Debt reduction, the parking issue, health insurance, were televised last night in Montclair, as the Montclair Township Council’s first regular meeting debuted on the township’s public access channel last night.
Taking a page from the West Orange council’s playbook, the new Montclair council under Mayor Robert Jackson opened the meeting to public comment before rather than after new business. Thirteen residents took the opportunity to address the township council, most of them complaining about their taxes having gone up as a result of the most recent re-assessment for their properties. Howard Platzman of Carlisle Road spoke first, declaring that his third-quarter tax bill for 2012 was up 40 percent over his second-quarter bill after having won a tax appeal and gotten some relief.
“Having done that, from what I can understand, that’s been taken away,” he said. “I’m assuming that essentially what I gained through the tax appeal in the fifth year of being over-assessed, I will lose and a little bit more. It seems that if my taxes are going to go up, they should go up in a phased matter.” In a humorous aside, he joked that it made him forget the “heartbreak” of the Knicks losing Jeremy Lin.
Several other residents complained about their taxes increasing sharply, with a few of them indicating a possible need to leave Montclair as a result. Township Manager Marc Dashield explained that property values went down by an average of 20.8 percent, and that properties that decreased less than the average saw their taxes rise, balancing out the tax reduction for those whose property values deceased by more than 20.8 percent. A formula for determining one’s new tax rate as a result of the reassessment, which Dashield explained, is included in an article on the township Web site explaining the differences between 2011 and 2012 tax bills.
“You’re making up for the first two quarters [of 2012] which were billed at last year’s rate since we did not have an established rate and the budget was not passed by that time,” Dashield said. He added that increased taxes were not the result of government spending.
Mayor Jackson addressed the issue by citing the work the new council has been doing in debt reduction and looking for savings elsewhere. “One of the big problems, of course, is our debt,” he said. “We spend a huge amount of money every year on debt service.” He cited the $3.6 million in debt being reduced this year as a start that amounts to a substantial savings.
The mayor also cited savings of up to $600,000 in health insurance costs by purchasing insurance through the Belleville-based IMAC broker rather than through the New Jersey State Health Benefits program. Dashield, who chose IMAC in 2011 to negotiate health insurance purchases for the township, sought to reassure Second Ward Councilor Robin Schlager, who asked about it at the pre-meeting and Lee Ann Carlson, a Real Progress Montclair candidate, who brought up the issue in public comment, that the plan IMAC supported – buying insurance from Horizon Blue Cross and Blue Shield (HBCBS) outside the state pool – would provide the same coverage for less.
“They [HBCBS] are actually the same providers that we have under the state health benefits plan,” Dashield explained in the regular meeting. “We’re moving from that program to the same exact benefits directly provided from the provider.” Dashield said that the township’s claim experience with insurance has made Montclair such an attractive customer that it can buy benefits outside the state insurance pool and reduce the rates by 11 percent. He defended the process to find a broker, having put out a request for proposal (RFP) in May 2011 and selected IMAC four months later. He cited IMAC’s ability to get a 4.9 percent decrease in prescription coverage for the township as an example of their ability to help Montclair reduce insurance costs.
“We’re paying a lot more than we should because we’re being bunched in with a bunch of towns that have very bad experiences,” Mayor Jackson added. “If we get a contract on our own . . . we’re able to get a much better rate from Horizon than Horizon can give us as a part of a pool.” He dismissed rumors of “nefarious interests” regarding IMAC, calling them “unfounded” and “untrue.”
The council ultimately passed the resolution endorsing the insurance change unanimously, with Councilor Schlager satisfied with Dashield’s explanation.
A new tone of civility was apparent as the council voted unanimously on two ordinances on first reading, after polite discussion. One ordinance moved to dissolve the Montclair Parking Authority while another authorizes transfers of a PILOT agreement to facilitate the sale of apartments built on Bay Street. Councilor Schlager expressed concern over the Parking Authority, saying that she hadn’t gone through the reports on the matter thoroughly. But Deputy Mayor Robert Russo and First Ward Councilor William Hurlock reminded the council that it was merely a first step in reforming public parking in Montclair, with Deputy Mayor Russo re-iterating the problem of broken meters and the tendency for residents to hold the township rather than the authority responsible.
The council passed a resolution authorizing $2.1 million in school grants and $500,000 in municipal grants to go toward debt reduction. It also passed a resolution recognizing LCOR/JV Acquisition, a joint venture between the LCOR development company and California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS), as a partner of Montclair Acquisition Partners (MAP) in the CentroVerde project. MAP CEO Brian Stolar announced the partnership at the July 10 conference meeting.
Someone should tell Mr. Platzman the relative good news: his annual property tax bill is increasing by around $100—-less than 1 percent. Easily checked on teh internets. It’s important to get involved and be heard, but it’s also important to be accurate.
