neil rubenstein letter

1

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 1:43 PMTo: 'edward mullane'; [email protected]; [email protected]: Clark, MattSubject: CH 91

Ed, What is the date on this mailing? Neil Neil, We have the chapter 91’s ready to go out, regular mail (1st mailing). Do you want the postal trays? Should we mail them/get re-imbursted? Or something else? We are here to help, ED XwãtÜw `âÄÄtÇx PS: Municipal Election is May 7…revaluation contract purposely signed late?

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:16 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Cc: Ed Mullane Subject: RE: Ocean Reval Mr. Rubenstein: The Monmouth County ADP implementation schedule was set in 2013. With very little modification, the original countywide schedule has been adhered to. The Ocean Twp revaluation contract has been given Director approval as of April, 1 2015, you should have received an email today. While the Board has a statement from the Assessor saying that “the 2016 revaluation should be postponed to 2017” and a statement from your revaluation firm saying that “we don’t believe that starting a 9,500 line item Town in May and finishing by November or slightly after is possible”, the Monmouth County Tax Board is not inclined to extend the revaluation of Ocean Twp at this time. Mindful of the constraints that the calendar places on inspections and that we do not want to jeopardize data accuracy solely for the sake of adhering to the implementation schedule, you are asked to proceed immediately with public notification and data collection and to inform the Board of any unforeseen challenges that arise that could compromise the work product or the timely delivery of the revaluation. You are to make every effort to complete the revaluation in accordance with the approved order. However, if necessary, as we approach the statutory submission date the Board will determine if it should provide a filing extension or postpone implementation until 2017. As always, the Board will monitor the progress of all ongoing revaluations. Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator

2

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is proh bited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail i

Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue Suite 4 West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net

3

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 1:43 PMTo: 'edward mullane'; [email protected]; [email protected]: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: CH 91

Ed, What is the date on this mailing? Neil Neil, We have the chapter 91’s ready to go out, regular mail (1st mailing). Do you want the postal trays? Should we mail them/get re-imbursted? Or something else? We are here to help, ED XwãtÜw `âÄÄtÇx PS: Municipal Election is May 7…revaluation contract purposely signed late?

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:16 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Cc: Ed Mullane Subject: RE: Ocean Reval Mr. Rubenstein: The Monmouth County ADP implementation schedule was set in 2013. With very little modification, the original countywide schedule has been adhered to. The Ocean Twp revaluation contract has been given Director approval as of April, 1 2015, you should have received an email today. While the Board has a statement from the Assessor saying that “the 2016 revaluation should be postponed to 2017” and a statement from your revaluation firm saying that “we don’t believe that starting a 9,500 line item Town in May and finishing by November or slightly after is possible”, the Monmouth County Tax Board is not inclined to extend the revaluation of Ocean Twp at this time. Mindful of the constraints that the calendar places on inspections and that we do not want to jeopardize data accuracy solely for the sake of adhering to the implementation schedule, you are asked to proceed immediately with public notification and data collection and to inform the Board of any unforeseen challenges that arise that could compromise the work product or the timely delivery of the revaluation. You are to make every effort to complete the revaluation in accordance with the approved order. However, if necessary, as we approach the statutory submission date the Board will determine if it should provide a filing extension or postpone implementation until 2017. As always, the Board will monitor the progress of all ongoing revaluations. Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator

4

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is proh bited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail i


5

Clark, Matt

From: Bernard Haney <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 9:49 AMTo: Clark, Matt; Neil RubensteinCc: JohnButow; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; Robert VanceSubject: RE: Gloucester's Report

I have a really simple comment .. the 11.2 million state funds have not been paid to GC .. I believe that they may have received about $3M .. That leaves a $ 8.2M gap .. How is that being made up, and will the County ultimate charge that back to the towns. Bernie

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 7:12 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Cc: JohnButow; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Robert Vance; Bernard Haney Subject: RE: Gloucester's Report Hello: In preparation for the NJLOM Review of Gloucester and Monmouth Pilot programs on May 5th, below please find initial observations (in red) of the Gloucester County Pilot Report. Please feel free to add your comments and return. My “precious 15 minutes” on May 5th will be focused on “primary failings of the current system (not Gloucester) and how the several components of the ADP fix what is broken”. Primary failings addressed within ADP:

1. Ratio‐based fractional assessments – that which we never speak of “implied market value”. 2. Chapter 123 permissible corridor of value – I can be 1/3 off and I can’t change the assessment. 3. Assessment Calendar structure – technology permits us to hear appeals before the budgetary process. 4. Restrictions preventing assessment maintenance and uniformity – Assessors are forbidden to take corrective

action. 5. Mass‐appraisal education 6. Mass‐appraisal technology 7. How annual reassessments address multi‐year refunds

After 5 years of Gloucester County Pilot implementation, the report is comprised of: • 4 pages of “text” • 8 pages of standard tables • 1 page of “10 recommended Changes to County‐based real property assessment” • 25 pages of SOLICITED testimonials from “stakeholders” The Executive Summary makes 4 statements.

6

1. The consolidated model is more efficient than the municipal based model. The county system costs $20.79 per line item compared to $38.56 in the municipal‐based model. There is no support to this statement. With 18 fulltime employees who receive pension and benefits, who replaced part‐time employees – we need to see the details. We need to see a detailed comparison of the previous municipal expenditures and the County cost. Gloucester County now has 18 full‐time employees with pension and benefits. The old deploy assessment model made use of part‐time Assessors many of which did not receive pension and benefits as a result of recent reform efforts. Was the expansion of pension and benefits calculated in the comparative short and long‐term costs? 2. Using the “Director’s Ratio” as the key measurement of effectiveness, the County system is more effective at maintaining high ratios in all municipalities. This is utterly laughable. The ratios were low because the towns neglected to maintain them for years. What fixed it was not county‐assessing but the $11.2 million bill for 18 revaluations in Gloucester’s 24 towns ‐ that was paid for by the other 20 counties in New Jersey. 3. Tax Appeal volume is a key indicator of effectiveness. Appeals are less in 2014 than in 2014. With the Director’s Ratios maintained close to 100%,appeals are expected to decline or remain level. While more accurate assessments theoretically will address appeal volume, factually, there was a statewide reduction in appeals between 2013 and 2014. There are many things that attribute to a reduction in appeals such as an improving real estate market and assessments that are too low. 4. Utilizing compliance plans and in‐house reassessments, the Director’s Ratio are kept within NJ Division of Taxation parameters, ensuring fair and uniform assessments without reliance on expensive and contentious revaluations. Compliance Plans and reassessments are only available within 4 years of the last revaluation. This means that for the revaluations implemented in 2012, 2016 is the last year that a reassessment is available. The ONLY available next step in maintaining the assessments would be a complete revaluation. “Added Assessments”: “The County Assessor's Office relies on traditional inspections, liaison with municipal Construction Officials, and permits to help detect and add assessable improvements to the property records. In addition, an aerial photogrammetric survey service (Pictometry) shared with the Department of Emergency Management is used to monitor and measure new buildings and improvements, and assist in making determinations regarding farmland tax exemption qualification.” While “cost savings” is important, the uniformity clause of the NJ Constitution is MORE IMPORTANT! While Monmouth and Somerset endeavor to provide enhanced public service by making the assessments annually more accurate, the county‐based assessing model within Gloucester County appears to be accepting of reduced accuracy to reduce cost. “Recommended Changes to Regulations and Laws Regarding County‐based Real Property Assessment”:

1. Establish a three‐year phase‐in period from municipal to county jurisdiction, bringing one‐third of the county under the full jurisdiction of the County Assessor each year. Authorize the NJ Division of Taxation to extend this schedule. Required percentage implementation is not advisable as a implementation schedule that is suitable statewide. 33% of Bergen County’s 70 towns is 23 jurisdictions.

2. The County Assessor should assume full responsibility for the assessment function and implementation of the revaluation or reassessment at the beginning of each stage of the three‐year transition, assuring accountability

7

and appropriate quality control. The county can inter‐governmentally transfer municipal personnel if it chooses to bring them into the County Assessor office.

Implementation should be county specific.

3. Getting tax maps in compliance and digitized is a long lead item. Delay in map work and NJ Division of Taxation review can delay revaluations. Extend the timetable for revaluations up to six years to allow sufficient time to prepare for the revaluation. Within our current statewide framework, it takes “years” for sufficient statistical evidence to be gathered and surpass current NJAC thresholds for CTB ordering of corrective action (revaluation, reassessment , compliance). It then could take “years” to implement corrective action. Within this framework there are systemic several touching points that impact the administration of the process such as the Assessor’s management of non‐useable sales and the County Tax Board’s commitment to issue corrective action orders. While the system has the potential to be nimble, more often it is a protracted process that creates quantifiable windows during which some overpay and underpay their appropriate share of the property tax levy all because assessment correction was not implemented in a timely manner. Taxpayers should not be forced to continue to pay too much or too little of the current levy because the mechanism of “tax map updating” is cumbersome. In accordance with current Administrative Code tax maps are to be maintained annually. For municipalities that fail to maintain tax maps on an annual basis, enact language found in A3916 that permits counties to update maps and pass bill directly through the annual debit and credit process. Please see the revised recommendation under #10 below concerning Tax Map Maintenance shared service program.

4. Allow counties to require municipalities to reimburse the county for fifty percent of all costs associated with the revaluation of that municipality {mass appraisal contracts and tax map work). A county may still choose to not seek reimbursement from municipalities. Even if revenue is received from the municipality based on cost of specific services rendered for that town the apportionment of the initial county costs would be based on the towns “Net Valuation on Which County Taxes are Apportioned, Col 11 Abstract”, NOT services rendered. This environment still means that the most “small but affluent” towns will pay a larger bill than the services provided. If county‐based services is going to acknowledge that centralized costs are apportioned in a way that is completely disconnected from services‐rendered and it wants to establish a cost/payment mechanism that is attached to services‐rendered, it will need an amendment to the NJ Constitution to change the permissible means of apportioning shared levies.

5. Adopt clear language regarding jurisdiction over tax appeal litigation and settlement. We recommend incorporating the language used in the County‐Municipal Cooperation Agreements used in Gloucester County. The language makes clear jurisdiction and establishes a formula for sharing costs of defense when tax appeals bridge county jurisdiction date. Must obtain a copy of County‐Municipal Cooperation Agreements used in Gloucester County. Moving forward, how much “duplication of process” is still incurred by municipalities who feel that they need to protect themselves from settlements that potentially could be too low? Was this calculated as part of the county‐wide cost of the county‐based assessing model?

6. Incorporate the calendar revisions as provided for in the Real Property Assessment Demonstration Program (Monmouth County program), Chapter 15, Laws of 2013.

8

While the calendar revisions within the ADP provide significant, quantifiable and immediate cost savings, the value of the calendar is only maximized when coupled with the “annual reassessment” program which, together, fully addresses the exposure to multi‐year appeal reductions. It should be noted that counties that traditionally required an extension of the current “3‐month County Tax Board appeal calendar”, should implement Online Appeal technology (like Monmouth County’s shared service) to ensure timely adjudication of all appeals within the revised appeal window.

7. Only require interior inspections after the 8th year following implementation of a district‐wide reassessment. Is this a type‐o? A “reassessment” is typically done within 4 years of the last revaluation and does not include internal inspections. So are they asking to implement a revaluation with full internal inspections and then permit reassessments, without internal inspections, for the next 8 years? If the typical holding period of real estate is 7 years, people can acquire, renovate, enjoy for several years and sell for a profit without taxation. This is an abandonment of the duty to ensure uniformity and equity. The taxpayers deserve more precision and accuracy in the annual assessment, not less.

8. Amend the law to eliminate the annual requirement to mail the Notice of Property Assessment once property records are available on‐line. Require written notification to taxpayer only when the assessment is changed. Only require assessors to mail notices if the taxpayer requests the same. This is a concept that has been requested for several years and is long overdue. At roughly $ .50 per postcard (printing and postage only), an annual mailing for New Jersey cost about $1.6 million dollars a year (3.1 million parcels x $.50 per parcel). Factually the Ch. 75 Notification of Assessment Postcard is available online through NJACTB.org and other government websites. Requiring “written notice only when assessments are changed” is disingenuous and falls short of the level of service that should be delivered. With our current system of “ratio‐ based fractional assessments”, while the assessment does not change annually, the ratio and therefore the “implied market value” does change annually. This is one of the greatest defects in our current system that is only fixed by taking down the façade of “static assessments” and presenting “market value” on an annual basis. For a county that is implementing “annual reassessments” almost all properties will have minor assessment changes thereby requiring paper mailings of notices and thwarting the intention of cost savings. Statutory law should remove the obligation to mail and require the county to post an image of the current record on a free public website. Taxpayers who call to have a copy should first be given the website, secondly be asked for an email address for transmission and finally sent a paper copy. As an aside, while the intent of the postcard is to provide assessment and assessment appeal information, the practical use is understood to be for current year income tax filing. This is interesting in that the statement shows “what was to be paid” – before appeal reduction ‐ not “what was paid”. I would be curious to see how often this income tax credit is misused.

9. Change the requirements for the Deputy County Assessor position to allow substitution, on a year for year basis, of possession of a MAl and/or SRA designation for years of experience in municipal assessor office. Law currently requires 3 years municipal assessing experience and gives no recognition to advanced training and experience in property valuation. Within our current statewide framework, a Deputy Assessor can do anything the Assessor can do. This recommendation to adopt different qualifications suggests that within County‐based Assessing the role of the Deputy Assessor is more valuation than that of the County Assessor. From a practical standpoint, while professional designations may demonstrate proficiency in fee appraisal work – which lends itself well to appeal defense ‐ very little of that experience is related to the mass –appraisal techniques that is the overarching work product of New Jerseys’ future Assessor. (remember that accurate

9

initial assessments will reduce successful appeals and is the core of enhanced public service.) Moving forward, the qualifications of the Assessor and Deputy Assessor and the body of knowledge tested within the CTA Exam, should be increased in accordance with the evolution of the position. At a minimum, mass‐appraisal and technology must be included within the Assessors core competencies. Point being – the recommendation calls for an ability to satisfy current requirements through alternative experience when the correct recommendation should be to expand the requirements.

10. Permit County Tax Board trust fund monies to be appropriated by counties to help offset costs associated with Computer Aided Mass Appraisal {CAMA) software and hardware, and all costs associated with the maintenance of tax maps.

To the extent that it is associated with record keeping, it is currently permissible to utilize the CTB Appeal Filing Fee Trust Fund for CAMA software and hardware. This would include initial purchase and annual maintenance fees associated with the MODIV/CAMA software and hardware. It would not include costs associated with data collection at a municipal level. Tax Map Maintenance is a “centralized funding issue” similar to question #4 above. In the future, the maintenance of Tax Maps of the “undeveloped town” will have much more activity (cost) than the fully built‐out jurisdictions. The centralized Appeal Fee Trust Fund was theoretically and generally funded to a greater proportion by the fully built‐out towns. So moving forward a fund collected from one town will be used to fund the needs of another. While the current centralization of the tax map function provides cost efficiencies, the apportionment of the cost remains problematic. The recommendation should be revised to establish a County‐to‐municipal shared service environment whereby the County offers the consolidated pass‐through tax map maintenance service to the service provider (i.e. Civil Solutions) and the costs of the agreement remain a municipal cost. This will provide all of the efficiencies of the consolidated model and avoid the cost of annual maintenance and transition from analog to digital from being underwritten by towns who are not in receipt of the service.

PILOT CONCLUSION:

“[county assessing] merits consideration for replication in other New Jersey counties”… Does this include the State’s payment for revaluation?

Regards, Matthew Clark

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is proh bited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.

10

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 7:12 PMTo: Neil RubensteinCc: JohnButow; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; Robert Vance; Bernard HaneySubject: RE: Gloucester's Report

Hello: In preparation for the NJLOM Review of Gloucester and Monmouth Pilot programs on May 5th, below please find initial observations (in red) of the Gloucester County Pilot Report. Please feel free to add your comments and return. My “precious 15 minutes” on May 5th will be focused on “primary failings of the current system (not Gloucester) and how the several components of the ADP fix what is broken”. Primary failings addressed within ADP:



After 5 years of Gloucester County Pilot implementation, the report is comprised of: • 4 pages of “text” • 8 pages of standard tables • 1 page of “10 recommended Changes to County‐based real property assessment” • 25 pages of SOLICITED testimonials from “stakeholders” The Executive Summary makes 4 statements. 1. The consolidated model is more efficient than the municipal based model. The county system costs $20.79 per line item compared to $38.56 in the municipal‐based model. There is no support to this statement. With 18 fulltime employees who receive pension and benefits, who replaced part‐time employees – we need to see the details. We need to see a detailed comparison of the previous municipal expenditures and the County cost. Gloucester County now has 18 full‐time employees with pension and benefits. The old deploy assessment model made use of part‐time Assessors many of which did not receive pension and benefits as a result of recent reform efforts. Was the expansion of pension and benefits calculated in the comparative short and long‐term costs? 2. Using the “Director’s Ratio” as the key measurement of effectiveness, the County system is more effective at maintaining high ratios in all municipalities.

