budget is that there will be an additional $350,000 - $400,000 when the quarry is completed assuming that the tax rate remains unchanged.
So, I will admit that the total taxes paid by the homeowners in the quarry when it is completed will be around $1,500,000 (using current tax rates).
|
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 627
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Mark,
Had it said "the development will generate...", I'd buy it, but is specifically implies that $1.5 million will go directly into the Village budget.
This is relevant becuase the VILLAGE spent at least $1.2 million from municipal funds to obtain this project (see earlier threads for explanation), however, the VILLAGE will only receive $300-$400K the first year the project is fully developed (at least 3-5 years from now). (In other words, the first 3-4 years of that revenue have essentially already been spent) |
mrosner
Citizen
Username: Mrosner
Post Number: 852
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 4:38 pm: |
|
The $1,200,000 does not all come out of the budget as you imply. I don't have the full information here, but I will post on here next week (if I forget, I am sure someone will remind me).
|
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 48
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Mhd: The 1.2 million you refer to came from developers' escrow funds and not from Village taxes, though certainly from Village funds under our control (but monies that had to be spent on development projects). Also those monies were used to buy down the size of the TC/Pulte development to the final total of 69 units, certainly not a result you should object to. Hopefully we're on the same side of that issue.
On your other topic, Arnell Construction has been told to go ahead with the SOPAC construction. I understand that it takes them 60 days to be completely ready to proceed, complete hiring,etc. So with some trepidation, because we're only passing on the best information we have at any given time, they could be ready to proceed in late February. Given that we're in winter, mid-March would seem more likely to me based on normal weather patterns. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 629
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Thanks you for the details, Allan. (and for the trepidation on defnitive dates with SOPAC)
I thought I recall John Gross stating that part of the $1.2 million was to have come from the "East Orange Water Surplus" which I thought could be used for any municipal expenditures. |
Allan J Rosen
Citizen
Username: Allanrosen
Post Number: 50
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 11:47 am: |
|
Mhd: The water surplus money (around $75,000.) went for our contribution toward the sewer improvements. |
mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 630
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Allan,
$75,000 out of the $600,000 that the Village agreed to pay, right?
*edit to include reference:
"9. The Village shall assume the cost required in order to upgrade two primary pumps now operating at the Village pump station and shall complete the work to upgrade those pumps as necessary for the TCR development in a timely manner. In addition, the Village shall contribute to or pay to TCR $600,000 toward any improvements necessary to the water system to provide potable water to serve the site. Except as set forth in this paragraph, TCR shall be financially responsible for all necessary improvements to the water system. " |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page