Wasn’t everyone clamoring for a reassessment last year? It would have been unrealistic to think everyone’s taxes would go down.
Isn’t this the Peoples Republic of Montclair, why is everyone complaining?
I’m sure there is another topic on this site where everyone is expressing outrage about the Governor’s plan for a 10% tax cut.
I thought everyone in Montclair was concerned about paying their “Fair” share.
Not fair willjames. He said his Q3 vs. Q2 tax bill had gone up. Checking the internet it looks like by about 17%, but he also said that he had just won an appeal. This might mean that the internet does not yet reflect his adjusted Q2 and it is quite possible that he was being 100% accurate.
That said, you are correct to point out that his annual bill is only going up about $100 year-over-year on the new rate and property value.
Over at another local news source that shall remain nameless, Mr. Platzman is quoted as having said that “I thought I had a $4,000 increase and maybe it’s a little less than that but it’s still a lot of money.”
I guess he could be referring to something that’s not reflected in the WIPP data, but I’m not sure how that works, since that database is the town’s record of actual tax payments, right? I think he simply multiplied the Q3 bill by four (which creates the impression of a $2,265 increase in the annual bill), and rounded up for rhetorical effect.
Aha. I see now (thanks to another poster on the site that shall remain nameless) what Mr. Platzman’s talking about: he got an adjustment due to a tax appeal that lowered his taxes in Q1 and Q2 to an annualized $11K and change, and then got socked with the new assessment which raised the annualized bill to $13K and change, thus just over $2K increase, and thus nearly 20% increase.
So, sorry for the diversion. I stand corrected. Carry on with the pitchforks.
I have to laugh at people who threaten to move out of Montclair because of the taxes because:
1 – It’s usually an idle threat (as in, “if XXX becomes president, I’m moving to Canada” — something people say at every election). While some people do move, it’s not like there’s a huge town-wide ground-swell of evacuees.
2 – It’s in the town’s best interest for people to move out because the new people coming in CAN afford to pay the taxes, or else they wouldn’t move here.
So, actually, people moving out is a win-win for the town: you lose the complainers and get people who have few problems paying our taxes.
Several good points above. People that wecomed the reassessment in the context of lower valuations, and actually expected their tax bills to decrease, were harboring naive fantasies. And all of the wailing from those whose support of tax and spend policies has finally come home to roost is a superb example of hypocrisy. You were under taxed before. Now you are paying your “fair share.” Get it?
The funny thing is, despite all the complaining about taxes, I have not heard many homeowners specifically disputing their assessments. If people want to complain about taxes,that’s fine, but it does not mean the assessments were unfair. When our house was reassessed during the last re-assessment process (a few years ago), we thought the value was a little high. We met with the company who agreed and lowered the value about $50,000. We did not appeal as home prices dropped. After this last reassessment, we thought the value was spot on. In fact, we had just refinanced and the town’s assessment was only $1000 over the appraisal we had just received. Our taxes went up about $300 for the year which I assume reflects general increases. Are taxes high? Sure, but this does not mean the reassessment was unfair.
msmr – I hate to be the bearer of bad news for you, but if you think your assessment is “spot on” and reflects 100% of your home’s value, then you’ve likely been assessed too high. I downloaded the entire town’s assessments off of NJACTB and compared the new assessments to all usable sales for 2010 and 2011. I don’t have access to my database now, but I calculate the average assessment to sales price ratio for these homes at just under 90%.
I was actually offended by my new assessed value. I know the market is down, but by the town’s standards I might as well just give the place away. They purposely undervalued everyone so they can’t fight their assessments. Just wait until they do another re-eval in a few years once the market picks up… you think things are bad now? Just wait…
caphilly – F
caphilly – For those who cannot afford the recent tax increase, how is it in the town’s best interest that they move out?
Have you considered older, retired folks or those living on a fixed income? Have you ever considered that for a second?
I find your comments insensitive, arrogant, and altogether lacking in feeling for those who currently find themselves in a very tenuous predicament.
I can tell by your manner that you are a transplant with not particularly close ties to this town.
Am I correct?
So njgator says the assessments are too high, and redrum says they are too low. I thought my assessment was accurate based on what a similar house across the street just sold for and what my house was just appraised for by the bank. Is it what I would hoped it would be? Certainly not, but I got over that disappointment as I looked at nearby sales and got the bank appraisal. It’s realistic and did not greatly affect my taxes.
msmr, both negator and redrum are saying they are assessed below value.
msmr – I did not say all assessments are too high. I just said yours was. I actually agree with redrum. By the numbers I looked at, it appears the town was shooting for about 90% of market value…this gives the town some downside protection against further price declines…and also gives them protection against appeals this year. They will represent at hearing that the numbers are supposed to be 100% of market, so very few people will be able to successfully appeal for 2012. This is intentional, but not transparent. I also think it’s not very fair to the taxpayers.