11

This is utterly laughable. The ratios were low because the towns neglected to maintain them for years. What fixed it was not county‐assessing but the $11.2 million bill for 18 revaluations in Gloucester’s 24 towns ‐ that was paid for by the other 20 counties in New Jersey. 3. Tax Appeal volume is a key indicator of effectiveness. Appeals are less in 2014 than in 2014. With the Director’s Ratios maintained close to 100%,appeals are expected to decline or remain level. While more accurate assessments theoretically will address appeal volume, factually, there was a statewide reduction in appeals between 2013 and 2014. There are many things that attribute to a reduction in appeals such as an improving real estate market and assessments that are too low. 4. Utilizing compliance plans and in‐house reassessments, the Director’s Ratio are kept within NJ Division of Taxation parameters, ensuring fair and uniform assessments without reliance on expensive and contentious revaluations. Compliance Plans and reassessments are only available within 4 years of the last revaluation. This means that for the revaluations implemented in 2012, 2016 is the last year that a reassessment is available. The ONLY available next step in maintaining the assessments would be a complete revaluation. “Added Assessments”: “The County Assessor's Office relies on traditional inspections, liaison with municipal Construction Officials, and permits to help detect and add assessable improvements to the property records. In addition, an aerial photogrammetric survey service (Pictometry) shared with the Department of Emergency Management is used to monitor and measure new buildings and improvements, and assist in making determinations regarding farmland tax exemption qualification.” While “cost savings” is important, the uniformity clause of the NJ Constitution is MORE IMPORTANT! While Monmouth and Somerset endeavor to provide enhanced public service by making the assessments annually more accurate, the county‐based assessing model within Gloucester County appears to be accepting of reduced accuracy to reduce cost. “Recommended Changes to Regulations and Laws Regarding County‐based Real Property Assessment”:


2. The County Assessor should assume full responsibility for the assessment function and implementation of the revaluation or reassessment at the beginning of each stage of the three‐year transition, assuring accountability and appropriate quality control. The county can inter‐governmentally transfer municipal personnel if it chooses to bring them into the County Assessor office.


3. Getting tax maps in compliance and digitized is a long lead item. Delay in map work and NJ Division of Taxation review can delay revaluations. Extend the timetable for revaluations up to six years to allow sufficient time to prepare for the revaluation. Within our current statewide framework, it takes “years” for sufficient statistical evidence to be gathered and surpass current NJAC thresholds for CTB ordering of corrective action (revaluation, reassessment , compliance). It then could take “years” to implement corrective action. Within this framework there are systemic several

12

touching points that impact the administration of the process such as the Assessor’s management of non‐useable sales and the County Tax Board’s commitment to issue corrective action orders. While the system has the potential to be nimble, more often it is a protracted process that creates quantifiable windows during which some overpay and underpay their appropriate share of the property tax levy all because assessment correction was not implemented in a timely manner. Taxpayers should not be forced to continue to pay too much or too little of the current levy because the mechanism of “tax map updating” is cumbersome. In accordance with current Administrative Code tax maps are to be maintained annually. For municipalities that fail to maintain tax maps on an annual basis, enact language found in A3916 that permits counties to update maps and pass bill directly through the annual debit and credit process. Please see the revised recommendation under #10 below concerning Tax Map Maintenance shared service program.



6. Incorporate the calendar revisions as provided for in the Real Property Assessment Demonstration Program (Monmouth County program), Chapter 15, Laws of 2013. While the calendar revisions within the ADP provide significant, quantifiable and immediate cost savings, the value of the calendar is only maximized when coupled with the “annual reassessment” program which, together, fully addresses the exposure to multi‐year appeal reductions. It should be noted that counties that traditionally required an extension of the current “3‐month County Tax Board appeal calendar”, should implement Online Appeal technology (like Monmouth County’s shared service) to ensure timely adjudication of all appeals within the revised appeal window.

7. Only require interior inspections after the 8th year following implementation of a district‐wide reassessment. Is this a type‐o? A “reassessment” is typically done within 4 years of the last revaluation and does not include internal inspections. So are they asking to implement a revaluation with full internal inspections and then permit reassessments, without internal inspections, for the next 8 years? If the typical holding period of real estate is 7 years, people can acquire, renovate, enjoy for several years and sell for a profit without taxation. This is an

13

abandonment of the duty to ensure uniformity and equity. The taxpayers deserve more precision and accuracy in the annual assessment, not less.


9. Change the requirements for the Deputy County Assessor position to allow substitution, on a year for year basis, of possession of a MAl and/or SRA designation for years of experience in municipal assessor office. Law currently requires 3 years municipal assessing experience and gives no recognition to advanced training and experience in property valuation. Within our current statewide framework, a Deputy Assessor can do anything the Assessor can do. This recommendation to adopt different qualifications suggests that within County‐based Assessing the role of the Deputy Assessor is more valuation than that of the County Assessor. From a practical standpoint, while professional designations may demonstrate proficiency in fee appraisal work – which lends itself well to appeal defense ‐ very little of that experience is related to the mass –appraisal techniques that is the overarching work product of New Jerseys’ future Assessor. (remember that accurate initial assessments will reduce successful appeals and is the core of enhanced public service.) Moving forward, the qualifications of the Assessor and Deputy Assessor and the body of knowledge tested within the CTA Exam, should be increased in accordance with the evolution of the position. At a minimum, mass‐appraisal and technology must be included within the Assessors core competencies. Point being – the recommendation calls for an ability to satisfy current requirements through alternative experience when the correct recommendation should be to expand the requirements.


To the extent that it is associated with record keeping, it is currently permissible to utilize the CTB Appeal Filing Fee Trust Fund for CAMA software and hardware. This would include initial purchase and annual maintenance

14

fees associated with the MODIV/CAMA software and hardware. It would not include costs associated with data collection at a municipal level. Tax Map Maintenance is a “centralized funding issue” similar to question #4 above. In the future, the maintenance of Tax Maps of the “undeveloped town” will have much more activity (cost) than the fully built‐out jurisdictions. The centralized Appeal Fee Trust Fund was theoretically and generally funded to a greater proportion by the fully built‐out towns. So moving forward a fund collected from one town will be used to fund the needs of another. While the current centralization of the tax map function provides cost efficiencies, the apportionment of the cost remains problematic. The recommendation should be revised to establish a County‐to‐municipal shared service environment whereby the County offers the consolidated pass‐through tax map maintenance service to the service provider (i.e. Civil Solutions) and the costs of the agreement remain a municipal cost. This will provide all of the efficiencies of the consolidated model and avoid the cost of annual maintenance and transition from analog to digital from being underwritten by towns who are not in receipt of the service.

PILOT CONCLUSION:




15

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 7:12 PMTo: Neil RubensteinCc: JohnButow; [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; Robert Vance; Bernard HaneySubject: RE: Gloucester's Report

Hello: In preparation for the NJLOM Review of Gloucester and Monmouth Pilot programs on May 5th, below please find initial observations (in red) of the Gloucester County Pilot Report. Please feel free to add your comments and return. My “precious 15 minutes” on May 5th will be focused on “primary failings of the current system (not Gloucester) and how the several components of the ADP fix what is broken”. Primary failings addressed within ADP:



After 5 years of Gloucester County Pilot implementation, the report is comprised of: • 4 pages of “text” • 8 pages of standard tables • 1 page of “10 recommended Changes to County‐based real property assessment” • 25 pages of SOLICITED testimonials from “stakeholders” The Executive Summary makes 4 statements. 1. The consolidated model is more efficient than the municipal based model. The county system costs $20.79 per line item compared to $38.56 in the municipal‐based model. There is no support to this statement. With 18 fulltime employees who receive pension and benefits, who replaced part‐time employees – we need to see the details. We need to see a detailed comparison of the previous municipal expenditures and the County cost. Gloucester County now has 18 full‐time employees with pension and benefits. The old deploy assessment model made use of part‐time Assessors many of which did not receive pension and benefits as a result of recent reform efforts. Was the expansion of pension and benefits calculated in the comparative short and long‐term costs? 2. Using the “Director’s Ratio” as the key measurement of effectiveness, the County system is more effective at maintaining high ratios in all municipalities.

16

This is utterly laughable. The ratios were low because the towns neglected to maintain them for years. What fixed it was not county‐assessing but the $11.2 million bill for 18 revaluations in Gloucester’s 24 towns ‐ that was paid for by the other 20 counties in New Jersey. 3. Tax Appeal volume is a key indicator of effectiveness. Appeals are less in 2014 than in 2014. With the Director’s Ratios maintained close to 100%,appeals are expected to decline or remain level. While more accurate assessments theoretically will address appeal volume, factually, there was a statewide reduction in appeals between 2013 and 2014. There are many things that attribute to a reduction in appeals such as an improving real estate market and assessments that are too low. 4. Utilizing compliance plans and in‐house reassessments, the Director’s Ratio are kept within NJ Division of Taxation parameters, ensuring fair and uniform assessments without reliance on expensive and contentious revaluations. Compliance Plans and reassessments are only available within 4 years of the last revaluation. This means that for the revaluations implemented in 2012, 2016 is the last year that a reassessment is available. The ONLY available next step in maintaining the assessments would be a complete revaluation. “Added Assessments”: “The County Assessor's Office relies on traditional inspections, liaison with municipal Construction Officials, and permits to help detect and add assessable improvements to the property records. In addition, an aerial photogrammetric survey service (Pictometry) shared with the Department of Emergency Management is used to monitor and measure new buildings and improvements, and assist in making determinations regarding farmland tax exemption qualification.” While “cost savings” is important, the uniformity clause of the NJ Constitution is MORE IMPORTANT! While Monmouth and Somerset endeavor to provide enhanced public service by making the assessments annually more accurate, the county‐based assessing model within Gloucester County appears to be accepting of reduced accuracy to reduce cost. “Recommended Changes to Regulations and Laws Regarding County‐based Real Property Assessment”:


2. The County Assessor should assume full responsibility for the assessment function and implementation of the revaluation or reassessment at the beginning of each stage of the three‐year transition, assuring accountability and appropriate quality control. The county can inter‐governmentally transfer municipal personnel if it chooses to bring them into the County Assessor office.


3. Getting tax maps in compliance and digitized is a long lead item. Delay in map work and NJ Division of Taxation review can delay revaluations. Extend the timetable for revaluations up to six years to allow sufficient time to prepare for the revaluation. Within our current statewide framework, it takes “years” for sufficient statistical evidence to be gathered and surpass current NJAC thresholds for CTB ordering of corrective action (revaluation, reassessment , compliance). It then could take “years” to implement corrective action. Within this framework there are systemic several

17

touching points that impact the administration of the process such as the Assessor’s management of non‐useable sales and the County Tax Board’s commitment to issue corrective action orders. While the system has the potential to be nimble, more often it is a protracted process that creates quantifiable windows during which some overpay and underpay their appropriate share of the property tax levy all because assessment correction was not implemented in a timely manner. Taxpayers should not be forced to continue to pay too much or too little of the current levy because the mechanism of “tax map updating” is cumbersome. In accordance with current Administrative Code tax maps are to be maintained annually. For municipalities that fail to maintain tax maps on an annual basis, enact language found in A3916 that permits counties to update maps and pass bill directly through the annual debit and credit process. Please see the revised recommendation under #10 below concerning Tax Map Maintenance shared service program.



6. Incorporate the calendar revisions as provided for in the Real Property Assessment Demonstration Program (Monmouth County program), Chapter 15, Laws of 2013. While the calendar revisions within the ADP provide significant, quantifiable and immediate cost savings, the value of the calendar is only maximized when coupled with the “annual reassessment” program which, together, fully addresses the exposure to multi‐year appeal reductions. It should be noted that counties that traditionally required an extension of the current “3‐month County Tax Board appeal calendar”, should implement Online Appeal technology (like Monmouth County’s shared service) to ensure timely adjudication of all appeals within the revised appeal window.

7. Only require interior inspections after the 8th year following implementation of a district‐wide reassessment. Is this a type‐o? A “reassessment” is typically done within 4 years of the last revaluation and does not include internal inspections. So are they asking to implement a revaluation with full internal inspections and then permit reassessments, without internal inspections, for the next 8 years? If the typical holding period of real estate is 7 years, people can acquire, renovate, enjoy for several years and sell for a profit without taxation. This is an

18

abandonment of the duty to ensure uniformity and equity. The taxpayers deserve more precision and accuracy in the annual assessment, not less.


9. Change the requirements for the Deputy County Assessor position to allow substitution, on a year for year basis, of possession of a MAl and/or SRA designation for years of experience in municipal assessor office. Law currently requires 3 years municipal assessing experience and gives no recognition to advanced training and experience in property valuation. Within our current statewide framework, a Deputy Assessor can do anything the Assessor can do. This recommendation to adopt different qualifications suggests that within County‐based Assessing the role of the Deputy Assessor is more valuation than that of the County Assessor. From a practical standpoint, while professional designations may demonstrate proficiency in fee appraisal work – which lends itself well to appeal defense ‐ very little of that experience is related to the mass –appraisal techniques that is the overarching work product of New Jerseys’ future Assessor. (remember that accurate initial assessments will reduce successful appeals and is the core of enhanced public service.) Moving forward, the qualifications of the Assessor and Deputy Assessor and the body of knowledge tested within the CTA Exam, should be increased in accordance with the evolution of the position. At a minimum, mass‐appraisal and technology must be included within the Assessors core competencies. Point being – the recommendation calls for an ability to satisfy current requirements through alternative experience when the correct recommendation should be to expand the requirements.


To the extent that it is associated with record keeping, it is currently permissible to utilize the CTB Appeal Filing Fee Trust Fund for CAMA software and hardware. This would include initial purchase and annual maintenance

19

fees associated with the MODIV/CAMA software and hardware. It would not include costs associated with data collection at a municipal level. Tax Map Maintenance is a “centralized funding issue” similar to question #4 above. In the future, the maintenance of Tax Maps of the “undeveloped town” will have much more activity (cost) than the fully built‐out jurisdictions. The centralized Appeal Fee Trust Fund was theoretically and generally funded to a greater proportion by the fully built‐out towns. So moving forward a fund collected from one town will be used to fund the needs of another. While the current centralization of the tax map function provides cost efficiencies, the apportionment of the cost remains problematic. The recommendation should be revised to establish a County‐to‐municipal shared service environment whereby the County offers the consolidated pass‐through tax map maintenance service to the service provider (i.e. Civil Solutions) and the costs of the agreement remain a municipal cost. This will provide all of the efficiencies of the consolidated model and avoid the cost of annual maintenance and transition from analog to digital from being underwritten by towns who are not in receipt of the service.

PILOT CONCLUSION:



20

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Friday, December 05, 2014 4:56 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting

Importance: High

N‐ Mike doesn’t take comments from me well. For what ever it is worth…..

