Mr. Roccoto was the brilliant mind who screwed this all up.

Can you please show us some facts as to why Mr. Roccato deserves the blame for this whole fiasco? The entire council voted for it.

Aberant voted against it in 2007. Dan Roccato advocated for it and said it was time.

come on mannnnnn....is the $800 really gonna kill you?

All Dems & Reps voted to do it Blame them all or none!

ORDINANCE 28-2006
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MOORESTOWN, BURLINGTON
COUNTY, NEW JERSEY AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL EMERGENCY
APPROPRIATION FOR A REVALUATION PROGRAM AND
APPROPRIATING $583,200 FOR FINANCING OF SAME
Mayor Aberant opened the public hearing. There were no comments.
A motion was made by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mr. Eron, to close the public hearing.
The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
A motion was made by Mr. Eron, seconded by Ms. Segal, to adopt the ordinance. Upon a
roll call, the vote was as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers Roccato, Segal, Miller, Eron, Aberant
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None

Peppy is absolutely correct! some people just can't get over their hatred of conservatives - even when that hated works against their own best interests.

Bewildered.... da.... guess how much I pay in taxes yesterday...more than you..... and do you think seniors in Moorestown appreciate your insensitive comments?

Answer: NO.

No peppy, you have it wrong, the reval vote was in 2007, mr miller wasn't on council. The democrats on council pushed for the reval

True R and Tom,
There has been plenty of communication. It was clearly stated many times that the values were going to be reassessed and that the rate would increase to the amount that would keep the towns current revenue in line where it had been. What the heck wasn't clear? So the real estate was revalued, a new tax rate established and that's the end of it.
How can anyone point fingers at a political party. This was going to happen weather town hall, fields etc was done or not done. Maybe I just had premonitions, but nothing that showed up in my mailbox was unexpected.

Wasn't trying to be emotional. Just stating it was communicated. The folks who post here tend to follow things more closely and were probably well aware, just complaining they weren't. Thanks for the grammar lesson. Guess I had a brain freeze walking to work.

One very good question that still hasn't been answered.

Mr. Aberant specifically did not vote for this. And, he advise against it many, many times. FYI. Genius.

What on earth does that have to do reassessment and tax rate changes? Just spewing?

Because PREIT relentlessly sold "yes" on the liquor referendums as "tax relief". When will we see it?

Taxes are supposed imposed to cover costs of operating Moorestown.

If costs are fixed and being paid for WHY RAISE TAXES???

That is the point, M'Town Truth.

Where in the hell is all this extra raised money from our hard earn money going???

Do some homework that can actually be done and check the budget. Salaries and benefits with built in increases is where the money goes. Spending has been down in recent years but the decline in revenues causes the rate to go up so the bills get paid. Look I don't want higher taxes either. As far as where money goes that is mainly a BOE issue. Council only has a say over a 15-20 of budget. I'm sure another commenter would know the exact number

15-20% of the budget

Really got your facts down. Who is this Scott Merkel?

Peppy: I was at the meeting where the re-eval was decided. You have your facts wrong. Howard Miller was not on Council at the time. Council members were Anne Segal, Seth Broder, Dan Roccato (mayor) Jonathan Eron and Kevin Aberant. When the proposal to conduct a re-eval came up, tax assessor Dennis DeKlerk commented that he didn't think this was the right time to do so and suggested that Council put this off for a year. Despite their own expert's advice, Segal, Broder and Roccato voted to go ahead with the re-eval -- Eron and Aberant voted against it.

Thanks to Pat, you have the facts right. The Dems pushed the reval in 2007 which didn't turn out well. Mr miller wasn't on council for that.

Pat,

Frankly, I like sharing my opinions and challenging those of readers—not because it's an ego trip or because I want to convince people that they're wrong (though sometimes they just flat-out are), but because it's a good way to keep the dialogue going. And on a personal level, I enjoy the interaction.

Lastly, I would challenge the notion that my opinons are often obvious in my articles. But of course, you're entitled to your opinion.

Hey Rob, show Pat what a solid investigative reporter you are by telling us if the Mayor's and Deputy Mayor's property taxes went up or down due to the Reval.

I couldn't agree more, Patricia White. It reminds me of Candy Crowley running defense for Obama during the debates (he really did need help from the media in order to be re-elected). Either you are reporting objectively or you're pushing an agenda. There are "Editorial Pages" for journalists to share their personal views - reporting should not be their own private forum for political activism. Objective journalism as it was once taught is all but dead.

YES!!!!....Go get em Robbie....This could be your Woodward and Bernstein moment!

Bingo Mr. Moderate! I'm sure Rob appreciates you pointing out that he's "not a journalist."

