| Author |
Message |
    
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 456
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 8:55 am: | 
|
In all seriousness, as Woodstock says above, for me also it's about the inequity of the assessments as much as the absolute dollar amount that offends me. When you combine the fact that South Orange has some of the highest taxes in the state with the fact that large assessment deviations exist, the dollar amount is quite significant.
If residents are going to be lobbying for higher tax increases, it is inconsistent for them to oppose a revaluation. I also wonder how many of the residents lobbying for increased taxes have made improvements without getting a building permit, or having a final inspection? |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 522
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:32 am: |
|
doublea,
You can also get tax record information at www.taxrecords.com. It's for all of NJ, but you can search by town, county or address. I can't seem to find 243 Irving Ave listed, though. Some neighboring properties, though:
342 Irving Avenue Land: 70,500.00 Build: 172,300.00 Total $242,800.00
228 Irving Avenue Land: 83,200.00 Build: 234,500.00 Total $317,700.00
255 Irving Avenue Land: 72,700.00 Build: 156,300.00 Total $229,000.00
266 Irving Avenue Land: 75,500.00 Build: 144,500.00 Total $220,000.00
257 Irving Avenue Land: 74,000.00 Build: 300,000.00 Total $374,000.00
253 Irving Avenue Land: 69,900.00 Build: 128,700.00 Total $198,600.00
250 Irving Avenue Land: 82,000.00 Build: 199,800.00 Total $281,800.00
254 Irving Avenue Land: 69,300.00 Build: 127,800.00 Total $197,100.00
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 457
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 13, 2004 - 10:39 am: |
|
Thanks. And we're assessed at $400,000. Yeah, right. |
jam
Citizen
Username: Jam
Post Number: 29
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 5:34 pm: |
|
What do we do for the reassessment process ? Is it based on current sales price or can you, for example, be adjusted down to a lower assessed value of a similar house ? Have people saved much from their reassessments and is it worth it ?
Back to the earlier question too - who is responsible for initiating the reassessment process. Can we lobby them for action ? |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 459
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 8:46 pm: |
|
jam: When all houses in South Orange were last reassessed in 1991, the reassessment was based on 100% of market prices. Currently, the average assessment in South Orange is 55% of market price.
An appeal of your assessment must be made on the basis on sales prices of comparable houses, not on the basis of a lower assessment of similar houses. This year, it would be on the basis of 55% of the sales price of similar houses.
In addition, the tax assessor is allowed a 15% cushion on top of the comparable price. For example, assume you are assessed at $200,000 and your house is worth $450,000 on the basis of comparable sales. Using the average assessment rate of 55% in S.O., the assessment should be $247,000 and you could not successfully appeal, even if similar houses were assessed at $180,000.
If you were assessed at $260,000, the tax assessor is allowed a 15% cushion. In this case, the 15% on the $247,000 would take it up to $284,050 and you still might not be able to successfully appeal your assessment.
The tax rate in South Orange is $5.280 per $100 of assessed value. This is an extremely high tax rate. A more common tax rate would be in the $2.50 range. Because of this very high tax rate, any discrepencies in assessed values are severe in absolute dollar terms. Thus, it is not uncommon for there to be differnces of $50,000-100,000 in assessed values for similar houses. This translates into a difference of $2640 - 5280.
In general, a town-wide revaluation is called for when the assessed values fall below 85% and the coefficient of deviation exceeds 15%. As mentioned above, the assessment ratio in South Orange is 55%. The coefficient of deviation is published and it was 19.78% in 2001 and 16.42% in 2002. I don't have the number for 2003.
A revaluation is either voluntarily initiated by the local municipality or ordered to do one by the County Board of Taxation. I went before the BOT two years ago and requested a revaluation. I was told that they were going to discuss it. Subsequently, I was told that a revaluation would be effective in 2007. Another MOL poster was told a revaluation would take place after the Quarry is completed. That seems to jibe with what I was told.
There is no doubt that a revaluation should be done. If the Village doesn't initiate one soon, maybe the County Board of Taxation will order South Orange to do one.
http://hub.gmnews.com/News/2001/1207/Front_Page/012.html
http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf//lpt/devess.pdf |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 810
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Doublea,
I often wondered if a reval will likely help or hurt me personally (i.e. raise or lower my tax burden). Is there an easy way to tell by comparing your current market value to your current assessment?