1. Assessor not Tax Assessor. 2. I would have addressed the “under collection” separately – now they are asking each other who didn’t finish and

why. 3. Need to get to the point where “electronic sketches of Class 4A” is available as a primary and side venture. Even

if it is taking existing paper and rendering a sketch. 4. Some will not be able to commit to additional services by February 1st due to budget adoption timing. 5. A bit heavy ‐ “RDS will not perform such additional services in any year, until a notice to do so is received prior to

Feb 1 of the year in which you’d like these services to commence.” 6. This timing is IMPOSSIBLE “please provide your preliminary Added/Omitted list to RDS by February 1 (which

would include any rollovers from the previous year),” M‐

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 4:12 PM To: ALEX WORTH; ALEX WORTH - Manalapan; BERNIE HANEY - NEPTUNE T / SEA GIRT; BILL LAIRD - COLTS NECK/FARMINGDALE; CHARLES HECK; CHARLES HECK - Middletown; DONNA TAYLOR - ROOSEVELT; DONNA TAYLOR - UPPER FREEHOLD; ED MULLANE - BBEACH; ELLEN MARCHETTI - HOLMDEL; ERIC ZENETTI; ERICK AGUIAR; ERICK AGUIAR - HOLMDEL; GAIL SCAGLION; GREG HUTCHINSON; GREGORY HUTCHINSON - FHaven; JAY BRISCIONE - Shrews T / LSilver; MARK FITZPATRICK - ENGLISHTOWN; MICHAEL IMBRIACO; MITCH ELIAS; PETER J. BARNETT; RENEE FROTTON; SCOTT IMBRIACO; SCOTT KINEAVY; TIMOTHY ANFUSO; VICTORIA BUTCHON; VICTORIA BUTCHON; wfitz122 ; WILLIAM FITZPATRICK - NEPTUNE C Cc: Dan Kelly; Neil Rubenstein; [email protected]; Clark, Matt Subject: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting Importance: High 2014/2015 RDS Clients: We hope that you are enjoying the holiday season, and want to touch base on several issues as the first year of the Assessment Demonstration Program (the “ADP”) is coming to a close. If you are receiving this message, the municipality (or municipalities) in which you serve as the Tax Assessor began implementing the ADP in 2014, or is scheduled to do so in 2015. There are several critical / time‐sensitive issues which we’d like to highlight, and as always, please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. We also continue to appreciate your suggestions on improving our process, which have been invaluable during the first (and hence busiest) year of the ADP implementation. Budgeting

21

As a reminder, if you would like RDS to perform any additional services for your municipality, beyond those relating to our annual 20% inspections, these items should be budgeted during reorganization (or other applicable) meetings at the onset of 2015. These services include Added/Omitted and Farmland Assessment (Class 3B) inspections, additional property photos, electronic sketches of Class 3 or other properties not contained in your current Microsystems files, or other special projects. While we performed these services for many clients during 2014, there were also a number of clients who needed our assistance with these projects but did not have funds budgeted for those purposes. Also, if you are among the small group of municipalities for which ADP inspections were not fully completed in 2014, please be advised that your 2014 and 2015 inspections (40% of total line items) will be completed concurrently during 2015. For this reason, please ensure that your 2014 ADP budgeting has been properly rolled over for this project, in addition to your 2015 funding. Service Elections In order to plan most efficiently and to complete our client projects in a timely manner, we are implementing a process which we hope will simplify the coordination between RDS and each municipal client. This process is also based upon input received from Tax Assessors, as well as our experience during the initial ADP implementation. Please notify us by February 1, 2015 if your municipality is electing to have RDS perform any of the additional services listed above (most notably Added/Omitted and Farmland Assessment inspections, additional photos and/or electronic Class 3 sketches). Following a positive election, RDS will continue to perform such services in each subsequent year absent a notice to discontinue these projects by Feb 1 of any given year. Similarly, RDS will not perform such additional services in any year, until a notice to do so is received prior to Feb 1 of the year in which you’d like these services to commence. Added/Omitted Inspections In order to complete these inspections well in advance of your own deadline for data submission to Monmouth County, please provide your preliminary Added/Omitted list to RDS by February 1 (which would include any rollovers from the previous year), and a final list by June 1 of each year. If your municipality regularly updates their permit file in MOD IV, this would be the deliverable to RDS. If the permit file is not regularly updated, please ensure that the list provides adequate descriptions of the construction/improvement projects that our inspectors will be reviewing, since non‐specific descriptions (“improvements” eg) make it difficult for our inspectors to provide you with quality inspection data. Also, as many of us have discussed already, if a municipality elects to have RDS perform Added/Omitted inspections, this election will pertain to all properties with outstanding permits, and we will not be able to perform inspections on only select properties (with the remainder being performed internally by the Assessor’s office of by other third parties). Thank you for your attention to these issues, as we strive to continually improve our work on your behalf. We genuinely appreciate the opportunity to work with you and look forward to doing so in the years ahead. Regards, Mike Michael J. Panter, Esq.

55 White Road, Suite C

22

Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057 Fax: 732.276.1056 www.rdsnj.com


23

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Friday, December 05, 2014 4:56 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting

Importance: High

N‐ Mike doesn’t take comments from me well. For what ever it is worth…..

1. Assessor not Tax Assessor. 2. I would have addressed the “under collection” separately – now they are asking each other who didn’t finish and

why. 3. Need to get to the point where “electronic sketches of Class 4A” is available as a primary and side venture. Even

if it is taking existing paper and rendering a sketch. 4. Some will not be able to commit to additional services by February 1st due to budget adoption timing. 5. A bit heavy ‐ “RDS will not perform such additional services in any year, until a notice to do so is received prior to

Feb 1 of the year in which you’d like these services to commence.” 6. This timing is IMPOSSIBLE “please provide your preliminary Added/Omitted list to RDS by February 1 (which

would include any rollovers from the previous year),” M‐

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 4:12 PM To: ALEX WORTH; ALEX WORTH - Manalapan; BERNIE HANEY - NEPTUNE T / SEA GIRT; BILL LAIRD - COLTS NECK/FARMINGDALE; CHARLES HECK; CHARLES HECK - Middletown; DONNA TAYLOR - ROOSEVELT; DONNA TAYLOR - UPPER FREEHOLD; ED MULLANE - BBEACH; ELLEN MARCHETTI - HOLMDEL; ERIC ZENETTI; ERICK AGUIAR; ERICK AGUIAR - HOLMDEL; GAIL SCAGLION; GREG HUTCHINSON; GREGORY HUTCHINSON - FHaven; JAY BRISCIONE - Shrews T / LSilver; MARK FITZPATRICK - ENGLISHTOWN; MICHAEL IMBRIACO; MITCH ELIAS; PETER J. BARNETT; RENEE FROTTON; SCOTT IMBRIACO; SCOTT KINEAVY; TIMOTHY ANFUSO; VICTORIA BUTCHON; VICTORIA BUTCHON; wfitz122 ; WILLIAM FITZPATRICK - NEPTUNE C Cc: Dan Kelly; Neil Rubenstein; [email protected]; Clark, Matt Subject: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting Importance: High 2014/2015 RDS Clients: We hope that you are enjoying the holiday season, and want to touch base on several issues as the first year of the Assessment Demonstration Program (the “ADP”) is coming to a close. If you are receiving this message, the municipality (or municipalities) in which you serve as the Tax Assessor began implementing the ADP in 2014, or is scheduled to do so in 2015. There are several critical / time‐sensitive issues which we’d like to highlight, and as always, please feel free to contact us if you have any questions. We also continue to appreciate your suggestions on improving our process, which have been invaluable during the first (and hence busiest) year of the ADP implementation. Budgeting

24

As a reminder, if you would like RDS to perform any additional services for your municipality, beyond those relating to our annual 20% inspections, these items should be budgeted during reorganization (or other applicable) meetings at the onset of 2015. These services include Added/Omitted and Farmland Assessment (Class 3B) inspections, additional property photos, electronic sketches of Class 3 or other properties not contained in your current Microsystems files, or other special projects. While we performed these services for many clients during 2014, there were also a number of clients who needed our assistance with these projects but did not have funds budgeted for those purposes. Also, if you are among the small group of municipalities for which ADP inspections were not fully completed in 2014, please be advised that your 2014 and 2015 inspections (40% of total line items) will be completed concurrently during 2015. For this reason, please ensure that your 2014 ADP budgeting has been properly rolled over for this project, in addition to your 2015 funding. Service Elections In order to plan most efficiently and to complete our client projects in a timely manner, we are implementing a process which we hope will simplify the coordination between RDS and each municipal client. This process is also based upon input received from Tax Assessors, as well as our experience during the initial ADP implementation. Please notify us by February 1, 2015 if your municipality is electing to have RDS perform any of the additional services listed above (most notably Added/Omitted and Farmland Assessment inspections, additional photos and/or electronic Class 3 sketches). Following a positive election, RDS will continue to perform such services in each subsequent year absent a notice to discontinue these projects by Feb 1 of any given year. Similarly, RDS will not perform such additional services in any year, until a notice to do so is received prior to Feb 1 of the year in which you’d like these services to commence. Added/Omitted Inspections In order to complete these inspections well in advance of your own deadline for data submission to Monmouth County, please provide your preliminary Added/Omitted list to RDS by February 1 (which would include any rollovers from the previous year), and a final list by June 1 of each year. If your municipality regularly updates their permit file in MOD IV, this would be the deliverable to RDS. If the permit file is not regularly updated, please ensure that the list provides adequate descriptions of the construction/improvement projects that our inspectors will be reviewing, since non‐specific descriptions (“improvements” eg) make it difficult for our inspectors to provide you with quality inspection data. Also, as many of us have discussed already, if a municipality elects to have RDS perform Added/Omitted inspections, this election will pertain to all properties with outstanding permits, and we will not be able to perform inspections on only select properties (with the remainder being performed internally by the Assessor’s office of by other third parties). Thank you for your attention to these issues, as we strive to continually improve our work on your behalf. We genuinely appreciate the opportunity to work with you and look forward to doing so in the years ahead. Regards, Mike Michael J. Panter, Esq.


25

Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057 Fax: 732.276.1056 www.rdsnj.com

26

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:03 AMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision

I will handle it…….

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:02 AM To: Clark, Matt Subject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision Will Belmar be reviewed? Fine with me.. Just curious… Alex?? Erick..(ugh).. You…


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:52 AM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision She simply did NOTHING – and I not having it‐

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:51 AM To: Clark, Matt Subject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision I have heard some grumbling on our VCS’s, etc.. But, Marlboro has a unique VCS for each neighborhood. Could it have been any easier to review them?


27

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:45 PM To: RENEE Subject: Areas in Need of Revision Rene‐ Regarding the need to revise Marlboro’s 2015 Preliminary Tax List, these 40 VCS represent almost 5,000 parcels and the market evidence suggests that you are not revising them to market value.

MARLBORO VCS REVIEW

BUAC EANE MESS MGD MWOW WD18 WITT

CLBN GB01 MEST MHNU PADN WD24 WO24

CLBR GLNE MGA1 MHR PDM WD27 WO29

CNTE JUNC MGAR MLD RYMN WDVL WTTO

CONO LAKN MGB MLIN TRIO WITE

CWOD MEAD MGC MM WD16 WITO

When I quickly view your proposed changes the thought is that by:

1. “not changing subject sales to market”, 2. “not changing VCS based on subject sales”, 3. “not changing inactive areas based on general rates” and 4. “not changing class 4 properties to 100% market value”

you are “leaving off several hundred millions of dollars” from the market value of the town. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program, because of the impact on the county equalization process and the apportionment of shared tax levies, we must strive to reach 100% of market value for each town. No town can be permitted to claim that they are at 100% and only report some fraction of 100%. To do so would shift the tax levy to those towns that followed the law and reported 100%. The Tax Board will not permit any town to escape equitable taxation. If you need help do not hesitate to request it. Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator



28


29

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:02 AMTo: Clark, MattSubject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision

Will Belmar be reviewed? Fine with me.. Just curious… Alex?? Erick..(ugh).. You…





From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:45 PM To: RENEE Subject: Areas in Need of Revision Rene‐

30

Regarding the need to revise Marlboro’s 2015 Preliminary Tax List, these 40 VCS represent almost 5,000 parcels and the market evidence suggests that you are not revising them to market value.

MARLBORO VCS REVIEW












31

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:02 AMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision

Will Belmar be reviewed? Fine with me.. Just curious… Alex?? Erick..(ugh).. You…





From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:45 PM To: RENEE Subject: Areas in Need of Revision Rene‐

32

Regarding the need to revise Marlboro’s 2015 Preliminary Tax List, these 40 VCS represent almost 5,000 parcels and the market evidence suggests that you are not revising them to market value.

MARLBORO VCS REVIEW












33

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:03 AMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision

I will handle it…….

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:02 AM To: Clark, Matt Subject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision Will Belmar be reviewed? Fine with me.. Just curious… Alex?? Erick..(ugh).. You…





34


MARLBORO VCS REVIEW












35

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:52 AMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision

She simply did NOTHING – and I not having it‐




MARLBORO VCS REVIEW








1. “not changing subject sales to market”, 2. “not changing VCS based on subject sales”, 3. “not changing inactive areas based on general rates” and

36

4. “not changing class 4 properties to 100% market value” you are “leaving off several hundred millions of dollars” from the market value of the town. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program, because of the impact on the county equalization process and the apportionment of shared tax levies, we must strive to reach 100% of market value for each town. No town can be permitted to claim that they are at 100% and only report some fraction of 100%. To do so would shift the tax levy to those towns that followed the law and reported 100%. The Tax Board will not permit any town to escape equitable taxation. If you need help do not hesitate to request it. Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator



37

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:52 AMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision

She simply did NOTHING – and I not having it‐




MARLBORO VCS REVIEW








1. “not changing subject sales to market”, 2. “not changing VCS based on subject sales”, 3. “not changing inactive areas based on general rates” and

38

4. “not changing class 4 properties to 100% market value” you are “leaving off several hundred millions of dollars” from the market value of the town. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program, because of the impact on the county equalization process and the apportionment of shared tax levies, we must strive to reach 100% of market value for each town. No town can be permitted to claim that they are at 100% and only report some fraction of 100%. To do so would shift the tax levy to those towns that followed the law and reported 100%. The Tax Board will not permit any town to escape equitable taxation. If you need help do not hesitate to request it. Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator


39

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:51 AMTo: Clark, MattSubject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision

I have heard some grumbling on our VCS’s, etc.. But, Marlboro has a unique VCS for each neighborhood. Could it have been any easier to review them?



MARLBORO VCS REVIEW









you are “leaving off several hundred millions of dollars” from the market value of the town. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program, because of the impact on the county equalization process and the apportionment of shared tax levies, we must strive to reach 100% of market value for each town. No town can be permitted to claim that they are at 100% and only report some fraction of 100%. To do so would shift the tax levy to those towns that followed the law and reported 100%. The Tax Board will not permit any town to escape equitable taxation.

40

If you need help do not hesitate to request it. Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator


41

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 8:51 AMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: RE: Areas in Need of Revision

I have heard some grumbling on our VCS’s, etc.. But, Marlboro has a unique VCS for each neighborhood. Could it have been any easier to review them?



MARLBORO VCS REVIEW









you are “leaving off several hundred millions of dollars” from the market value of the town. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program, because of the impact on the county equalization process and the apportionment of shared tax levies, we must strive to reach 100% of market value for each town. No town can be permitted to claim that they are at 100% and only report some fraction of 100%. To do so would shift the tax levy to those towns that followed the law and reported 100%. The Tax Board will not permit any town to escape equitable taxation.

42

If you need help do not hesitate to request it. Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator


43

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:15 AMTo: Clark, MattSubject: RE: Assessment Demoinstration Program Year 2

I’ve done his re‐calc already? He has been calling/texting the most…


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:06 AM To: Eric Zanetti Subject: RE: Assessment Demoinstration Program Year 2 What exactly are you looking for?

From: Eric Zanetti [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:34 AM To: Clark, Matt Subject: RE: Assessment Demoinstration Program Year 2 Matt, I going to need a few more days, is it possible to get till fri? Thx e

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 8:59 AM To: jstuartmai ; lincroftathome ; Wayne Pomanowski; [email protected]; byrnet ; T C Cc: Erick Aguiar; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; Asstx ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Eric Zanetti; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Spracklen, Nicholas Subject: Assessment Demoinstration Program Year 2 Hello:

44

To assist the public in understanding the many changes occurring within Monmouth County’s assessment function we have created the attached and below document. The text and tables are intended to give a summary of the 2015 activity. Where possible please have the attached document posted on municipal websites and make it available upon demand. Regards, Matthew Clark

Important notice to all Monmouth County taxpayers concerning their 2015 property assessment. In 2013 the Assessment Demonstration Program, (P.L. 2013, c. 15) was signed into law. Monmouth county was one of the first Counties to accept the challenges of this new cost saving program. The Assessors of Monmouth County’s 53 municipalities, working in conjunction with the Monmouth County Board of Taxation, will implement the 2nd year of the program for the Tax Year 2015. While there are several components of the Assessment Demonstration Program, the overarching goal is to annually provide more accurate assessments at a reduced cost to the taxpayer. Three changes to be aware of: CHANGE IN VALUATION CYCLE Within the old model of “performing revaluations every 10 years”, property valuation occurred roughly every 10 years. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program property valuation occurs every year. As opposed to being performed by an outside entity, the valuation component of the annual reassessment will be conducted by the local Assessor. Within the old model, over time the difference between the static assessment and the current market value can be significant. In this case when the revaluation is implemented there are significant changes to the assessment. In the new model, the assessments are revised annually so that the changes are expected to be very small. CHANGE IN INSPECTION CYCLE Within the old model of “performing revaluations every 10 years”, property inspection occurred roughly every 10 years. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program property inspection occurs every 5 years. The Assessors mass‐appraisal modeling, which employs advanced appraisal techniques and technology, relies heavily upon the accuracy of the details of the individual properties. The internal inspection process will be performed by an outside vendor. The intention is to verify the condition and details of each property. To make the program more cost effective, inspections of 1/5 (20%) of the town will be done annually so that 100% of properties are inspected every 5 years. CHANGE IN APPEAL CALENDAR Within the old model of “performing revaluations every 10 years”, assessment appeals to the County Tax Board had to be filed by April 1st or May 1st in the year of a district wide revaluation. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program assessment appeals to the County Tax Board have to be filed on or before January 15th. Taxpayers can expect to receive their “2015 Notification of Assessment Postcards” sometime between November 15th and December 1st. Within the Demonstration Program taxpayers should expect that in most cases the new total assessment will be different than the previous‐years assessment. How much of a change is dependant on the individual property and the town’s status within the implementation process. Once we get to the Tax Year 2018, the Assessors of all 53 towns will be performing annual reassessments which require the Assessor to annually review 100% of the properties and revise the assessments, up and down as appropriate, so that the assessments are equal to the current market value. Within the old model of “performing revaluations every 10 years”, the equalization of the aggregate static assessments was the only method available to address annual market changes and provide for the equitable distribution of shared

47



48

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:15 AMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: RE: Assessment Demoinstration Program Year 2

I’ve done his re‐calc already? He has been calling/texting the most…


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 9:06 AM To: Eric Zanetti Subject: RE: Assessment Demoinstration Program Year 2 What exactly are you looking for?