“Just wait until they do another re-eval in a few years once the market picks up”
Redrum do you know something about markets that the rest of us do not? If your approx value now is 600k+ your home value probably stays somewhat stable. If it is 550k or below, its going to continue to fall, probably for another 7-10 years. This assumes of course we do not experience a devestating crash which in most models is actually a 15% probability.
Ahhh. Thank you njgator. I misunderstood and thought perhaps you were making a general statement on the assessments. Rather you were commenting on my naivete. I am glad to see you know more about the value of my house than I do. Can you also perhaps suggest an appropriate color for the outside?
stayhyphy, I think you are missing my point. If home sales continue to fall for another 10 years, we are all screwed in new ways we can’t yet fathom.
My point is that we are being taxed at an even higher rate for what appears to be undervalued assessments. It wouldn’t surprise me if the town does another re-eval in a few years for what they “think” our new, inflated assessments are. The recent article about the house that sold for 80k over list comes to mind. Then we’ll be paying what – 4%, 4.5% on an inflated assessment?
Redrum is right, this is not as bad now as it will be when home prices go up. The valuations are low so people can’t appeal, but the rate is high to make up the difference. Once home values go up, there will be another reval and does anyone really think the rate will go down?
This is a double whammy.
msmr – I did make a general statement on the assessments. I believe the town attempted to peg them at only 90% of market value. You yourself said you believe your new assessment value is “spot on”. I am assuming you know what your house is worth when you make that statement. If you think your house is assessed at 100% of fair market value, then I believe the town assessed you at about 10% too high, relatively speaking to the town as a whole. If that is indeed the case, then you didn’t get a very good deal…but the town’s strategy did appear to work…you are happy with your number even though it might be too high.
How accurate my calculations are will be borne out when the state releases Montclair’s Chapter 123 ratio for the 2013 tax year. That number will be out in late fall and will calculate the averaged assessment to sales price value for every usable sale in town. Now here’s the kicker. If that number is indeed around 90%, the town will get a 15% buffer above that number for 2013 appeals, so if you see you are assessed to high, but not over 100% then you still won’t be able to get an assessment reduction. Checkmate!
Just for the record, my taxes stayed about the same. I see complaints all over about drastic tax increase. We’ve never appealed, instead we chose to pay what we saw as our fair share. So for all those folks who did appeal, taking advantage of changing market conditions after the assessment at the height of the market, remember that your appeals cost our township and your neighbors like me picked up the tab. While I do recognize the hardship of a sudden change in taxes on folks, those of us who have being paying steadily all along are maybe less impacted, but that was–for some of you at least–your choice.
For those who did by a house recently where it was the previous owner’s appeal that led to a sudden increase in taxes now, for those folks I do feel sorry.
Here are the 2 emails for the leaders of our town to register your complaint about the “insane” financially irresponsible increase in Property Taxes :
rjackson@montclairnjusa.org
townshipmanager@montclairnjusa.org
Re: Comment on Tax Appeals:
Paying your “fair share” Do you realize how much of our taxes go to pay off debt? The town keeps borrowing to pay off debt. There is barely any value left to paying property taxes
thinking, its unfair to criminalize those who filed appeals. The town should have been adjusting assessments as the market drop. We were all overpaying for years. Don’t blame the homeowners. Blame the town. They’re the ones who were over-charging and spending money like it groes on trees.
Because of the incompetence of the town leaders in sending out in up to 50 % increase in third quarter property taxes, without reasonable reason or warning. I believe that the Essex County Clerk should change the filing date to July 31st 2012 for the many thousands who may want to address this issue with the Esses County Tax Board.
Thinking4, A fool and his money are soon parted. I’ve lived here for a couple of decades now, and overpaid my taxes for a healthy portion of that time. In hindsight, I should have aggressively appealed, but I was afraid that I would be assessed even higher, and generally had other fish to fry. Your stoicism in the face of this fiscal lunacy isn’t admirable in the least. It is misguided.
Now, the almost offhand comment that the bulk of the increase is for debt service should make people sit up and take notice. With rates as low as they are, and so much our debt rolling short term, this is a time bomb. Yes rates will be low for some time, then they will rise. Once the market gets a sense that municipal entities are flirting with insolvency, it will be all over but the crying.
Criticizing people for filing tax appeals is ridiculous. If the appeal is granted, then it has merit. That means, that the higher rate was incorrect. It is difficult to follow the logic that would paint a homeowner that is simply asking to pay precisely the taxes that they owe as somehow doing anything injurious to the town, his neighbors, or anyone. Do you criticize people for watching their wallets on the subway, lest they deprive a pickpocket of a score?