Rob, Some of us appreciate your interaction. In my opinion, your interaction has added valuable clarity where comments have either asked for it or have been far enough off the mark to warrant it without ever delving to the depths of internet banter which is difficult to resist. Kudos.

As I recall, DeKlerk had just come on board with the township and wanted time to review the situation before committing to an assessment. Also, the housing market was at the top of the curve and there was speculation that the bubble might burst. He wanted to postpone it for a year. When you say "change of mind" I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you mean the "change of mind" that led to the most recent re-eval, that was due to the fact that the township was losing a fortune due to successful resident challenges to their properties' assessments.

Is there some legal recourse to ASI Guessing?

Is there some way to right these wrongs?

Be interested in your advise.

It's called an "Appeal" - you can go to the Burlington County website and download all the forms you need to do it, if you feel your home was valued too high. Hire an independent appraiser to get the true market value of your home. Look at comparable sales prices on the county website. Maybe you are correct and your home was valued too high. Maybe not.

then stop complaining and cursing on the board and get one

My taxes went down. Thank you Mayors Button and Jordan. Glad this crazy poster is now paying her fair share.

True - you need to stop ranting and raving. Your alias gives actual Republicans a bad name. You sound as if you are an uneducated, uninformed, hysterical child stamping her foot and throwing a tantrum. If you are too lazy to appeal then you WILL pay the increase in taxes and have no one but yourself to blame.

My taxes went down, too. I have no complaints about the process. Thank you Mayor Button.

"Fair share" as determined by whom? ASI? Tax Assessor? The point is that people are willing to pay, even pay a "fair share" (whatever that means) but when the figures seem so arbitrarily appointed, where is the formula? Where is the baseline? Where is the reasoning? Where is the communication or transparency? It's hard to feel sorry for the town as council cries poor over reduced ratables when money is being sunk into turf, corner parks, parking assessments that are dead ends, and woefully mismanaged construction projects.

Gee, I don't know, Our Town. From what I understand it IS the job of the tax assessor, based on appraisals. If you don't like the assessed value of your home, APPEAL it. I did, 3 years ago. Upon re-evaluation my value decreased by about $15,000 and my taxes went down $32. Since the private appraisal I commissioned in 2010 was right in line with the current re-evaluation, it tells me that in the case of MY property, at least, the re-evaluation was correct. If you disagree with yours, get up out of your chair and appeal it! don't blame the Mayor or town council.

Pretty simple rule here. Would you sell your house for the assessed value? If not, consider yourself lucky. If so, it's fair, and if you'd sell it immediately at the assessed price then appeal it.

Great test, Yah Mo! perfect way to know for sure. I'd only add that it should be over-valued by a good bit in order to justify going through the appeals process.

ok read it. here is what we now know in 2006 council unanimously votes to do the reevaluation and then a year later at the crazy coach larry meeting they discuss extending the reval for 1 year which failed. what happened next? it would appear aberant, who voted yes to pay for the reveal then voted yes to extend it for what appear to valid concerns then ignores those same concerns when making the 2008 budget based on the reval he just opposed after he originally supported it thereby causing millions of lost tax revenues

You seem upset at all this so I'd suggest you go ahead and get the answers. But I imagine they be available soon enough.

Why don't YOU do YOUR homework and then get back to us. Last time I checked you weren't my "teacher."

Accountability,

How do you know their taxes were lowered? Care to tell us? I'm just curious how you came across that information.

If a property value drops at a rate higher than the rate of the total township drop in value, then the taxes would go down right?

Actually Rob, ASI has all the the figures here. http://goo.gl/3QAHc and it's easy to plug the values in to their spreadsheet to see. In fairness, when comparing the entire street of the mayor, She is in line with the average decrease of home values for the street. The mayor's value dropped 19.56% while the street average was 14.01%.

I personally have a twin which was completely rehabbed in conjuction with the other side a few years back. Both sides are identical with the exception that my neighbor has a finished basement. Prior to the assessment, their side of the house was valued at $2100 more than us. Seemed a reasonable difference for a finished basement.

Come assessment, we let the assessor through the house. Our neighbors were not home. Our assessment came back with our home value dropping 13.37% while theirs came back dropped 17.86%. They got a tax break, we got an increase. With more square footage and a finished basement, they are now assessed at $5600 less than us.

The lesson is, we suckers that tried to do the right thing by letting the assessor accurately assess the house get screwed. I guess we should have not answered the door.

Accountability - as I understand it, no - that's not necessarily true. Say you built a house in 2006 for $500,000. When the 2008 reval happened, your taxes more than likely went down, because your house was already being fairly valued, and the tax RATE was lowered. Now, with a new reval, your house may have gone down in value somewhat, but maybe not enough to offset the new higher tax rate completely.
On the flip side I will give you my experience. My house went from $160k assessed value to $349k assessed value in 2008. Even with a lower tax rate, my taxes went UP (by $3,800) while your taxes went DOWN. Now, my new accurate value is $275k and even with the new higher tax rate, my taxes will go down. Do you understand how this could happen, now?

