stateaidguy wrote:
If Jersey City loses state aid it is to HELP poorer districts.

Yvonne wrote:
I just copied and paste from the article below. These are frightening words:

?There are plenty where the state is providing more aid than it should, and there?s been enrollment loss, and it doesn?t make sense,? Beck said.

She said the state also needs to account for towns that do not contribute enough in local property-tax revenues to the schools, but still receive adjustment aid. The poster child for that phenomenon is Jersey City, which is ?slightly? under adequacy, according to commissioner of education David Hespe. The district receives $114.5 million in adjustment aid, in addition to other education aid, but contributes $224 million less in local taxes than it should according to the state?s ?fair share? calculation, Beck said.

?Jersey City has had enrollment growth, but I think some of us would argue that they?re locally not doing what they?re supposed to do to help fund the cost of that enrollment growth -- which is counter to a lot of our other school districts, like Freehold Borough,? she said.

Jersey City is not contributing enough in part because of its frequent use of municipal tax abatements, which spur development but have the effect of shifting more of the burden for school funding to the state, Beck said.

The idea of changing adjustment aid seemed to be generally welcomed by other members of the budget committee, including the chair, Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen). Hespe noted that the Department of Education had proposed a similar change a few years ago, and said it would be important to clearly explain to districts facing cuts why their past adjustment aid has been unfairly high.

Monroe wrote:
The reval will certainly have an impact on this

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/16 ... ut-of-touch-with-reality/

thor800 wrote:

I understand the reasoning, but question how accurately the tax assessor office can come up with the $10B figure so quickly which forms the basis of the 2ish% adjustment %. Is there any resource that explains the methodology behind this ?

I completely agree that properties paying greater than their share of taxes should be reduced, but basing the reval on inflated market values downtown seem to penalize owners that have no interest in selling and are more or less stuck while the tax abated luxury buildings add nothing to the end collection amount.

thor800 wrote:


I understand the reasoning, but question how accurately the tax assessor office can come up with the $10B figure so quickly which forms the basis of the 2ish% adjustment %. Is there any resource that explains the methodology behind this ?

I completely agree that properties paying greater than their share of taxes should be reduced, but basing the reval on inflated market values downtown seem to penalize owners that have no interest in selling and are more or less stuck while the tax abated luxury buildings add nothing to the end collection amount.

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Thor, I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand.

Say you live in a town with six residential properties, for example. The town last ungergos a reval is 1987 and below is their appraised amounts.

Property A $67,000
Property B $72,000
Property C $84,000
Property D $70,000
Property E $90,000
Property F $69,000

Total Assessed Value: $452,000

It's now 2015. There has been huge changes in the real estate market, especially Property E was has appreciated much faster than the other 5 properties. However, the town still taxes Property E at its 1987 valuation.

The town needs to raise $35,000 for its 2015 budget. It will have the same budget in 2016, too. In order to raise $35,000, a tax rate of 7.74% is applied to the assessed value of each home. Below is the amount in taxes each homeowner must pay.

Property A $5,186
Property B $5,573
Property C $6,502
Property D $5,481
Property E $6,966
Property F $5,341

Fast forward to 2016 and the town is ordered to undergo reval by the state. An appraisal firm is hired and assesses the following six properties according to state law and uniform accepted appraisal principals.

Property A $175,000
Property B $270,000
Property C $225,000
Property D $270,000
Property E $510,000
Property F $220,000

Total Assessed Value: $1,670,000

The town's budget is 35,000 and a tax rate of 2.1% is established. State law forbids the town from receiving any less or more revenue from a reval. It's a zero-sum game with some homeowners paying more, others less, and others virtually the same. The new taxation amounts for each home are as follows:

Property A $3,675
Property B $5,670
Property C $4,725
Property D $5,670
Property E $10,710
Property F $4,620

This is a rough, oversimplified, tongue-in-check example. But the real deal is not too far from what's posted above. It's not a hard concept. If we are to have ad valorem property taxes in New Jersey, it must be fair and according to the law.

I understand the reasoning, but question how accurately the tax assessor office can come up with the $10B figure so quickly which forms the basis of the 2ish% adjustment %. Is there any resource that explains the methodology behind this ?

I completely agree that properties paying greater than their share of taxes should be reduced, but basing the reval on inflated market values downtown seem to penalize owners that have no interest in selling and are more or less stuck while the tax abated luxury buildings add nothing to the end collection amount.

Yvonne wrote:
I still have former neighbors who live downtown. They only have social security for income and the rental from their 3 family house. While the tax freeze is great, it doesn't help many in JC. My former neighbor only qualifies for 1/3 of any money. The 2/3 will be passed on the rent. This is the problem let's say a person in the suburbs has a $65,000 a year income, they receive the benefit of the property freeze, but the same person who has $65,000 of income but 2/3 comes from rental is not benefiting like the person in the suburbs.

JCGuys wrote:
Thor, I don't know why this concept is so hard to understand.

Say you live in a town with six residential properties, for example. The town last ungergos a reval is 1987 and below is their appraised amounts.

Property A $67,000
Property B $72,000
Property C $84,000
Property D $70,000
Property E $90,000
Property F $69,000

Total Assessed Value: $452,000

It's now 2015. There has been huge changes in the real estate market, especially Property E was has appreciated much faster than the other 5 properties. However, the town still taxes Property E at its 1987 valuation.