From: Eric Zanetti [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:34 AM To: Clark, Matt Subject: RE: Assessment Demoinstration Program Year 2 Matt, I going to need a few more days, is it possible to get till fri? Thx e

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 8:59 AM To: jstuartmai ; lincroftathome ; Wayne Pomanowski; [email protected]; byrnet ; T C Cc: Erick Aguiar; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Eric Zanetti; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Spracklen, Nicholas Subject: Assessment Demoinstration Program Year 2 Hello:

49

To assist the public in understanding the many changes occurring within Monmouth County’s assessment function we have created the attached and below document. The text and tables are intended to give a summary of the 2015 activity. Where possible please have the attached document posted on municipal websites and make it available upon demand. Regards, Matthew Clark

Important notice to all Monmouth County taxpayers concerning their 2015 property assessment. In 2013 the Assessment Demonstration Program, (P.L. 2013, c. 15) was signed into law. Monmouth county was one of the first Counties to accept the challenges of this new cost saving program. The Assessors of Monmouth County’s 53 municipalities, working in conjunction with the Monmouth County Board of Taxation, will implement the 2nd year of the program for the Tax Year 2015. While there are several components of the Assessment Demonstration Program, the overarching goal is to annually provide more accurate assessments at a reduced cost to the taxpayer. Three changes to be aware of: CHANGE IN VALUATION CYCLE Within the old model of “performing revaluations every 10 years”, property valuation occurred roughly every 10 years. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program property valuation occurs every year. As opposed to being performed by an outside entity, the valuation component of the annual reassessment will be conducted by the local Assessor. Within the old model, over time the difference between the static assessment and the current market value can be significant. In this case when the revaluation is implemented there are significant changes to the assessment. In the new model, the assessments are revised annually so that the changes are expected to be very small. CHANGE IN INSPECTION CYCLE Within the old model of “performing revaluations every 10 years”, property inspection occurred roughly every 10 years. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program property inspection occurs every 5 years. The Assessors mass‐appraisal modeling, which employs advanced appraisal techniques and technology, relies heavily upon the accuracy of the details of the individual properties. The internal inspection process will be performed by an outside vendor. The intention is to verify the condition and details of each property. To make the program more cost effective, inspections of 1/5 (20%) of the town will be done annually so that 100% of properties are inspected every 5 years. CHANGE IN APPEAL CALENDAR Within the old model of “performing revaluations every 10 years”, assessment appeals to the County Tax Board had to be filed by April 1st or May 1st in the year of a district wide revaluation. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program assessment appeals to the County Tax Board have to be filed on or before January 15th. Taxpayers can expect to receive their “2015 Notification of Assessment Postcards” sometime between November 15th and December 1st. Within the Demonstration Program taxpayers should expect that in most cases the new total assessment will be different than the previous‐years assessment. How much of a change is dependant on the individual property and the town’s status within the implementation process. Once we get to the Tax Year 2018, the Assessors of all 53 towns will be performing annual reassessments which require the Assessor to annually review 100% of the properties and revise the assessments, up and down as appropriate, so that the assessments are equal to the current market value. Within the old model of “performing revaluations every 10 years”, the equalization of the aggregate static assessments was the only method available to address annual market changes and provide for the equitable distribution of shared

52



53

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:34 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: Annual Reassessment

From: Scott Pezarras [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:31 PM To: Imbriaco, Michael; Clark, Matt; George Lockwood; Scott Imbriaco; Erick Aguiar; [email protected]; pbarnett44 [email protected]; [email protected]; Asstx ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica; byrnet ; lincroftathome@ ; tconsidine ; jstuartmai ; taxcompomanowski t; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Delre, Michael; [email protected] Subject: RE: Annual Reassessment Already ahead of you , I am leaving on the Election Day. Scott

From: Imbriaco, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:26 PM To: Clark, Matt; George Lockwood; Scott Imbriaco; Erick Aguiar; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; Asstx ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Pezarras; [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica; byrnet ; lincroftathome ; tconsidine ; jstuartmai [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Delre, Michael; [email protected] Subject: RE: Annual Reassessment Is anyone else ready for a vacation?!? Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 294-2045 (F) [email protected]

54

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:20 PM To: Imbriaco, Michael; George Lockwood; Scott Imbriaco; Erick Aguiar; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; Asstx ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica; byrnet ; lincroftathome@ ; tconsidine ; jstuartmai t; taxcompomanowski ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Delre, Michael; [email protected] Subject: RE: Annual Reassessment Dear Monmouth County Assessors: While there has been an unprecedented amount of work performed to get us here, November 1, 2014 represents the beginning of “Year 2” of Monmouth County’s implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program. For 2015 Monmouth has the following activity:

28 towns where the Assessor is performing reassessments to market value

11 towns implementing Revaluations

14 towns where the Assessor is performing Reassessment to the 10/1/2014 Director’s Ratio (8 2016 revals, 6 2017 revals)

Revaluations aside, the Assessor’s 2015 activity is summarized by the “review of 100% of properties and revision, both up and down in accordance with market value data, to either the October 1, 2014 Director’s Ratio or current market value”. We have discussed the idea of changing assessments based on the following:

1. Subject property based on recent sale 2. Neighborhood properties based on sales within the neighborhood 3. Neighborhood properties based on sales within “similar” neighborhoods (adjusted for comparability) 4. Other properties based on general market indicators.

We have discussed the expected percentage of properties with revised assessments based on our several scenarios and we concluded that “most if not all” properties “that follow normal market conditions” should change annually.

Assessor revising to ratio (future Revaluation pending)

Assessor revising to 100% MV in 2015 when town was revised to Ratio in 2014

Assessor revising to 100% MV in 2015 when town was revised to 100% MV in 2014

Assessor implementing Revaluation to 100% MV We have discussed and collected the documents outlining the expectations and deliverables for each of the various implementation scenarios:

Revaluations have submitted revaluation contracts and supporting progress reports

Reassessments to 100% of MV have submitted an Application For Reassessment (Form AFR)

Reassessments to the Ratio have submitted the “Year‐Two Implementation Requirements” We have created the beginnings of the ADP Handbook for Annual Reassessments and the Tax Board Portal technology that will facilitate uniformity and assessment accuracy. The time for the submission of the 2015 Preliminary Tax List draws near. Accordingly, unless an exception has been provided in writing, we must all follow the following schedule:

57

Revaluation Assessment Notice Mailed (Reval

Towns Only)

Not prior to November 10

PTY Nov 1 PTY

Postcards Mailed (All non‐reval towns) On or before February 1 Nov 15 PTY

Taxpayer Review Hearings completed (Reval

Towns Only) Not later than December 10

Not later than November

30

Postcards Mailed (Reval Towns Only, includes all

hearing revisions) On or before February 1 On or before December 1

Tax Appeals Filed 1‐Apr 15‐Jan

Appeal Judgments Mailed 30‐Jun 30‐Apr

Tax List Filed by Assessor 10‐Jan 5‐May

Town Adopts Budget 31‐Mar 15‐May

Tax List Finalized By Tax Board (Equalization) 10‐Mar 25‐May



58

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:34 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: Annual Reassessment

From: Scott Pezarras [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:31 PM To: Imbriaco, Michael; Clark, Matt; George Lockwood; Scott Imbriaco; Erick Aguiar; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; Asstx ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica; byrnet ; lincroftathome ; tconsidine ; jstuartmai ; taxcompomanowski ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Delre, Michael; [email protected] Subject: RE: Annual Reassessment Already ahead of you , I am leaving on the Election Day. Scott

From: Imbriaco, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 5:26 PM To: Clark, Matt; George Lockwood; Scott Imbriaco; Erick Aguiar; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; Asstx ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Pezarras; [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica; byrnet ; lincroftathome ; tconsidine ; jstuartmai ; taxcompomanowski ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Delre, Michael; [email protected] Subject: RE: Annual Reassessment Is anyone else ready for a vacation?!? Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 294-2045 (F) [email protected]

59

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 3:20 PM To: Imbriaco, Michael; George Lockwood; Scott Imbriaco; Erick Aguiar; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; Asstx ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica; byrnet ; lincroftathome ; tconsidine ; jstuartmai ; taxcompomanowski ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Delre, Michael; [email protected] Subject: RE: Annual Reassessment Dear Monmouth County Assessors: While there has been an unprecedented amount of work performed to get us here, November 1, 2014 represents the beginning of “Year 2” of Monmouth County’s implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program. For 2015 Monmouth has the following activity:

28 towns where the Assessor is performing reassessments to market value

11 towns implementing Revaluations

14 towns where the Assessor is performing Reassessment to the 10/1/2014 Director’s Ratio (8 2016 revals, 6 2017 revals)

Revaluations aside, the Assessor’s 2015 activity is summarized by the “review of 100% of properties and revision, both up and down in accordance with market value data, to either the October 1, 2014 Director’s Ratio or current market value”. We have discussed the idea of changing assessments based on the following:

1. Subject property based on recent sale 2. Neighborhood properties based on sales within the neighborhood 3. Neighborhood properties based on sales within “similar” neighborhoods (adjusted for comparability) 4. Other properties based on general market indicators.

We have discussed the expected percentage of properties with revised assessments based on our several scenarios and we concluded that “most if not all” properties “that follow normal market conditions” should change annually.

Assessor revising to ratio (future Revaluation pending)

Assessor revising to 100% MV in 2015 when town was revised to Ratio in 2014

Assessor revising to 100% MV in 2015 when town was revised to 100% MV in 2014

Assessor implementing Revaluation to 100% MV We have discussed and collected the documents outlining the expectations and deliverables for each of the various implementation scenarios:

Revaluations have submitted revaluation contracts and supporting progress reports

Reassessments to 100% of MV have submitted an Application For Reassessment (Form AFR)

Reassessments to the Ratio have submitted the “Year‐Two Implementation Requirements” We have created the beginnings of the ADP Handbook for Annual Reassessments and the Tax Board Portal technology that will facilitate uniformity and assessment accuracy. The time for the submission of the 2015 Preliminary Tax List draws near. Accordingly, unless an exception has been provided in writing, we must all follow the following schedule:

62

Revaluation Assessment Notice Mailed (Reval

Towns Only)

Not prior to November 10

PTY Nov 1 PTY

Postcards Mailed (All non‐reval towns) On or before February 1 Nov 15 PTY

Taxpayer Review Hearings completed (Reval

Towns Only) Not later than December 10

Not later than November

30

Postcards Mailed (Reval Towns Only, includes all

hearing revisions) On or before February 1 On or before December 1





Tax List Finalized By Tax Board (Equalization) 10‐Mar 25‐May


63

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:10 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Union Beach

Meaning what? That he wanted you to wait and give him time to attempt to influence the Board? Don’t sweat it, he will win.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:28 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: FW: Union Beach He waits 6 days to send this?


From: Paul Smith Jr. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:31 AM To: Neil Rubenstein Cc: 'George Lockwood' Subject: RE: Union Beach I know it is too late,you could have given me a chance to change the date.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:41 PM To: Paul Smith Jr. Cc: 'George Lockwood' Subject: FW: Union Beach Mayor Smith, I discussed the Town’s request to postpone the notification mailing until November 5th with Matthew Clark, the Monmouth County Tax Administrator. Below is his response. If there is anything else you would like to discuss, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Neil

Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue

64

Suite 4 West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:20 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: Union Beach Mr. Rubenstein: I am in receipt of your inquiry regarding the Assessment Demonstration Program and the municipalities responsibility to “mail revaluation assessment notices by November 1st of the pre tax year”. While the calendar of the “old assessment model” required the mailing of revaluation assessment notices after November 9th, the Assessment Demonstration calendar specifically requires the mailing of such on November 1st. While the Tax Board has the authority to authorize an extension to this date, based on the progress reports submitted to the Tax Board that are a public record, there is nothing before the Board at this time that would warrant an extension of the statutory delivery date. Please review the calendar changes below and contact me immediately if there is a reason why you cannot adhere to the dates as outlined in the Assessment Demonstration law (P.L. 2013, Ch. 15). Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator

ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

ASSESSMENT FUNCTION CURRENT DATE NEW DATE

Assessing Date October 1 PTY October 1 PTY

Revaluation Completion November 1 PTY 1 week prior to November 1st

Preliminary Assessments Certified to County Board (All towns) Post all PRC and MODIV to County Website

Nov 1 PTY

Revaluation Assessment Notice Mailed (Reval Towns Only)

Not prior to November 10 PTY

Nov 1 PTY

Postcards Mailed (All non‐reval towns) On or before February

1 Nov 15 PTY

Taxpayer Review Hearings completed (Reval Towns Only)

Not later than December 10

Not later than November 30

Postcards Mailed (Reval Towns Only, includes all hearing revisions)

On or before February 1

On or before December 1



65



Tax List Finalized By Tax Board (Equalization)

10‐Mar 25‐May


This communication contains information of International Flavors & Fragrances (IFF) and/or its affiliates that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended only for the addressee. Any copying, dissemination or other use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete it from your system.


66

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 4:10 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Union Beach

Meaning what? That he wanted you to wait and give him time to attempt to influence the Board? Don’t sweat it, he will win.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:28 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: FW: Union Beach He waits 6 days to send this?




Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue

67

Suite 4 West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:20 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: Union Beach Mr. Rubenstein: I am in receipt of your inquiry regarding the Assessment Demonstration Program and the municipalities responsibility to “mail revaluation assessment notices by November 1st of the pre tax year”. While the calendar of the “old assessment model” required the mailing of revaluation assessment notices after November 9th, the Assessment Demonstration calendar specifically requires the mailing of such on November 1st. While the Tax Board has the authority to authorize an extension to this date, based on the progress reports submitted to the Tax Board that are a public record, there is nothing before the Board at this time that would warrant an extension of the statutory delivery date. Please review the calendar changes below and contact me immediately if there is a reason why you cannot adhere to the dates as outlined in the Assessment Demonstration law (P.L. 2013, Ch. 15). Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator






Nov 1 PTY



Nov 1 PTY


1 Nov 15 PTY









68




10‐Mar 25‐May



69

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:28 PMTo: Clark, MattSubject: FW: Union Beach

He waits 6 days to send this?





From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:20 PM

70

To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: Union Beach Mr. Rubenstein: I am in receipt of your inquiry regarding the Assessment Demonstration Program and the municipalities responsibility to “mail revaluation assessment notices by November 1st of the pre tax year”. While the calendar of the “old assessment model” required the mailing of revaluation assessment notices after November 9th, the Assessment Demonstration calendar specifically requires the mailing of such on November 1st. While the Tax Board has the authority to authorize an extension to this date, based on the progress reports submitted to the Tax Board that are a public record, there is nothing before the Board at this time that would warrant an extension of the statutory delivery date. Please review the calendar changes below and contact me immediately if there is a reason why you cannot adhere to the dates as outlined in the Assessment Demonstration law (P.L. 2013, Ch. 15). Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator






Nov 1 PTY



Nov 1 PTY


1 Nov 15 PTY












10‐Mar 25‐May

71



72

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:28 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: FW: Union Beach

He waits 6 days to send this?