Rob, I think that people don't understand that when values went up, the tax rate went down. Now that values are down, the tax rate must go up. The goal in each of these reassessments was to maintain actual tax revenue at the same level. It is not a tool to increase overall revenue, except when numerous appeals result in the lowered tax RATE on lowered property VALUES. The town had no choice but to do the re-evaluation - we were bleeding money.

Why is there so much of a discrepancy between actual sale prices and the ASI appraisal numbers? Here are three homes sold last month where the ASI appraisal is at or around 10% lower. You can imagine there are several that go the other way too.

229 Country Club Dr - Sold on 12/17/2012 for $999,999 / ASI appraisal = $902,700 Appraisal = 9.7% lower

403 Providence Dr Sold on 12/17/2012 for $820,000 / ASI appraisal = $695,000 15.2% lower

28 Brooks Rd Sold on 12/13/2012 for $612,800 / ASI appraisal = $551,500 10.0% lower

Shouldn't the market be the best indicator of value?

@Rick Rohrbach - there are many reasons why the sales price might not reflect the "true market value." For example, sometimes a family member is sold a property at a greatly reduced price. Other times, various costs associated with the purchase of a property are rolled into the 'sales price' in order to get them paid by the mortgage (e.g., closing costs, repair costs, property tax pre-payments, etc.). For these reasons the recorded sale price may be far from the actual "market value." Hope this helps.

Truth - Understood but I've looked at most of the December sales (on Zillow) and none are above sale price and many (I'd say half) have assessment values at least 10% under the sale price. This is not an anomaly.

Best one - 421 E 2nd St sold for $500k on 12/3 and ASI assessment is $341k or 31% lower.

Truth....Prepaid taxes aren't included in the recorded sale price, they are reconciling items on the HUD-1 closing statement.

The other things you mention...repairs for example, closing costs...are directly attributable to the value of the home. If it sells for $1M, then it's worth that much money. If I had paid $950k and made $50k worth of improvements the next day...it's worth $1M.

Home many times do you recall someone buying a house and taking value out of it in the first 30 days? Carpets, paint, landscaping, floors, etc. all add value. To suggest someone overpaid 9.7% is ridiculous.

The whole game is a joke. When both the costs of property and the services provided via taxes were smaller, the differences were minimal and nobody cared. Now the system can't keep up. If you want to keep the system "fresh", every year the entire town should be updated to reflect movements up or down, with homes sold in the year (at fair market, not divorce $1 transfers) assessed at sale price.

Try to understand this, TR. When properties were re-assessed in 2008, the tax rate was lowered so that most people paid about the same amount. Sadly, for me, I was not one of them. My taxes went up $3,800 a year. My property was assessed FAR above true market value, so I appealed. My reduced valuation (from my appeal) was still taxed at that overall lower tax rate. My taxes went back down to just about what they were before the 2008 reassessment. That happened with many people, who also appealed, and paid the lower tax rate on lower assessed value. As a result, the town's anticipated revenue dropped by millions of dollars. So the town's budget cannot be supported by the decreased revenue. They are not "spending more money" - they're simply trying to pay the bills they've already incurred. If your taxes only went up by $800 I have to ask - how much did they go DOWN in 2008? a lot more than $800 I bet.

Why don't you tell us much your taxes went down after the 2008 re-assessment, TR? how much? $2,000? $3,000? $4,0000? how much? hmmm?

@Tom Lynch - see my reply to Rick, above as to why sales price isn't always a reliable indicator. As for increased value - if someone adds a room, or finishes a basement, or puts up a fence, or a pool - the assessed value increases. That's why an actual appraisal is required to know the value of a property.

Hey Tom,
It's "thought" not "tought". I had to!

If anyone wants to fight about grammar and spelling, head on over to Roxborough patch...plenty of material in the stories there.

Go fight city hall and ask! then explain how it works that this raises everyone's taxes and just not those who were not paying their fair share before. get over it or move. if you sell and your house is worth less than they said, then you will be right. will that make you feel better?

would you even be jumping up and down if your taxes went down

Gordon -

You wrote - "For those of you who think that the recent (to be bonded) capital improvements, Town Hall, Fields, parks, etc, will impact the budget, that is incorrect. In 2014, and again in 2017, a large portion of the debt service will have been satisfied. Adding the new capital to the debt still won't rise to the debt payments currently being paid, and which are provided for in the budget."

If we didn't do these projects, wouldn't the budget decrease?

Thats all well and good does not make it right. Btw I have no idea what your referring to the "15%" rule, ASI and the tax assessor told me I can and should appeal.