Was there such a "predictor" in Maplewood before the actual reassessment was done and was it accurate? |
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 144
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 9:27 pm: |
|
243 Irving Ave:
Land Assesment - 89,300
Building Assesment - 237,200
Total - 326,500
What about this one - there is a new house on Ridgewood on the market - asking $1.6 million - literally looks like a mansion on the outside. Its on the West side of the street, past Forest on the way to West Orange. Realtor.com has the taxes listed at $21k. A bit ridiculous - I pay several thousand more than this in taxes and can't get anywhere near this (and by a very significant amount, I would guess) in price.
I don't know what my taxes would be in a town wide reval, but it does seem pretty unfair when you look at the very significant differences that exist amongst comparable houses.
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 460
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 9:34 pm: |
|
mhd: I think an easy way to get some kind of idea is to start with the fact that the average assessment in S.O. is 55% of market value. If your house is assessed less than 55%, you'll probably pay more. If it's assessed more than 55%, you'll probably pay less.
A very important factor is that the new tax rate will not be the $5.280 per $100. That's because the total amount of the budget (excluding costs directly related to the reval) essentially does not change. To determine the tax rate, the amount to be raised through taxes is divided by the total value of property based on the new assessment, which will be higher. In our case, the assessed values will be increased by 45%, and the tax rate would be $2.90 per 100.
For example, a house that is now assessed at $250,000 pays $13,200 in taxes. If its assessment is pretty close to the average of 55%, its new assessment would be $454,545. It would pay taxes of $2.90 x 4545 or $13,180, or the same as it did before the reaval. It's really those houses that are dramatically underassessed or overassessed that would see a difference. And it's those houses which cause the coefficient of deviation to exceed 15% and which necessitate a revaluation.
|
nwyave
Citizen
Username: Mesh
Post Number: 145
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 9:56 pm: |
|
Two items\questions:
- one - I think the 55% is not reflective of reality - way too low. There are many houses assessed in the mid 100ks, which would mean there value would be about $300k. There are almost no houses selling\worth in SO for under $350-$400k (ck out www.realtor.com). On the high end, it would seem that every house is undervalued using the 55% as well, as I have seen many houses\spoken to many people, and there are very few houses when you use the 55% formula that get you much over $700-$800k. There is a huge amount of houses in the montrose, upper wyoming and Newstead areas that can and are selling for above $700k.
- what happens on the County side if there was a reval - would anything change? If the overall value of the town's real estate increased beyond that calculated utilizing the 55% ratio, wouldn't there be an increase in the county taxes shouldered by the town?
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 461
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 10:01 pm: |
|
nywave: Thanks for the info on 243 Irving. The sales price was $950,000, so it's assessed at 34% of market value. This is not unusual for Montrose. Montrose is greatly underassessed in relation to other area in South Orange.
The house on Ridgewood is another glaring example of how far out of line assessments have gotten. I know that Woodstock has a lot of examples.
Jam asked if anything can be done. Any suggestions? We're really being hurt by waiting for the Quarry, and of course there is one trustee who lives in Montrose, and you know that he's not going to press for a reval.
Nwyave: I haven't heard from you in a long while and I guess you just became discouraged. I fully understand and situation is just getting worse. Maybe we can all get together and do something. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 462
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 10:19 pm: |
|
nywave: On the County side, they use an equalized assessed value so that theoretically the assessed values in all towns is brought up to 100%. In theory at least our county taxes wouldn't increase. The same method is used for school taxes in determining the split between SO and Maplewood. However, over time, even this method loses some accuracy. |
jam
Citizen
Username: Jam
Post Number: 31
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 11:36 pm: |
|
Doublea - your posts have been exceptionally helpful. Thanks.
Based on your info, it seems that we could be successful in a reassessment claim so will try.
Your idea of getting together is a good one - both for people who could benefit from a revaluation, as well as those that are concerned they will pay more (they may not - but even if they do, the rebalance would certainly be more democratic and fair). Do you want to suggest something - maybe in a local bar/coffee shop one evening ?