From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:20 PM

73

To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: Union Beach Mr. Rubenstein: I am in receipt of your inquiry regarding the Assessment Demonstration Program and the municipalities responsibility to “mail revaluation assessment notices by November 1st of the pre tax year”. While the calendar of the “old assessment model” required the mailing of revaluation assessment notices after November 9th, the Assessment Demonstration calendar specifically requires the mailing of such on November 1st. While the Tax Board has the authority to authorize an extension to this date, based on the progress reports submitted to the Tax Board that are a public record, there is nothing before the Board at this time that would warrant an extension of the statutory delivery date. Please review the calendar changes below and contact me immediately if there is a reason why you cannot adhere to the dates as outlined in the Assessment Demonstration law (P.L. 2013, Ch. 15). Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator






Nov 1 PTY



Nov 1 PTY


1 Nov 15 PTY












10‐Mar 25‐May

74



75

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:20 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: Union Beach

Mr. Rubenstein: I am in receipt of your inquiry regarding the Assessment Demonstration Program and the municipalities responsibility to “mail revaluation assessment notices by November 1st of the pre tax year”. While the calendar of the “old assessment model” required the mailing of revaluation assessment notices after November 9th, the Assessment Demonstration calendar specifically requires the mailing of such on November 1st. While the Tax Board has the authority to authorize an extension to this date, based on the progress reports submitted to the Tax Board that are a public record, there is nothing before the Board at this time that would warrant an extension of the statutory delivery date. Please review the calendar changes below and contact me immediately if there is a reason why you cannot adhere to the dates as outlined in the Assessment Demonstration law (P.L. 2013, Ch. 15). Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator






Nov 1 PTY



Nov 1 PTY


1 Nov 15 PTY









76




10‐Mar 25‐May


77

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 3:20 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: Union Beach

Mr. Rubenstein: I am in receipt of your inquiry regarding the Assessment Demonstration Program and the municipalities responsibility to “mail revaluation assessment notices by November 1st of the pre tax year”. While the calendar of the “old assessment model” required the mailing of revaluation assessment notices after November 9th, the Assessment Demonstration calendar specifically requires the mailing of such on November 1st. While the Tax Board has the authority to authorize an extension to this date, based on the progress reports submitted to the Tax Board that are a public record, there is nothing before the Board at this time that would warrant an extension of the statutory delivery date. Please review the calendar changes below and contact me immediately if there is a reason why you cannot adhere to the dates as outlined in the Assessment Demonstration law (P.L. 2013, Ch. 15). Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator






Nov 1 PTY



Nov 1 PTY


1 Nov 15 PTY









78




10‐Mar 25‐May

79

Clark, Matt

From: Michael Panter <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:19 PMTo: 'Lanna, Jessica'; 'Neil Rubenstein'Cc: Clark, Matt; 'Vrancik, Michael'Subject: RE: Monmouth AFRS

Hi Jessica, Thank you for your message. We will get someone scanning the Resolutions and send you copies by week’s end. It may take a few days since some of them may have to be obtained online in the minutes of the municipalities. Regards, Mike Michael J. Panter, Esq.

55 White Road, Suite C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057 Fax: 732.276.1056 www.rdsnj.com

From: Lanna, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:41 AM To: Michael Panter; 'Neil Rubenstein' Cc: [email protected]; Vrancik, Michael Subject: RE: Monmouth AFRS Hi Mike, Would it be possible for you to send me the resolutions for the towns that didn’t date the contract? I’m going to try to push it through with the resolutions instead of trying to get the town to fill in the date. With regards to Deal, I will try and reach out to them and request their resolution directly. Jessica Lanna, CTA Supervising Field Representative Revaluations/Reassessments and Assessor Compliance State of New Jersey Division of Taxation PO Box 251 Trenton, NJ 08695-0251 (609) 943-4399 [email protected]

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:25 PM To: 'Neil Rubenstein'; Lanna, Jessica Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Monmouth AFRS

80

Hello Jessica, Thank you for your follow‐up message. I have provided additional details below in RED, and please let me know if you require any further. Regards, Mike Michael J. Panter, Esq.


From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 2:08 PM To: 'Michael Panter' Subject: FW: Monmouth AFRS

From: Lanna, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:56 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Miller, Judy; Vrancik, Michael Subject: Monmouth AFRS I received the contracts for the reassessments from Michael Panter last week. Here are some of the issues that need to be resolved… AFR (No Contract Attached)

Millstone Millstone is the only municipality implementing in 2014 that did not issue an RFP.

Spring Lake Heights SLH recently completed their RFP process, and our firm is waiting for an executedcontract. I will forward it to you upon receipt, and they have told us to expect it in the near‐term.

Contract (No AFR)

Bradley Beach I may have caused some confusion re: Bradley Beach. This is the only contract I forwarded which does not apply to 2014. They are currently conducting a revaluation, which will be effective for 2015, andwill be implementing the Assessment Demonstration Program (ADP) in 2015 as well. Since they have already completed their RFP process under the ADP as well (and executed a contract), I forwarded this with the group of2014 implementing municipalities.

Contract Not Dated Our firm signs (but does not date) the contracts contained in our bid packages, since at that time we are unaware if we’llbe selected as a vendor, and when the municipality will execute a contract if we are chosen. It appears that these towns returned signed copies but did not date the contract, so I am including the effective dates below, whichcorrespond to the dates of their Resolutions. I hope this is helpful.

Avon By The Sea (10/28/2013)

81

Deal Bids were due 10/14/2013 and we received an executed contract in November, 2013. Unfortunately we did not receive a copy of their resolutions (and they are not archived online) so it might be best to contact Dealdirectly.

Fair Haven (11/25/2013)

Freehold Twp (11/12/2013)

Highlands (12/4/2013)

Holmdel (1/6/2014)

Little Silver (11/18/2013)

Rumson (3/11/2014) I will do my best to keep you informed regarding the other AFRs. Please rectify these issues at your earliest convenience. Thanks as always! Jessica Lanna, CTA Supervising Field Representative Revaluations/Reassessments and Assessor Compliance State of New Jersey Division of Taxation PO Box 251 Trenton, NJ 08695-0251 (609) 943-4399 [email protected]

82

Clark, Matt

From: Michael Panter <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 6:19 PMTo: 'Lanna, Jessica'; 'Neil Rubenstein'Cc: [email protected]; 'Vrancik, Michael'Subject: RE: Monmouth AFRS

Hi Jessica, Thank you for your message. We will get someone scanning the Resolutions and send you copies by week’s end. It may take a few days since some of them may have to be obtained online in the minutes of the municipalities. Regards, Mike Michael J. Panter, Esq.


From: Lanna, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:41 AM To: Michael Panter; 'Neil Rubenstein' Cc: [email protected]; Vrancik, Michael Subject: RE: Monmouth AFRS Hi Mike, Would it be possible for you to send me the resolutions for the towns that didn’t date the contract? I’m going to try to push it through with the resolutions instead of trying to get the town to fill in the date. With regards to Deal, I will try and reach out to them and request their resolution directly. Jessica Lanna, CTA Supervising Field Representative Revaluations/Reassessments and Assessor Compliance State of New Jersey Division of Taxation PO Box 251 Trenton, NJ 08695-0251 (609) 943-4399 [email protected]

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:25 PM To: 'Neil Rubenstein'; Lanna, Jessica Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Monmouth AFRS

83







Contract (No AFR)




84


Fair Haven (11/25/2013)



Holmdel (1/6/2014)



85

Clark, Matt

From: Lanna, Jessica <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:41 AMTo: Michael Panter; 'Neil Rubenstein'Cc: Clark, Matt; Vrancik, MichaelSubject: RE: Monmouth AFRS

Hi Mike, Would it be possible for you to send me the resolutions for the towns that didn’t date the contract? I’m going to try to push it through with the resolutions instead of trying to get the town to fill in the date. With regards to Deal, I will try and reach out to them and request their resolution directly. Jessica Lanna, CTA Supervising Field Representative Revaluations/Reassessments and Assessor Compliance State of New Jersey Division of Taxation PO Box 251 Trenton, NJ 08695-0251 (609) 943-4399 [email protected]

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:25 PM To: 'Neil Rubenstein'; Lanna, Jessica Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Monmouth AFRS Hello Jessica, Thank you for your follow‐up message. I have provided additional details below in RED, and please let me know if you require any further. Regards, Mike Michael J. Panter, Esq.



86




Contract (No AFR)





Fair Haven (11/25/2013)



Holmdel (1/6/2014)



87

Clark, Matt

From: Lanna, Jessica <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:31 PMTo: Michael Panter; 'Neil Rubenstein'Cc: Clark, MattSubject: RE: Monmouth AFRS

Thanks Mike, I’m running this by management. Will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks again! Jessica Lanna, CTA Supervising Field Representative Revaluations/Reassessments and Assessor Compliance State of New Jersey Division of Taxation PO Box 251 Trenton, NJ 08695-0251 (609) 943-4399 [email protected]

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:25 PM To: 'Neil Rubenstein'; Lanna, Jessica Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Monmouth AFRS Hello Jessica, Thank you for your follow‐up message. I have provided additional details below in RED, and please let me know if you require any further. Regards, Mike Michael J. Panter, Esq.



From: Lanna, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:56 PM

88

To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Miller, Judy; Vrancik, Michael Subject: Monmouth AFRS I received the contracts for the reassessments from Michael Panter last week. Here are some of the issues that need to be resolved… AFR (No Contract Attached)



Contract (No AFR)





Fair Haven (11/25/2013)



Holmdel (1/6/2014)



89

Clark, Matt

From: Michael Panter <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:25 PMTo: 'Neil Rubenstein'; [email protected]: Clark, MattSubject: RE: Monmouth AFRS







Contract (No AFR)


90




Fair Haven (11/25/2013)



Holmdel (1/6/2014)



91

Clark, Matt

From: Michael Panter <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 3:25 PMTo: 'Neil Rubenstein'; [email protected]: [email protected]: RE: Monmouth AFRS







Contract (No AFR)


92




Fair Haven (11/25/2013)



Holmdel (1/6/2014)



93

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:11 PMTo: Clark, MattSubject: RE: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs

I use both.. Some towns insist on M&S.. It is awful… Not integrated, no way to do multiple bldgs on one blk/lot and much slower.. Also, the annual renewal is around 1,200 per year…per license… The answer to your question to George is ALL ( if I did the reval…) I haven’t used M&S in Monmouth ever… At the end of the day, It doesn’t matter what costing program is used as long as a Bank is at 350/sq ft total, Office bldg is …… etc……etc…..


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:04 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: FW: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs Importance: High

From: Clark, Matt Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: FW: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs Importance: High G‐ Before I sent this to the individual Assessors I thought I would ask you? Any idea of how many of our 53 are currently using the Commercial costs in the NJ Appraisal manual? My thought is to give the current 2014 answer and add that , as part of the annual reassessments and 20% annual data collection within the Assessment Demonstration Program, Monmouth intends to collect detailed data, including sketches, and build an integrated commercial costing system that leverages the NJ Commercial manual data and reconciles the other approaches to data. M‐

From: Scott, Robert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:13 PM To: ATLANTIC; BERGEN; BURLINGTON; CAMDEN; CAPE MAY; CUMBERLAND; ESSEX; GLOUCESTER; HUDSON; HUNTERDON; MERCER; MIDDLESEX; Clark, Matt; MORRIS; OCEAN; PASSAIC; SALEM; SOMERSET; SUSSEX; UNION;

94

WARREN Subject: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs Importance: High We are trying to find out if any towns are still using the Commercial Costs in the NJ Appraisal manual. Could you please let me know if any towns in your county are still using these costs by COB Friday 9/26. Thank You Robert Scott Supervising Field Representative Property Administration 609 633 8446


95

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:11 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: RE: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs

I use both.. Some towns insist on M&S.. It is awful… Not integrated, no way to do multiple bldgs on one blk/lot and much slower.. Also, the annual renewal is around 1,200 per year…per license… The answer to your question to George is ALL ( if I did the reval…) I haven’t used M&S in Monmouth ever… At the end of the day, It doesn’t matter what costing program is used as long as a Bank is at 350/sq ft total, Office bldg is …… etc……etc…..


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:04 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: FW: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs Importance: High


From: Scott, Robert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:13 PM To: ATLANTIC; BERGEN; BURLINGTON; CAMDEN; CAPE MAY; CUMBERLAND; ESSEX; GLOUCESTER; HUDSON; HUNTERDON; MERCER; MIDDLESEX; Clark, Matt; MORRIS; OCEAN; PASSAIC; SALEM; SOMERSET; SUSSEX; UNION;

96

WARREN Subject: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs Importance: High We are trying to find out if any towns are still using the Commercial Costs in the NJ Appraisal manual. Could you please let me know if any towns in your county are still using these costs by COB Friday 9/26. Thank You Robert Scott Supervising Field Representative Property Administration 609 633 8446


97

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:04 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs

Importance: High


From: Scott, Robert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:13 PM To: ATLANTIC; BERGEN; BURLINGTON; CAMDEN; CAPE MAY; CUMBERLAND; ESSEX; GLOUCESTER; HUDSON; HUNTERDON; MERCER; MIDDLESEX; Clark, Matt; MORRIS; OCEAN; PASSAIC; SALEM; SOMERSET; SUSSEX; UNION; WARREN Subject: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs Importance: High We are trying to find out if any towns are still using the Commercial Costs in the NJ Appraisal manual. Could you please let me know if any towns in your county are still using these costs by COB Friday 9/26. Thank You Robert Scott Supervising Field Representative Property Administration 609 633 8446

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is proh bited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any

98

information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.

99

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 1:04 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs

Importance: High


From: Scott, Robert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2014 12:13 PM To: ATLANTIC; BERGEN; BURLINGTON; CAMDEN; CAPE MAY; CUMBERLAND; ESSEX; GLOUCESTER; HUDSON; HUNTERDON; MERCER; MIDDLESEX; Clark, Matt; MORRIS; OCEAN; PASSAIC; SALEM; SOMERSET; SUSSEX; UNION; WARREN Subject: NJ Appraisal Manual Commercial Costs Importance: High We are trying to find out if any towns are still using the Commercial Costs in the NJ Appraisal manual. Could you please let me know if any towns in your county are still using these costs by COB Friday 9/26. Thank You Robert Scott Supervising Field Representative Property Administration 609 633 8446

100

Clark, Matt

From: Theresa Casagrande <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 4:00 PMTo: Michael Panter; Neil Rubenstein; Dan KellyCc: Gregory Hutchinson; Salvatore Alfieri; Clark, MattSubject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection

Mike, Needless to say, this response is only going to the individuals copied on my original email, as I can’t violate the OPMA. I appreciate your response, but I still feel that the interior inspection percentage is deficient; for now, let’s agree that it is a glass half empty/half full issue. Going forward, I think there are things that we could and should do to bring the interior inspection percentage up, which we can discuss before next year’s inspections. I full well realize that the sales data is what will be used to adjust assessed values annually and that could be done without any inspections at all. Please consider that in a town like Fair Haven it is most likely that our total assessed value will continue to rise, or fall, disproportionally to many other municipalities in Monmouth County; as such, my resident’s County taxes will continue to rise annually, even if the Freeholders hold the line on tax increases and the ADP makes that process even more convenient, at our expense no less. For that reason alone, it is important that I have the ability to make assurances to our residents that the process is efficient, fair, and effective. Lastly, even though the individual and collective analytical abilities of the recipients of this email are impressive, I would advise against getting into a mathematical point/counter point with Jon Peters. I think this issue dissipates best if we agree that we will work together to get make sure our property records are as up to date and accurate as possible. All the best, Theresa ______________________________________ Theresa S. Casagrande, MBA, RMC, CTC, NJMMA Executive Board Member Administrator, Borough of Fair Haven 748 River Road Fair Haven, NJ 07704 [email protected] Phone # 732-747-0241 Fax # 732-747-6962

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:06 PM To: Theresa Casagrande; 'Dan Kelly'; 'Neil Rubenstein' Cc: Gregory Hutchinson; 'Salvatore Alfieri'; 'Clark, Matt'; [email protected]; [email protected]; JAKoch73 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection Ms. Casagrande: Thank you for your message, and as mentioned previously, we always welcome input and would be happy to answer any questions. Since I know you mentioned that your governing body would share your concerns re: our July Invoice, I have copied them on this message in an effort to provide as much information and feedback as possible, and they should also feel free to contact me with any input/questions. Since other counties are also implementing the Assessment Demonstration Program (the “ADP”), and it has begun to receive positive coverage by third parties as well (including Moody’s), we appreciate feedback as everyone seeks to refine the process during the initial year of the ADP.