OMG. Someone in this town understands how this works. Thanks, GWilliam for saying these things so clearly. Apparently, I was unable to explain the process to the satisfaction of many of the people whining here- maybe you will have better luck!

Archie, I'm sorry you can't keep up. Your new bill is higher and mine is lower. Up til now I was overpaying and you were underpaying. Now we both pay our fair share. Obama would be so proud of you.

Ham,
I never said In my comments above that I agree with the reval. It never should have been done in a declining market. In fact, the twp lost a few million because of it. As to who was really responsible for the reval, you'll have to ask the experts above.
And, It isn't Gordan, it's George, but you already know that.
Archie,
You can always file an appeal, but according to the assessor if the assessed and real or comped value are within 15% the appeal board does not have to hear it. I was also told that when I filed an appeal two years ago. I won my appeal not due to value, but because they oversized my house by a thousand sq. ft. Coincidentlly, they got it back this time around.
RR,
You are correct. If none of the capital projects were approved the budget needs would be lower. That's a moot point since they were approved. I have a question. Considering the Local Purpose tax represents roughly 15% of the total property tax bill, why does there seem to be little discussion about the remaining 85%?

George - I didn't bring up the Local Purpose tax, you did when you brought up the Town Hall, Rec Center, and Fields projects. I agree it's a small part of our budget but you suggested the new capital projects have no impact on our budget. Of course that's wrong. But if you live in a world where no impact means "no increase" I guess you're right.

2013's budget is not necessarily the floor for 2014. We need to stop thinking that way. There is nothing that forces us to spend at least as much or more every year. Politicians need to stop thinking that way. I'm sure the new Town Hall and Library will be beautiful but if you ask me if it was wise to spend $13M for office space and a new library (across the street from the existing library where there was no fire), I'd say "no."

If you want to discuss the rest of our budget, that would be great. Would love to see some savings there too.

George -- I understand what you are saying but I completely agree with what Rick wrote this morning. The overall problem is that these major capital spending decisions went back and forth over essentially three different councils/mayors, and politics ended up driving too much of the process. Two things are true -- we are spending more than we should have, or needed to have spent, and we aren't utilizing that location to the best that it could be.

You really are unable to comprehend logic, aren't you. Go ahead and wallow in your confusion and hate just like the rest of the liberal whiners.

Randy, you're making the incest in abortion case argument. What if....

Send me the listing for the "including all contents" house. Once I decide if I like it, then you'll have to tell me where to get a mortgage for the closing price.

If you knew that the sales price was the new assessment...it would actually improve transparency, reduce misc. add-ins, and improve the buyers chances of repaying the mortgage.

People sell houses for a reason, some pressing; some not. Market price is what someone will pay that a seller will accept. It's imperfect, but more likely to be correct than someone from North Jersey coming into town and telling everyone what their house is worth.

If a house was under-valued there would be multiple bidders. A real estate commission is based on the total value the BUYER will pay. The seller taking home 94% of the value vs. one taking 100% is a personal decision...not a market differentiator.

A $1M home sold for $950k because the seller didn't have to pay a commission cost the town $1,143 / year based on the new assessments. Let's say that happens 10 times a year...big deal.

The system doesn't work, but the tax based on value. I feel its more likely to be accurate based on what someone recently paid versus someone without intimate knowledge of the market telling me what I can get.

Randy -

I referenced several houses sold in the last month (not a year or more ago). My point was that many of the ASI assessments are way off actual sale prices and don't fairly represent market value (for those homes). Your hypothetical don't represent a typical sale and, while they may apply for a few homes in town, they likely don't apply to many (or any) of the homes in the sample I reviewed.

I simply looked at the most recent 20 homes sold in town and reported on Zillow. The ASI assessment values for more than 1/2 of those homes are 10% or more under the actual sale price. If those homes are used as comps for the other homes in those neighborhoods, it is possible that entire sections of our town are valued under market.

Why does this matter? If the ASI numbers (overall) are deflated, it's much more difficult for anyone to fight their assessment value. In other words, no one is going to fight to have their assessment number increased.

If this is done uniformly across town, it doesn't matter; everyone will pay an appropriate allocation of taxes. If some areas are lower than actual market but others higher, we have a problem. That's why I asked. I have no information to suggest that the overall numbers are grossly imbalanced but the small sample I reviewed seems to have below market valuations so it certainly begs the question.

Correct

They do account for updates to kitchens and bathrooms. It's math (formula driven), so it may not account for tile vs. marble...but they do change the value based on relative newness. They know that a 20 year old kitchen is worth less than a new one.

Thanks. I'm sure to the subjective nature of this it could create discrepancies though. Maybe in the 5% range which while small can be tens of thousands with an average assessment close to 500k.