Is it legal to penalize a select group of property owners who appealed their taxes? Is it legal to send a message that if you appeal your assessment, the tax department will punish you. Legitimate mistakes can be made, this is why the appeals process is in place.
Here are the people to blame for all this: The Montclair Tax Assessor, Manager Marc Deshield and every Council member from the 2008 council except Cary Africk.
I remember Africk trying to get his colleagues to focus on taxes and assessments, but they would not. No one got it. The staff and Council did not “desk top” adjust the property assessments each year as the market moved downward to stop people from appealing. This cost the Township like $9 million in budget shortfalls overall from the loss of revenue after tax appeals. Approximately $6 million of that ultimately had to be made up in long term bonding. So it was a double whammy.
For those that did not appeal in the period between 07-12, you had to pick up the difference for those that did appeal and were more appropriately valued. Now, today, after a half-baked reassessment – some people are being socked for massive increases. We can argue over fairness for all those now paying more who were paying less before after appealing. That’s not the point. The point is that the above staff and legislators did not do their jobs and now, all residents are paying the price. The above individuals should hang their heads in shame.
“POSTED BY redrum | July 18, 2012 @ 5:49 pm
thinking, its unfair to criminalize those who filed appeals. The town should have been adjusting assessments as the market drop. We were all overpaying for years. Don’t blame the homeowners. Blame the town. They’re the ones who were over-charging and spending money like it groes on trees.”
Well said. Don’t want to add too much fuel on the fire, but this reassessment was designed specifically to make sure property owners who filed for the reassessment in the last 4 years get back to the number they were in 2008. Just look at the numbers and comments: those that filed in the last 4 years experience dramatic increases, of up to 31%. If the tax bill is the $25K range, that’s a lot of money. Obviously, this is a sweeping generalization, and I have no hard evidence for it. Just a hunch.
Which gets me back to the problem: not our tax bills, but control of expenses by our Township leaders. Until they commit to outsourcing, renegotiating contracts with ALL UNIONS, including teachers’ union, we don’t stand a chance.
And @caphilly, the people complaining and threatening to move out ARE our 1%, those with enough money to afford our houses, out taxes, our stores, and our restaurants. So, if the rich are leaving, this ship is sinking.
Oh Selma, how I wish you were on the council along with Leanne and Karen. Until we get people who aren’t beholden to party cronies, nothing will change. Maybe outsourcing isn’t efficient, who knows. But until someone is even willing to do a cost benefit analysis, we’ll never know. And I also have a hunch that certain parts of town have a new assessed value that isn’t quite the 20% drop needed to keep one’s taxes steady – all my neighbors in the first ward seem to have come just a little bit under that so that in effect they have an extra tax increase of another percentage point or two.
Imagine paying taxes on a place that is uninhabitable. Thank you, Montclair, for allowing Brian Stolar to potentially harm more unsuspecting citizens.
http://www.saynotopinnacle.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Brian-Stolar-and-Pinnacle-Stink/279131775540967?ref=hl
Your issue is with the builder not the township. It’s not the government’s job to warranty quality or certify quality building in private transactions. Codes inspections are not quality inspections. It’s not the township’s job to warn citizens about suspect quality. That would only expose the township to lawsuits.
Here’s something more on topic with this thread. Chapter 123 ratios are out to be used in 2013 tax appeals. Guess what? The average ratio for Montclair is 87.49%. So if your assessment was actually pegged at what your house is worth, you’re going to pay over 10% extra in taxes. And guess what? You won’t even win an appeal. Pretty fair, huh?
https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/taxation/pdf/lpt/chap123/2013/chap123ess.pdf
That’s great news, NJGator. Can’t wait until home values are backup and we are reassessed for actual value and then everyone realizes they are paying 3.2 or whatever the new number is. We all got screwed with this last assessment, even though for some the screwing will be in the future.
The upper limit is 100.61%. Seems right on target to me. Higher and we start having a flood of successful appeals.
ROC – It’s not fair for a homeowner to be assessed at 100% while the majority of the town was just assessed at 88%….property values did not shoot up 10% across town in just one year. It’s perfectly legal here, but it’s not fair.
We were assessed at about 110% of market value during the recent reassessment…we won our 2012 appeal, but only got reduced down to 100%, so we’re still overpaying. The only way to fix that will be if I am can prove I am assessed over market value this year…then I can get a fair adjustment down to 88% of value. We’ll see what the comps provided by my realtor say about that.
And BTW, we did try to discuss the 90% number at our hearing, but the town would not allow it. The tax board commissioner said we would have to file an appeal with the State Tax Court to get that issue heard.
Legally njgator it’s considered fair unless you are outside (+/-) 15% from the average ratio. That’s just the way it is. And it’s reasonable. If any deviation from the average ratio were considered unfair and a basis for appeal. 90% would appeal every year as the average ratio changes slightly year to year.