101

I have inserted my comments in RED below which correspond to your questions, which I hope are helpful. Regards, Mike Michael J. Panter, Esq.

55 White Road, Suite C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057 Fax: 732.276.1056 www.rdsnj.com From: Theresa Casagrande [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 6:58 PM To: Michael Panter; Dan Kelly; Neil Rubenstein Cc: Gregory Hutchinson; Salvatore Alfieri; Clark, Matt Subject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection Gentlemen, Regarding the email exchange below, which took place between myself and RDS in early June; as well as the attached, please note that in Fair Haven there were a total of 198 properties that were not able to be interiorly inspected as part of our first 20% annual property inspections. While I realize the contract allows you to deduct these properties from the total to reach your contractual benchmark and that the Borough is required to pay you $21.00 a property regardless, since we are so early in this program, I really think this needs to be looked at in some detail. I could go on and on, but my general thoughts on this topic are briefly stated, as follows: I will focus on Class 2 (residential) properties with respect to your concern over our interior success rate, since they account for the bulk of 2014 inspections. Of the 435 residential properties on the 2014 schedule, there were 12 refusals, which amount to a refusal rate of 2.75%. This was a very good refusal rate, which I believe was pushed down due to the number of homeowners we spoke with directly. A number of homeowners contacted our office after receiving notice, who were initially hesitant to allow an interior inspection until we explained the purpose – after which, most were agreeable. Some of these homeowners contacted us because they were also visited last year pursuant to the revaluation, to inquire why they were being inspected again. I would expect the number of homeowners with that particular question to decrease in subsequent years, since each annual 20% of inspections will be another year removed from the revaluation. For comparative purposes, during the 2013 revaluation (which includes three (3) visits, compared to two (2) under the ADP) there was a refusal rate was 5.8%. Of the 423 non‐refusals, we completed an exterior inspection on 100% of properties, which allows us to confirm if any exterior work/improvements have been made, and to verify the footprint of the home to assess if any additions have been added. We completed an interior inspection of 237 properties, or 56% of properties.

It would seem to me that whatever quality controls that RDS has in place to insure that you will “ maximize our interior success rate within the two visit framework” should be reviewed, as you didn’t manage to complete an interior inspection for 44% of this year’s 20% requirement.

102

I will summarize our process aimed at maximizing the interior success rate within the two (2) visit framework, and we are always open to any suggestions. Since the ADP requires two (2) inspections (in this case for pricing of $21/property) compared to three (3) inspections under revaluations (generally $60‐$70/property; with additional services included), we do anticipate that the interior rate will be less than that of a revaluation (more below), though we’re effectively conducting each visit at a price significantly less than that of a revaluation. Process (1) All homeowner’s receive notification mailings at least two weeks prior to inspections, which explain the upcoming inspection and its purpose. (2) The home is visited and an exterior inspection is completed. If a homeowner does not respond, they are left a door hanger which again explains the purpose of the inspection, and provides them with both our phone number and the internet page which allows them to make a convenient appointment for our re‐visit, using either method, and to ask questions (directly to their inspector, or by visiting our FAQs). (3) We then allow ample time to pass for homeowners to make appointments, prior to returning for second visit. In Fair Haven, homeowners were given 10‐14 days minimum. (4) The home is then visited a second time, either by appointment, or if no appointment was made, on a different day of the week and/or time in hopes of finding a homeowner present.

As such, we will be paying you $4,158.00, without the benefit of the assurance that we have an accurate

property record card for these 198 properties.

As mentioned, 12 of the 198 referenced were refusals, with a refusal rate about ½ of what was experienced during the 2013 revaluation. While it is impossible to complete an interior inspection of all properties, it might be helpful to compare the data collected between the ADP and the traditional revaluation model. Under the 2013 revaluation, 82% of interior inspections were completed using the three (3) visit framework – compared to 56% under the ADP two (2) visit model. However, the last revaluation that Fair Haven performed (prior to 2013) was in 2003, so assuming a similar interior rate at that time, Fair Haven was inspecting the interiors of about 82% of properties once every 10 year period. No inspections, other than Added/Omitted or (possibly) appeal inspections were done in the interim during any year, and the Assessor also did not do any reassessments. If we are able to achieve a 55% to 60% interior inspection rate during each five (5) year ADP cycle, the total percentage of interior inspections over each ten (10) year period will likely surpass what Fair Haven has experienced using revaluations. Also, since properties are inspected once every five (5) year period under the ADP, it is much more likely that improvements will be captured in a more timely manner than in the past. Taking all of these metrics into account, Fair Haven will likely have more accurate information on their property record cards than in the past, at a price which is about 33% less during any 10 year period (with the Assessor also being able to adjust valuations annually, rather than having to wait for revaluations, or to adjust them piecemeal based on appeals).

I realize that we just came off of a full revaluation, so property record card accuracy is not nearly as big a concern if we had otherwise not done so; however, with each year that passes, especially if this demonstration program is to continue forward, that high a percentage of no interior inspections will become increasingly troubling and problematic.

Please see my comments above.

103

Greg and I have already discussed that we need to compare the revaluation refusals with the 12 re-inspection refusals to see if they are repeat refusals. We probably should do the same with the 186 “did not get inside” properties too.

Fair Haven has the ability to do this based on the data fields we provided. With respect to refusals, it will obviously be a small subset, since you would be comparing only 12 refusals this year from within the 20% inspected, compared to the 118 town‐wide refusals under the 2013 revaluation. I agree however, that this might be useful as the Assessor determines how to estimate these properties. I do not know if you will find much correlation between those for which an interior was not achieved, simply due to the fact that a majority of these people were probably not home during our visits.

You know as well as I do that Greg doesn’t have the time, or the staff, to do that in Fair Haven and I

can’t even imagine what he will do if he has a similar no entry percentage in Howell Twp. This is certainly a challenge since some towns (including Howell) are about 12x larger than Fair Haven. It is important to note that when an Assessor performs an annual reassessment, it is largely based (as you know) on sales information and VCS codes, rather than extrapolating inspection data from that year’s 20% to the entire town. Inspecting the 20% annually (100% over 5 years) is the state requirement under the ADP which enables annual revaluations to be performed, and in some years it is possible that the 20% inspection data will not be submitted prior to the submission of an assessment book to the county (Fair Haven’s was done prior to that date in 2014, and we also did the Added inspections based on permits).

More important than the money we are paying for this rate of interior inspections is the fact that this Assessment Demonstration Program is being piloted in Monmouth County, so these numbers will surely be scrutinized by many individuals and interests, which should make this rate troubling to all concerned.

Please see my notes above as they relate to inspection rates vis a vis relative pricing.

If our numbers are indicative of a County wide trend, then, at the very least for this first year, I see it as a

potential public relations problem for the municipalities, the Monmouth County Board of Taxation and RDS. If the trend continues, I think it could serve to undermine the program on a statewide basis. As mentioned above, I believe there is a strong case that towns are inspecting as many, or more, interiors over the same time frame as traditional revaluations, and are doing so at a significantly lower price. Additionally, when we take into account the likely decrease in appeals due to the more frequent reassessments and inspections (and the avoidance of corresponding budget shortfalls and/or emergency bonding which result), and the more timely capture of Added values for work which was not performed via a required permit, the costs savings from the ADP will likely be significant, as Moody’s has noted.

I have prepped this bill for payment at our 09/22 public meeting and I fully expect it to be called into question by my own Governing Body. My public response will be that RDS has met the terms of the contract that we entered into, which will clearly not serve to be an adequate defense of this new program, regardless of the fact that I think it has merit. For everyone’s sake, I hope that the results we have seen in Fair Haven were just an anomaly for 2014 and they will be improved upon in 2015. If you would like to discuss this in more detail, feel free to give me a call. Best regards, Theresa Thank you for submitting our July Invoice for 9/22, and please feel free to provide any further input, which we appreciate. Having an open dialogue can only benefit our project as we move ahead, and I hope my comments have provide some useful thoughts. Regards, Mike

105

Clark, Matt

From: Theresa Casagrande <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 7:08 AMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]: Gregory Hutchinson; [email protected]; Clark, Matt; [email protected];

[email protected]; JAKOCH73 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Re: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection

PLEASE DO NOT HIIT "REPLY ALL" TO THIS EMAIL.. To All, I want to remind everyone that email exchanges on any Borough related topic that take place between a quorum of the Governing Body are a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act; as such, this group exchange should not have been started and it must end now. We can place this topic on a future agenda. Thank you for your cooperation. Theresa ‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐ From: Michael Panter <[email protected]> To: Theresa Casagrande; 'Dan Kelly' <[email protected]>; 'Neil Rubenstein' <[email protected]> Cc: Gregory Hutchinson; 'Salvatore Alfieri' <[email protected]>; 'Clark, Matt' <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; JAKoch73 <JAKoch73 >; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tue Sep 16 20:05:30 2014 Subject: RE: Fair Haven ‐ 2014 Data Collection Ms. Casagrande: Thank you for your message, and as mentioned previously, we always welcome input and would be happy to answer any questions. Since I know you mentioned that your governing body would share your concerns re: our July Invoice, I have copied them on this message in an effort to provide as much information and feedback as possible, and they should also feel free to contact me with any input/questions. Since other counties are also implementing the Assessment Demonstration Program (the “ADP”), and it has begun to receive positive coverage by third parties as well (including Moody’s), we appreciate feedback as everyone seeks to refine the process during the initial year of the ADP. I have inserted my comments in RED below which correspond to your questions, which I hope are helpful. Regards, Mike

106

Michael J. Panter, Esq. 55 White Road, Suite C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057 Fax: 732.276.1056 www.rdsnj.com <http://www.rdsnj.com/> From: Theresa Casagrande [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 6:58 PM To: Michael Panter; Dan Kelly; Neil Rubenstein Cc: Gregory Hutchinson; Salvatore Alfieri; Clark, Matt Subject: RE: Fair Haven ‐ 2014 Data Collection Gentlemen, Regarding the email exchange below, which took place between myself and RDS in early June; as well as the attached, please note that in Fair Haven there were a total of 198 properties that were not able to be interiorly inspected as part of our first 20% annual property inspections. While I realize the contract allows you to deduct these properties from the total to reach your contractual benchmark and that the Borough is required to pay you $21.00 a property regardless, since we are so early in this program, I really think this needs to be looked at in some detail. I could go on and on, but my general thoughts on this topic are briefly stated, as follows: I will focus on Class 2 (residential) properties with respect to your concern over our interior success rate, since they account for the bulk of 2014 inspections. Of the 435 residential properties on the 2014 schedule, there were 12 refusals, which amount to a refusal rate of 2.75%. This was a very good refusal rate, which I believe was pushed down due to the number of homeowners we spoke with directly. A number of homeowners contacted our office after receiving notice, who were initially hesitant to allow an interior inspection until we explained the purpose – after which, most were agreeable. Some of these homeowners contacted us because they were also visited last year pursuant to the revaluation, to inquire why they were being inspected again. I would expect the number of homeowners with that particular question to decrease in subsequent years, since each annual 20% of inspections will be another year removed from the revaluation. For comparative purposes, during the 2013 revaluation (which includes three (3) visits, compared to two (2) under the ADP) there was a refusal rate was 5.8%.

107

Of the 423 non‐refusals, we completed an exterior inspection on 100% of properties, which allows us to confirm if any exterior work/improvements have been made, and to verify the footprint of the home to assess if any additions have been added. We completed an interior inspection of 237 properties, or 56% of properties. ∙ It would seem to me that whatever quality controls that RDS has in place to insure that you will “ maximize our interior success rate within the two visit framework” should be reviewed, as you didn’t manage to complete an interior inspection for 44% of this year’s 20% requirement. I will summarize our process aimed at maximizing the interior success rate within the two (2) visit framework, and we are always open to any suggestions. Since the ADP requires two (2) inspections (in this case for pricing of $21/property) compared to three (3) inspections under revaluations (generally $60‐$70/property; with additional services included), we do anticipate that the interior rate will be less than that of a revaluation (more below), though we’re effectively conducting each visit at a price significantly less than that of a revaluation. Process (1) All homeowner’s receive notification mailings at least two weeks prior to inspections, which explain the upcoming inspection and its purpose. (2) The home is visited and an exterior inspection is completed. If a homeowner does not respond, they are left a door hanger which again explains the purpose of the inspection, and provides them with both our phone number and the internet page which allows them to make a convenient appointment for our re‐visit, using either method, and to ask questions (directly to their inspector, or by visiting our FAQs). (3) We then allow ample time to pass for homeowners to make appointments, prior to returning for second visit. In Fair Haven, homeowners were given 10‐14 days minimum. (4) The home is then visited a second time, either by appointment, or if no appointment was made, on a different day of the week and/or time in hopes of finding a homeowner present. ∙ As such, we will be paying you $4,158.00, without the benefit of the assurance that we have an accurate property record card for these 198 properties.

108

As mentioned, 12 of the 198 referenced were refusals, with a refusal rate about ½ of what was experienced during the 2013 revaluation. While it is impossible to complete an interior inspection of all properties, it might be helpful to compare the data collected between the ADP and the traditional revaluation model. Under the 2013 revaluation, 82% of interior inspections were completed using the three (3) visit framework – compared to 56% under the ADP two (2) visit model. However, the last revaluation that Fair Haven performed (prior to 2013) was in 2003, so assuming a similar interior rate at that time, Fair Haven was inspecting the interiors of about 82% of properties once every 10 year period. No inspections, other than Added/Omitted or (possibly) appeal inspections were done in the interim during any year, and the Assessor also did not do any reassessments. If we are able to achieve a 55% to 60% interior inspection rate during each five (5) year ADP cycle, the total percentage of interior inspections over each ten (10) year period will likely surpass what Fair Haven has experienced using revaluations. Also, since properties are inspected once every five (5) year period under the ADP, it is much more likely that improvements will be captured in a more timely manner than in the past. Taking all of these metrics into account, Fair Haven will likely have more accurate information on their property record cards than in the past, at a price which is about 33% less during any 10 year period (with the Assessor also being able to adjust valuations annually, rather than having to wait for revaluations, or to adjust them piecemeal based on appeals). ∙ I realize that we just came off of a full revaluation, so property record card accuracy is not nearly as big a concern if we had otherwise not done so; however, with each year that passes, especially if this demonstration program is to continue forward, that high a percentage of no interior inspections will become increasingly troubling and problematic. Please see my comments above. ∙ Greg and I have already discussed that we need to compare the revaluation refusals with the 12 re‐inspection refusals to see if they are repeat refusals. We probably should do the same with the 186 “did not get inside” properties too. Fair Haven has the ability to do this based on the data fields we provided. With respect to refusals, it will obviously be a small subset, since you would be comparing only 12 refusals this year from within the 20% inspected, compared to the 118 town‐wide refusals under the 2013 revaluation. I agree however, that this might be useful as the Assessor determines how to estimate these properties. I do not know if you will find much correlation between those for which an interior was not achieved, simply due to the fact that a majority of these people were probably not home during our visits. ∙ You know as well as I do that Greg doesn’t have the time, or the staff, to do that in Fair Haven and I can’t even imagine what he will do if he has a similar no entry percentage in Howell Twp.

109

This is certainly a challenge since some towns (including Howell) are about 12x larger than Fair Haven. It is important to note that when an Assessor performs an annual reassessment, it is largely based (as you know) on sales information and VCS codes, rather than extrapolating inspection data from that year’s 20% to the entire town. Inspecting the 20% annually (100% over 5 years) is the state requirement under the ADP which enables annual revaluations to be performed, and in some years it is possible that the 20% inspection data will not be submitted prior to the submission of an assessment book to the county (Fair Haven’s was done prior to that date in 2014, and we also did the Added inspections based on permits). ∙ More important than the money we are paying for this rate of interior inspections is the fact that this Assessment Demonstration Program is being piloted in Monmouth County, so these numbers will surely be scrutinized by many individuals and interests, which should make this rate troubling to all concerned. Please see my notes above as they relate to inspection rates vis a vis relative pricing. ∙ If our numbers are indicative of a County wide trend, then, at the very least for this first year, I see it as a potential public relations problem for the municipalities, the Monmouth County Board of Taxation and RDS. If the trend continues, I think it could serve to undermine the program on a statewide basis. As mentioned above, I believe there is a strong case that towns are inspecting as many, or more, interiors over the same time frame as traditional revaluations, and are doing so at a significantly lower price. Additionally, when we take into account the likely decrease in appeals due to the more frequent reassessments and inspections (and the avoidance of corresponding budget shortfalls and/or emergency bonding which result), and the more timely capture of Added values for work which was not performed via a required permit, the costs savings from the ADP will likely be significant, as Moody’s has noted. I have prepped this bill for payment at our 09/22 public meeting and I fully expect it to be called into question by my own Governing Body. My public response will be that RDS has met the terms of the contract that we entered into, which will clearly not serve to be an adequate defense of this new program, regardless of the fact that I think it has merit. For everyone’s sake, I hope that the results we have seen in Fair Haven were just an anomaly for 2014 and they will be improved upon in 2015. If you would like to discuss this in more detail, feel free to give me a call. Best regards, Theresa Thank you for submitting our July Invoice for 9/22, and please feel free to provide any further input, which we appreciate. Having an open dialogue can only benefit our project as we move ahead, and I hope my comments have provide some useful thoughts.