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4675
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 5:12 am: |
|
The factor the county uses is called the Equalization Ratio and is based on comparing sales for the previous years with assessments. It is probably fairly accurate and a good "Kentucky Windage" gauge of how you will fair in a reassessment.
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 463
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 7:57 am: |
|
jam: If you're going to appeal your assessment for this year, your appeal must be filed by April 1. You can get the forms from the tax assessor in Village Hall or over the phone from the Essex County Board of Taxation. I'll be in touch with you about getting together. Good luck with your appeal. |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 893
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Doublea,
I noticed in today's paper, a listing that 346 Harding Dr sold for $1.1 million. Out of curiosity, I looked up the assessment online & currently, it shows that property assessed at: $311,700. (Land: 105,900.00 Build: 205,800.00)
Personally, I'm in no rush for a reassessment since I won't think it will help me, but I figured you'd enjoy adding this fact to your argument for reassessment.
|
Howard Levison
Moderator
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 82
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Mayhewdrive: What URL did you use to obtain that assessment? |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 517
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 2:06 pm: |
|
mhd: Thanks. As I said yesterday, I think I've expressed my views, and I think the situation is pretty clear. I was trying to get myself out and "you pulled me back in."  |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 894
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Howard, I used http://nj.taxrecords.com
doublea, I think the issue was that the discussion was being brought up in every thread. As long as it sticks in a relevant thread, I think it's a valuable discussion. |
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 518
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 2:34 pm: |
|
With advance apologies to all, and I know I would be better off not posting this, but here it is nevertheless.
In today's News- Record, there is a story about the proposed 8% school tax increase. The Maplewood members of the BOSE are trying to keep
the increase to 5%. They refer to the "fiscal dilemma created by unfunded mandates but said Maplewood is facing the same struggles and is determined to deal with it frugally."
The story goes on to say "South Orange Village President Bill Calabrese... took a different approach.
Everyone knows taxes are murder, but the bottom line is the kids need an education, and if ite takes dollars to do that, it takes dollars to do that."
If that house that was just sold for over $1million and is paying taxes of just $16,000 had been paying its proper taxes of close to $25,000, would the same philosophy prevail. It just might, but there might be a little pause.
|
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 4:58 pm: |
|
the property taxes are certainly tough to get used to. we just moved to south orange a few weeks ago. given the taxes, i assumed the streets would be paved in gold and the lamp posts would be topped with bald eagle heads.
|
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 529
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 5:38 pm: |
|
doublea,
I wonder what Mr. Calabrese's assessment to true value ratio is... I can't seem to find an assessment for his house online. In fact, all of Hoskier doesn't seem to be listed on taxrecords.com.
Good thing I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
Updated...
I just found his assessment. WOW. He should be leading the charge!
5 Hoskier Road, South Orange Village, NJ
Block: 1705 Lot: 17
Width: 129 X Depth: 150 Land: 113,400.00 Build: 399,500.00 Total $512,900.00
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
Howard Levison
Moderator
Username: Levisonh
Post Number: 84
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 5:43 pm: |
|
Hoskier Road, South Orange Village, NJ
Block: 1705 Lot: 17
Width: 129 X Depth: 150 Land: 113,400.00 Build: 399,500.00 Total $512,900.00
|
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 901
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Woodstock,
It's there:
5 Hoskier Road, South Orange Village, NJ
Block: 1705 Lot: 17
Width: 129 X Depth: 150 Land: 113,400.00 Build: 399,500.00 Total $512,900.00
(Just specify "Hoskier" in the Street field...don't add "Road" or "Rd" or "Rd.") |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 530
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Oddly, I had to go to the 2002 assessment to find the answer. Maybe just a glitch in my search...
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him
|
doublea
Citizen
Username: Doublea
Post Number: 519
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 6:09 pm: |
|
I knew he had a very large improvement done to his house 2 years ago and Bill told me his taxes were $25,000. Being a good citizen he had a final inspection and was assessed accordingly. I also realized that Bill is a nice fellow, but really isn't trying to hold taxes down in South Orange. Any conversations I've had with him about trying to control spending have been useless. |
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 675
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 8:28 pm: |
|
He has a different view than most.
DWM |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 902
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 4, 2004 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Thanks to his own doing, he will now have the view of 69 rooftops which only hurts his own property value. Sheer Brilliance.  |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page