The town needs to raise $35,000 for its 2015 budget. It will have the same budget in 2016, too. In order to raise $35,000, a tax rate of 7.74% is applied to the assessed value of each home. Below is the amount in taxes each homeowner must pay.

Property A $5,186
Property B $5,573
Property C $6,502
Property D $5,481
Property E $6,966
Property F $5,341

Fast forward to 2016 and the town is ordered to undergo reval by the state. An appraisal firm is hired and assesses the following six properties according to state law and uniform accepted appraisal principals.

Property A $175,000
Property B $270,000
Property C $225,000
Property D $270,000
Property E $510,000
Property F $220,000

Total Assessed Value: $1,670,000

The town's budget is 35,000 and a tax rate of 2.1% is established. State law forbids the town from receiving any less or more revenue from a reval. It's a zero-sum game with some homeowners paying more, others less, and others virtually the same. The new taxation amounts for each home are as follows:

Property A $3,675
Property B $5,670
Property C $4,725
Property D $5,670
Property E $10,710
Property F $4,620

This is a rough, oversimplified, tongue-in-check example. But the real deal is not too far from what's posted above. It's not a hard concept. If we are to have ad valorem property taxes in New Jersey, it must be fair and according to the law.

terrencemcd wrote:
FYI I obtained a copy of the decision in the breach-of-contract case related to the reval. I added a link to it in my most recent story on the case if anyone wants to read it.

HERE

Hudson County Superior Court Judge Francis B. Schultz ruled this afternoon that the city showed bad faith when Mayor Steve Fulop stopped the reval in 2013 and ordered the city not to pay West New York firm Realty Appraisal Co. the remainder of its $3.2 million contract.

The city must pay the firm $984,511 plus interest and attorney's fees dating to Realty Appraisal's October 2015 settlement offer, Schultz ruled.

The firm, which sued for breach of contract after Fulop stopped the reval, was "simply doing a job that it was hired to do," Schultz said today after dismissing almost every argument city attorneys made during the seven-day trial.

"The evidence in this trial is clear and convincing," the judge said. "The city simply does not want a revaluation. Period."

thor800 wrote:
Quick appraisal of every property in town ?

Is that even possible ?

thor800 wrote:
I guess i wonder how thr tax accessor came up with the $10B value.

What other areas are paying higher taxes than 2.2% which would provide the counter decreases to other areas that have appreciated ?

Ive only heard greenville mentioned

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
If the reval wont change the total taxes received by the city then wouldnt some sort of cap have to be put in for areas that have appreciated more relative to the slighty higher taxes being paid in others like greenville ?

Huh?

Rough example...

City says it needs $220 million. The tax collector says the appraised value of all land in Jersey City pre reval is $3 billion. City sets a tax rate of 7.33% on the appraised value of land in order to raise the $220 million.

After the reval, the city still needs $220 million. The tax collector says the appraised value of all land in Jersey City post reval is now $10 billion. City sets a tax rate of 2.2% on the appraised value of land in order to raise the $220 million.

Regardless of the assessed value, the city is legally only allowed to collect $220 million. How could there be possibly so much misunderstanding on how the property taxation system work. I'll join the rest and say a reval is needed every 5 years to prevent these imbalances.

The last thing that gets me is when people start talking about improvements to a property in the context of a reval. All that matters is the current market value. So if someone put a million dollars in improvements into some real estate, but the property appraises at $500,000, then $500,000 is the appraised value.

All this discussions about renovations and improvements are irrelevant if the current fair market value of the property is known.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
So homeowners will be paying property taxes based on market values now as opposed to assessed values ?

Isnt the concept of market value more subjective tho ? Prices especially downtown are the highest theyve ever been but thats somewhat indicative of several factors like even crazier prices in brooklyn.

Whats to say that next year the dtjc market wont see a correction ? It seems like some sort of 3 year average would make more sense.

Really? This is why we should not wait to have a reval every 27 years. Most other counties in the untied states do it annually at minimal cost. Why does NJ muck it up??

A property owner in Greenville is paying 7% of the market value of his house which goes to subsidize a property owner in DTJC paying 1%. It's an outrage. Reverse robinhood. A total shame it's been allowed to happen this long.

thor800 wrote:
So homeowners will be paying property taxes based on market values now as opposed to assessed values ?

Isnt the concept of market value more subjective tho ? Prices especially downtown are the highest theyve ever been but thats somewhat indicative of several factors like even crazier prices in brooklyn.

Whats to say that next year the dtjc market wont see a correction ? It seems like some sort of 3 year average would make more sense.

mfadam wrote:
Sadly it says they have been getting screwed for years and their elected representatives have been totally asleep at the wheel...

thor800 wrote:
If the reval wont change the total taxes received by the city then wouldnt some sort of cap have to be put in for areas that have appreciated more relative to the slighty higher taxes being paid in others like greenville ?

According to Zillow 2015 taxes were $13,150. If 2.1% is the rate that will ultimately be applied they are looking at a touch over $40K in taxes in the near furture. There's a lot of altitude between 13 and 40.