110

Regards, Mike

111

Clark, Matt

From: Jonathan Peters <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 11:53 PMTo: Michael Panter; 'Theresa Casagrande'; 'Dan Kelly'; 'Neil Rubenstein'Cc: 'Gregory Hutchinson'; 'Salvatore Alfieri'; Clark, Matt; [email protected]; JAKoch73

; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection

Mr. Panter, I believe that your math is incorrect as to the success rate. Perhaps we can discuss further. If you achieve a 56% rate of interior inspections in each year - at the end of this 5 year cycle you will have only inspected 56%* of the interiors in Fair Haven (or any town). This is significantly lower than the 82% achieved in the prior revaluation. Given the existing run rate of 56%, by my calculations RDS will have to achieve an 88.5% success rate in the next four years to reach the prior 82% success rate. In plain fact, we have about 2175 properties in Fair Haven and we have already missed 191 in 2014. That leaves a mere 200 properties that can be missed in the next four years if we are to achieve just a match to the revaluation rate of 82% for the five year process. That is 50 misses per year. We are apparently not on a run rate to make only 50 misses per year using current practice. Please advise. Jon Peters Fair Haven Borough Council President * Actually 54.4% of total properties (not excluding refusals) Jonathan R. Peters, Ph.D. Professor of Finance & Chair of Accounting and Finance Department The College of Staten Island School of Business Room 3N-220 2800 Victory Blvd. Staten Island, NY 10314 & Member of the Doctoral Faculty The Ph.D. Program in Earth and Environmental Science & The Ph.D. Program in Economics The CUNY Graduate School

From: Michael Panter [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:05 PM To: 'Theresa Casagrande'; 'Dan Kelly'; 'Neil Rubenstein' Cc: 'Gregory Hutchinson'; 'Salvatore Alfieri'; 'Clark, Matt'; [email protected]; Jonathan Peters; JAKoch73 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection

112

Ms. Casagrande: Thank you for your message, and as mentioned previously, we always welcome input and would be happy to answer any questions. Since I know you mentioned that your governing body would share your concerns re: our July Invoice, I have copied them on this message in an effort to provide as much information and feedback as possible, and they should also feel free to contact me with any input/questions. Since other counties are also implementing the Assessment Demonstration Program (the “ADP”), and it has begun to receive positive coverage by third parties as well (including Moody’s), we appreciate feedback as everyone seeks to refine the process during the initial year of the ADP. I have inserted my comments in RED below which correspond to your questions, which I hope are helpful. Regards, Mike Michael J. Panter, Esq.

55 White Road, Suite C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057 Fax: 732.276.1056 www.rdsnj.com From: Theresa Casagrande [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 6:58 PM To: Michael Panter; Dan Kelly; Neil Rubenstein Cc: Gregory Hutchinson; Salvatore Alfieri; Clark, Matt Subject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection Gentlemen, Regarding the email exchange below, which took place between myself and RDS in early June; as well as the attached, please note that in Fair Haven there were a total of 198 properties that were not able to be interiorly inspected as part of our first 20% annual property inspections. While I realize the contract allows you to deduct these properties from the total to reach your contractual benchmark and that the Borough is required to pay you $21.00 a property regardless, since we are so early in this program, I really think this needs to be looked at in some detail. I could go on and on, but my general thoughts on this topic are briefly stated, as follows: I will focus on Class 2 (residential) properties with respect to your concern over our interior success rate, since they account for the bulk of 2014 inspections. Of the 435 residential properties on the 2014 schedule, there were 12 refusals, which amount to a refusal rate of 2.75%. This was a very good refusal rate, which I believe was pushed down due to the number of homeowners we spoke with directly. A number of homeowners contacted our office after receiving notice, who were initially hesitant to allow an interior inspection until we explained the purpose – after which, most were agreeable. Some of these homeowners contacted us because they were also visited last year pursuant to the revaluation, to inquire why they were being inspected again. I would expect the number of homeowners with that particular question to decrease in subsequent years, since each annual 20% of inspections will be another year removed from the revaluation.

113

For comparative purposes, during the 2013 revaluation (which includes three (3) visits, compared to two (2) under the ADP) there was a refusal rate was 5.8%. Of the 423 non‐refusals, we completed an exterior inspection on 100% of properties, which allows us to confirm if any exterior work/improvements have been made, and to verify the footprint of the home to assess if any additions have been added. We completed an interior inspection of 237 properties, or 56% of properties.



As such, we will be paying you $4,158.00, without the benefit of the assurance that we have an accurate property record card for these 198 properties.

As mentioned, 12 of the 198 referenced were refusals, with a refusal rate about ½ of what was experienced during the 2013 revaluation. While it is impossible to complete an interior inspection of all properties, it might be helpful to compare the data collected between the ADP and the traditional revaluation model. Under the 2013 revaluation, 82% of interior inspections were completed using the three (3) visit framework – compared to 56% under the ADP two (2) visit model. However, the last revaluation that Fair Haven performed (prior to 2013) was in 2003, so assuming a similar interior rate at that time, Fair Haven was inspecting the interiors of about 82% of properties once every 10 year period. No inspections, other than Added/Omitted or (possibly) appeal inspections were done in the interim during any year, and the Assessor also did not do any reassessments. If we are able to achieve a 55% to 60% interior inspection rate during each five (5) year ADP cycle, the total percentage of interior inspections over each ten (10) year period will likely surpass what Fair Haven has experienced using revaluations. Also, since properties are inspected once every five (5) year period under the ADP, it is much more likely that improvements will be captured in a more timely manner than in the past. Taking all of these metrics into account, Fair Haven will likely have more accurate information on their

114

property record cards than in the past, at a price which is about 33% less during any 10 year period (with the Assessor also being able to adjust valuations annually, rather than having to wait for revaluations, or to adjust them piecemeal based on appeals).

I realize that we just came off of a full revaluation, so property record card accuracy is not nearly as big

a concern if we had otherwise not done so; however, with each year that passes, especially if this demonstration program is to continue forward, that high a percentage of no interior inspections will become increasingly troubling and problematic.








If our numbers are indicative of a County wide trend, then, at the very least for this first year, I see it as a potential public relations problem for the municipalities, the Monmouth County Board of Taxation and RDS. If the trend continues, I think it could serve to undermine the program on a statewide basis. As mentioned above, I believe there is a strong case that towns are inspecting as many, or more, interiors over the same time frame as traditional revaluations, and are doing so at a significantly lower price. Additionally, when we take into account the likely decrease in appeals due to the more frequent reassessments and inspections (and the avoidance of corresponding budget shortfalls and/or emergency bonding which result), and the more timely capture of Added values for work which was not performed via a required permit, the costs savings from the ADP will likely be significant, as Moody’s has noted.

115


Celebrate Italian Heritage with a Special Broadway Benefit Concert by the World’s Longest Running Phantom in support of the CSI Italian Studies program>

116

Clark, Matt

From: Michael Panter <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:06 PMTo: 'Theresa Casagrande'; 'Dan Kelly'; 'Neil Rubenstein'Cc: 'Gregory Hutchinson'; 'Salvatore Alfieri'; Clark, Matt; [email protected];

[email protected]; JAKoch73 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]



55 White Road, Suite C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057 Fax: 732.276.1056 www.rdsnj.com From: Theresa Casagrande [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 6:58 PM To: Michael Panter; Dan Kelly; Neil Rubenstein Cc: Gregory Hutchinson; Salvatore Alfieri; Clark, Matt Subject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection Gentlemen, Regarding the email exchange below, which took place between myself and RDS in early June; as well as the attached, please note that in Fair Haven there were a total of 198 properties that were not able to be interiorly inspected as part of our first 20% annual property inspections. While I realize the contract allows you to deduct these properties from the total to reach your contractual benchmark and that the Borough is required to pay you $21.00 a property regardless, since we are so early in this program, I really think this needs to be looked at in some detail. I could go on and on, but my general thoughts on this topic are briefly stated, as follows:

117

I will focus on Class 2 (residential) properties with respect to your concern over our interior success rate, since they account for the bulk of 2014 inspections. Of the 435 residential properties on the 2014 schedule, there were 12 refusals, which amount to a refusal rate of 2.75%. This was a very good refusal rate, which I believe was pushed down due to the number of homeowners we spoke with directly. A number of homeowners contacted our office after receiving notice, who were initially hesitant to allow an interior inspection until we explained the purpose – after which, most were agreeable. Some of these homeowners contacted us because they were also visited last year pursuant to the revaluation, to inquire why they were being inspected again. I would expect the number of homeowners with that particular question to decrease in subsequent years, since each annual 20% of inspections will be another year removed from the revaluation. For comparative purposes, during the 2013 revaluation (which includes three (3) visits, compared to two (2) under the ADP) there was a refusal rate was 5.8%. Of the 423 non‐refusals, we completed an exterior inspection on 100% of properties, which allows us to confirm if any exterior work/improvements have been made, and to verify the footprint of the home to assess if any additions have been added. We completed an interior inspection of 237 properties, or 56% of properties.





As mentioned, 12 of the 198 referenced were refusals, with a refusal rate about ½ of what was experienced during the 2013 revaluation. While it is impossible to complete an interior inspection of all properties, it might be helpful to compare the data collected between the ADP and the traditional revaluation model. Under the 2013 revaluation, 82% of interior inspections were completed using the three (3) visit framework – compared to 56% under the ADP two (2) visit model.

118

However, the last revaluation that Fair Haven performed (prior to 2013) was in 2003, so assuming a similar interior rate at that time, Fair Haven was inspecting the interiors of about 82% of properties once every 10 year period. No inspections, other than Added/Omitted or (possibly) appeal inspections were done in the interim during any year, and the Assessor also did not do any reassessments. If we are able to achieve a 55% to 60% interior inspection rate during each five (5) year ADP cycle, the total percentage of interior inspections over each ten (10) year period will likely surpass what Fair Haven has experienced using revaluations. Also, since properties are inspected once every five (5) year period under the ADP, it is much more likely that improvements will be captured in a more timely manner than in the past. Taking all of these metrics into account, Fair Haven will likely have more accurate information on their property record cards than in the past, at a price which is about 33% less during any 10 year period (with the Assessor also being able to adjust valuations annually, rather than having to wait for revaluations, or to adjust them piecemeal based on appeals).









119



120

Clark, Matt

From: Michael Panter <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 8:06 PMTo: 'Theresa Casagrande'; 'Dan Kelly'; 'Neil Rubenstein'Cc: 'Gregory Hutchinson'; 'Salvatore Alfieri'; 'Clark, Matt'; [email protected];

[email protected]; JAKoch73 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]



55 White Road, Suite C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057 Fax: 732.276.1056 www.rdsnj.com From: Theresa Casagrande [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 6:58 PM To: Michael Panter; Dan Kelly; Neil Rubenstein Cc: Gregory Hutchinson; Salvatore Alfieri; Clark, Matt Subject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection Gentlemen, Regarding the email exchange below, which took place between myself and RDS in early June; as well as the attached, please note that in Fair Haven there were a total of 198 properties that were not able to be interiorly inspected as part of our first 20% annual property inspections. While I realize the contract allows you to deduct these properties from the total to reach your contractual benchmark and that the Borough is required to pay you $21.00 a property regardless, since we are so early in this program, I really think this needs to be looked at in some detail. I could go on and on, but my general thoughts on this topic are briefly stated, as follows:

121

I will focus on Class 2 (residential) properties with respect to your concern over our interior success rate, since they account for the bulk of 2014 inspections. Of the 435 residential properties on the 2014 schedule, there were 12 refusals, which amount to a refusal rate of 2.75%. This was a very good refusal rate, which I believe was pushed down due to the number of homeowners we spoke with directly. A number of homeowners contacted our office after receiving notice, who were initially hesitant to allow an interior inspection until we explained the purpose – after which, most were agreeable. Some of these homeowners contacted us because they were also visited last year pursuant to the revaluation, to inquire why they were being inspected again. I would expect the number of homeowners with that particular question to decrease in subsequent years, since each annual 20% of inspections will be another year removed from the revaluation. For comparative purposes, during the 2013 revaluation (which includes three (3) visits, compared to two (2) under the ADP) there was a refusal rate was 5.8%. Of the 423 non‐refusals, we completed an exterior inspection on 100% of properties, which allows us to confirm if any exterior work/improvements have been made, and to verify the footprint of the home to assess if any additions have been added. We completed an interior inspection of 237 properties, or 56% of properties.





As mentioned, 12 of the 198 referenced were refusals, with a refusal rate about ½ of what was experienced during the 2013 revaluation. While it is impossible to complete an interior inspection of all properties, it might be helpful to compare the data collected between the ADP and the traditional revaluation model. Under the 2013 revaluation, 82% of interior inspections were completed using the three (3) visit framework – compared to 56% under the ADP two (2) visit model.

122

However, the last revaluation that Fair Haven performed (prior to 2013) was in 2003, so assuming a similar interior rate at that time, Fair Haven was inspecting the interiors of about 82% of properties once every 10 year period. No inspections, other than Added/Omitted or (possibly) appeal inspections were done in the interim during any year, and the Assessor also did not do any reassessments. If we are able to achieve a 55% to 60% interior inspection rate during each five (5) year ADP cycle, the total percentage of interior inspections over each ten (10) year period will likely surpass what Fair Haven has experienced using revaluations. Also, since properties are inspected once every five (5) year period under the ADP, it is much more likely that improvements will be captured in a more timely manner than in the past. Taking all of these metrics into account, Fair Haven will likely have more accurate information on their property record cards than in the past, at a price which is about 33% less during any 10 year period (with the Assessor also being able to adjust valuations annually, rather than having to wait for revaluations, or to adjust them piecemeal based on appeals).









123



124

Clark, Matt

From: Theresa Casagrande <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 6:58 PMTo: Michael Panter; Dan Kelly; Neil RubensteinCc: Gregory Hutchinson; Salvatore Alfieri; Clark, MattSubject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data CollectionAttachments: RDS 2014 Bill.pdf; RDS CONTRACT.pdf

Gentlemen, Regarding the email exchange below, which took place between myself and RDS in early June; as well as the attached, please note that in Fair Haven there were a total of 198 properties that were not able to be interiorly inspected as part of our first 20% annual property inspections. While I realize the contract allows you to deduct these properties from the total to reach your contractual benchmark and that the Borough is required to pay you $21.00 a property regardless, since we are so early in this program, I really think this needs to be looked at in some detail. I could go on and on, but my general thoughts on this topic are briefly stated, as follows:


As such, we will be paying you $4,158.00, without the benefit of the assurance that we have an accurate property record card for these 198 properties.

I realize that we just came off of a full revaluation, so property record card accuracy is not nearly as big

a concern if we had otherwise not done so; however, with each year that passes, especially if this demonstration program is to continue forward, that high a percentage of no interior inspections will become increasingly troubling and problematic.

Greg and I have already discussed that we need to compare the revaluation refusals with the 12 re-

inspection refusals to see if they are repeat refusals. We probably should do the same with the 186 “did not get inside” properties too.


can’t even imagine what he will do if he has a similar no entry percentage in Howell Twp.


If our numbers are indicative of a County wide trend, then, at the very least for this first year, I see it as a potential public relations problem for the municipalities, the Monmouth County Board of Taxation and RDS. If the trend continues, I think it could serve to undermine the program on a statewide basis.

I have prepped this bill for payment at our 09/22 public meeting and I fully expect it to be called into question by my own Governing Body. My public response will be that RDS has met the terms of the contract that we entered into, which will clearly not serve to be an adequate defense of this new program, regardless of the fact that I think it has merit. For everyone’s sake, I hope that the results we have seen in Fair Haven were just an

125

anomaly for 2014 and they will be improved upon in 2015. If you would like to discuss this in more detail, feel free to give me a call. Best regards, Theresa _____________________________________ Theresa S. Casagrande, MBA, RMC, CTC, NJMMA Executive Board Member Administrator, Borough of Fair Haven 748 River Road Fair Haven, NJ 07704 [email protected] Phone # 732-747-0241 Fax # 732-747-6962

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 5:46 PM To: Theresa Casagrande; Dan Kelly; Neil Rubenstein Subject: Re: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection Theresa - I am out of the office now, but would be happy to answer any questions concerning the project, and I'm sure Neil would with respect to the reval. Also, to the extent you're getting questions from others, it might be helpful for them to know that the pilot procedure is uniform for all municipalities (as was the RFP) since they are based on the statute and the County's/Div of Taxation guidance. We do have excellent quality controls in place to maximize our interior success rate within the two visit framework, and Greg will have some familiarity with the process as well since we are currently several weeks into Howell's 2014 project. Thanks again, Mike Michael J. Panter, Esq. Realty Data Systems LLC 55 White Road, Suite C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057 Fax: 732.276.1056 www.rdsnj.com Theresa Casagrande <[email protected]> wrote:

Michael, Notwithstanding the fact that I must not have picked up the three potential outcomes below when I read the fine print on the contract, I hope you are not paying the inspectors per inspection, particularly if it doesn’t ultimately matter if they actually get inside, or not. I am sure you realize that is an internal quality control issue for RDS, but I would like to discuss my thoughts on the subject with you and/or Neil, based on my observations of our recent revaluation and my Governing Body’s input on this topic. Thanks, Theresa

______________________________________

Theresa S. Casagrande, MBA, RMC, CTC, NJMMA Executive Board Member

Administrator, Borough of Fair Haven

126

748 River Road

Fair Haven, NJ 07704

[email protected]

Phone # 732-747-0241

Fax # 732-747-6962

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:51 PM To: Theresa Casagrande; 'GREG HUTCHINSON' Cc: 'Dan Kelly'; ahcessr ; Steve Walters; Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection

Thank you Theresa. We will have our printer make the edits prior to mailing.

With respect to the mailing/inspection universe, we visit 20% of Fair Haven’s total line items annually under the pilot statute. Also under the statute and our contract, we are required to complete inspections on the 20%, and “completed” status results from three (3) potential outcomes: (1) interior/exterior completed; (2) refused entries (exterior only completed); and (3) exterior completed but no interior after the required two visits (the second visit in some cases will be automatic, and in others, it will result from the owner making an appointment).

In that sense, we do not visit greater than 20% annually in an effort to complete interiors on at least 20% (which would result in a much greater expense for Fair Haven), and inevitably an interior will not be completed on all properties – similar to a revaluation (though in revaluations they are required to complete three (3) attempts rather than two, since the pricing in data collection/verification is much lower). The good feature of the pilot statute is that regardless of which 20% are chosen in any given year, and the percentage of interiors actually completed, the Assessor can reaccess all properties annually.

Please let Steve know that we also need the Introduction Letter which was forwarded to him on April 6, and again on May 10, in order to start planning the project.

Thanks again and I hope that is helpful.

127

Mike

Michael J. Panter, Esq.


Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057

Fax: 732.276.1056

www.rdsnj.com

From: Theresa Casagrande [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 4:35 PM To: Michael Panter; GREG HUTCHINSON Cc: Dan Kelly; ahcessr ; Steve Walters Subject: FW: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection

Michael, I have copied Steve Walters above, as Greg’s appointment does not take effect until July 1st. I am sure that Steve and Greg will discuss this process as part of their transition and I will go over it with them to make sure that we are all on the same page, before you begin. I made some revisions to the mailer; please see attached and I will be happy to discuss my reasoning for the changes with you. I noted that you only listed 450 properties to be inspected, which doesn’t leave much of a buffer if you don’t get inside on the first visit and residents don’t go out of their way to reschedule. Neil tells me that you have a process in place to verify that the individual interior inspection was completed; it should be noted that we did have a significant number of residents claim that a Realty Appraisal inspector never entered their home during our recent revaluation, so I will be reviewing that documentation. I am not certain how we are going to proceed with added/omitted inspections; I will discuss that with Greg, as soon as he is on board. Thanks and regards, Theresa

______________________________________

Theresa S. Casagrande, MBA, RMC, CTC, NJMMA Executive Board Member

128

Administrator, Borough of Fair Haven

748 River Road

Fair Haven, NJ 07704

[email protected]

Phone # 732-747-0241

Fax # 732-747-6962

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 3:42 PM To: GREG HUTCHINSON; Theresa Casagrande Cc: Dan Kelly Subject: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection

Greg/Theresa,

I am attaching several documents re: our 2014 data collection project. Although we do not have a firm date for commencement of the inspections, we anticipate that they will begin sometime in late June/early July.

Attached are the following:

(1) Notification Card - This will be mailed at least 2 weeks in advance of inspections.

(2) Door Hanger – This will be left at each property for which we do not complete an interior inspection during our first visit.

(3) Staff Info – The required information with respect to field staff – all of some of whom will be assigned.

(4) Excel File – this shows the 20% for 2014 in the second tab, while these same properties are highlighted in the first tab (which is a list of all properties in town).

129

We will forward our W-9 and NJ Business Registration Certificate along with a Status Report at the completion of this year’s inspections, along with our invoice. We will do a separate inspection sweep for Added/Omitted properties by September 1 for a list you provide us with by July 15.

Thanks again and we look forward to working with you on this project.

Mike

Michael J. Panter, Esq.


Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057

Fax: 732.276.1056

www.rdsnj.com

130

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:09 PMTo: Clark, MattSubject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services

We are going to bid. No inspections..


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:50 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services Yes. Would be fun to have a fully functional Tax Board Portal and the MCAA ADP Annual Reassessment Handbook. Just Sayin.

Service is for revaluation updating/reassessment services to assist the city government in updating and making current the real‐property, revaluation program put in place for the 2014 tax year. The reassessment program is for tax years 2015 through 2018 with an option, in the City’s sole discretion, for the 2019 tax year”. Add in 25% internal inspections and you have a demonstration program without the calendar change.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:01 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services Look at page 20.. That is the Specifications.. There is no other document..


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:53 PM

131

To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services

Specification and other RFP information may be obtained at the Division of Purchasing, Hoboken City Hall, 94 Washington Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, during regular business hours (9:00 am to 4:00 pm), or by contacting Purchasing at 201-420-2011 or via email ; [email protected]. Vendors are required to comply with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:5-31 et seq. and N.J.A.C. 17:27-1 et seq. Email: [email protected] ATTEST: AL B.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:46 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services It was attached to my email to you… That’s it…


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:46 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services

Did you request the RFP? PERIOD OF CONTRACT The professional service contract shall be for a period of four (4) years from date of award, with one option to extend, in the sole discretion of the City, for one additional year; and the contract, and any extension, shall be subject to a non‐appropriation clause for each of the succeeding years starting in 2015.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:31 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: FW: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services Annual reassessment from Hoboken.. There is no detail on what the project is?

Neil Rubenstein

132

Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue Suite 4 West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net

From: Al Dineros [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:33 AM To: 'Neil Rubenstein' Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services See attached, please respond via email that you received the attachment. AL B. Dineros, QPA Purchasing Agent City of Hoboken 94 Washington Street Hoboken, NJ 07030 Phone: (201) 420-2087 Fax: (201) 420-2009 [email protected]

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:33 AM To: Al Dineros Subject: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services Please forward the above referenced RFP. Thanks very much, Neil



133



134

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:09 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services

We are going to bid. No inspections..


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:50 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services Yes. Would be fun to have a fully functional Tax Board Portal and the MCAA ADP Annual Reassessment Handbook. Just Sayin.

Service is for revaluation updating/reassessment services to assist the city government in updating and making current the real‐property, revaluation program put in place for the 2014 tax year. The reassessment program is for tax years 2015 through 2018 with an option, in the City’s sole discretion, for the 2019 tax year”. Add in 25% internal inspections and you have a demonstration program without the calendar change.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:01 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services Look at page 20.. That is the Specifications.. There is no other document..


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:53 PM

135

To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services

Specification and other RFP information may be obtained at the Division of Purchasing, Hoboken City Hall, 94 Washington Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, during regular business hours (9:00 am to 4:00 pm), or by contacting Purchasing at 201-420-2011 or via email ; [email protected]. Vendors are required to comply with the requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:5-31 et seq. and N.J.A.C. 17:27-1 et seq. Email: [email protected] ATTEST: AL B.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:46 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services It was attached to my email to you… That’s it…


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:46 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services

Did you request the RFP? PERIOD OF CONTRACT The professional service contract shall be for a period of four (4) years from date of award, with one option to extend, in the sole discretion of the City, for one additional year; and the contract, and any extension, shall be subject to a non‐appropriation clause for each of the succeeding years starting in 2015.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:31 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: FW: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services Annual reassessment from Hoboken.. There is no detail on what the project is?

Neil Rubenstein

136

Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue Suite 4 West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net

From: Al Dineros [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:33 AM To: 'Neil Rubenstein' Subject: RE: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services See attached, please respond via email that you received the attachment. AL B. Dineros, QPA Purchasing Agent City of Hoboken 94 Washington Street Hoboken, NJ 07030 Phone: (201) 420-2087 Fax: (201) 420-2009 [email protected]

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:33 AM To: Al Dineros Subject: RFP 14-18 Revaluation / Reassessment Services Please forward the above referenced RFP. Thanks very much, Neil



137



138

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:38 AMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: Assessment Inspections

From: Clark, Matt Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 5:00 PM To: '[email protected]'; jdelaney Cc: Scott Kenneally Subject: RE: Assessment Inspections Mr. Elias – The County has “mandated” a program that clearly costs less than the current model and is intended to provide enhanced public service through more accurate assessments. The “intrusiveness” is one addition internal inspection every 10 years. Has the municipality complained about the many fiscal benefits of the new calendar that they now enjoy? As for the sequence of the 20% inspections, it will be logically assigned from birds‐eye view, so that roughly 20% of contiguous parcels are annually inspected and 100% of all parcels are inspected over the 5 year program. This assignment would likely stay for future cycles to ensure consistent spacing. Please be mindful that regardless of 20% inspection, the Assessor must annually review the assessments of 100% of the properties and revise the assessments, up or down, to either the Director’s Ratio or 100% of current market value as appropriate. Although I am not in receipt of the bids, I have been told that Tyler Technologies and Appraisal Systems have submitted bids to various Monmouth County towns for data collections services associated with the Assessment Demonstration Program. I have been told that the lowest average price by a vendor other than RDS has been $23.50 in Asbury Park. The highest average price per parcel has been $61.11 per line item in West Long Branch. While this is certainly not the path that the County Board desires, I will seek the Attorney General’s advice on two matters. The first is the process for performing the service via County purchasing and billing the municipality directly through the apportionment process. As you know such direct billing was contemplated and provided for within the legislation. The second is far more troubling to the taxpayers. Spring Lake Height’s last revaluation was performed in 2008. Based on the implementation guidelines distributed to the towns and approved by the Division of Taxation and the Steering Committee, if Spring Lake Heights does not begin the “5‐year, 20% annual internal inspection program” in 2014, it will be required to implement a complete revaluation before beginning the program. Regards, Matthew Clark, County Tax Administrator

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:05 PM To: jdelaney

139

Cc: Scott Kenneally Subject: Re: Assessment Inspections This is troublesome. Unfortunately, I need to discuss the status with the County. As for the 20% it will most likely start at block 1 lot 1 and go in order from there. I have no idea on unit costs in other towns and whom has awarded contracts. On Jul 29, 2014, at 1:38 PM, "jdelaney" <[email protected]> wrote:

Mitch, Contract award delayed last night: the usual objections to the pilot program/mandate being forced on municipalities/government intrusiveness/etc. The single proposal submission was also an issue. Council has requested information on units costs submitted in other Monmouth towns and what other companies have been awarded contracts. Any info you have will be helpful. Additionally, questions from the public included the schedule as to which 20% of properties would be inspected each year. Let me know the plan about this. Thanks. ‐Jay Jay Delaney, Administrator/Borough Clerk BOROUGH OF SPRING LAKE HEIGHTS 555 Brighton Avenue Spring Lake Heights, NJ 07762 [email protected] 732-449-3500 732-449-3535 (fax)

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Certificate of Insurance - Realty Data Insurance attached. Begin forwarded message:

From: Linda Lennox <[email protected]> Date: July 28, 2014, 2:06:54 PM EDT To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> Cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> Subject: Certificate of Insurance - Realty Data

Attached please find Certificate of Insurance. Linda J. Lennox M.L. Cutler & Co., Inc. 973-377-7700 X234 973-377-4867 FAX [email protected]

140

This message, its contents and any attachments is intended for the designated recipient and may contain confidential, proprietary or otherwise private information from ML Cutler & Co., Inc. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or other use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this as an email, this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and ML Cutler & Co., Inc. will bear no responsibility to any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.


141

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:36 AMTo: 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: FW: Assessment Inspections

From: Clark, Matt Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 5:00 PM To: '[email protected]'; jdelaney Cc: Scott Kenneally Subject: RE: Assessment Inspections Mr. Elias – The County has “mandated” a program that clearly costs less than the current model and is intended to provide enhanced public service through more accurate assessments. The “intrusiveness” is one addition internal inspection every 10 years. Has the municipality complained about the many fiscal benefits of the new calendar that they now enjoy? As for the sequence of the 20% inspections, it will be logically assigned from birds‐eye view, so that roughly 20% of contiguous parcels are annually inspected and 100% of all parcels are inspected over the 5 year program. This assignment would likely stay for future cycles to ensure consistent spacing. Please be mindful that regardless of 20% inspection, the Assessor must annually review the assessments of 100% of the properties and revise the assessments, up or down, to either the Director’s Ratio or 100% of current market value as appropriate. Although I am not in receipt of the bids, I have been told that Tyler Technologies and Appraisal Systems have submitted bids to various Monmouth County towns for data collections services associated with the Assessment Demonstration Program. I have been told that the lowest average price by a vendor other than RDS has been $23.50 in Asbury Park. The highest average price per parcel has been $61.11 per line item in West Long Branch. While this is certainly not the path that the County Board desires, I will seek the Attorney General’s advice on two matters. The first is the process for performing the service via County purchasing and billing the municipality directly through the apportionment process. As you know such direct billing was contemplated and provided for within the legislation. The second is far more troubling to the taxpayers. Spring Lake Height’s last revaluation was performed in 2008. Based on the implementation guidelines distributed to the towns and approved by the Division of Taxation and the Steering Committee, if Spring Lake Heights does not begin the “5‐year, 20% annual internal inspection program” in 2014, it will be required to implement a complete revaluation before beginning the program. Regards, Matthew Clark, County Tax Administrator

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:05 PM To: jdelaney

142

Cc: Scott Kenneally Subject: Re: Assessment Inspections This is troublesome. Unfortunately, I need to discuss the status with the County. As for the 20% it will most likely start at block 1 lot 1 and go in order from there. I have no idea on unit costs in other towns and whom has awarded contracts. On Jul 29, 2014, at 1:38 PM, "jdelaney" <[email protected]> wrote:

Mitch, Contract award delayed last night: the usual objections to the pilot program/mandate being forced on municipalities/government intrusiveness/etc. The single proposal submission was also an issue. Council has requested information on units costs submitted in other Monmouth towns and what other companies have been awarded contracts. Any info you have will be helpful. Additionally, questions from the public included the schedule as to which 20% of properties would be inspected each year. Let me know the plan about this. Thanks. ‐Jay Jay Delaney, Administrator/Borough Clerk BOROUGH OF SPRING LAKE HEIGHTS 555 Brighton Avenue Spring Lake Heights, NJ 07762 [email protected] 732-449-3500 732-449-3535 (fax)

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Fwd: Certificate of Insurance - Realty Data Insurance attached. Begin forwarded message:

From: Linda Lennox <[email protected]> Date: July 28, 2014, 2:06:54 PM EDT To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> Cc: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]> Subject: Certificate of Insurance - Realty Data

Attached please find Certificate of Insurance. Linda J. Lennox M.L. Cutler & Co., Inc. 973-377-7700 X234 973-377-4867 FAX [email protected]

143

This message, its contents and any attachments is intended for the designated recipient and may contain confidential, proprietary or otherwise private information from ML Cutler & Co., Inc. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or other use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this as an email, this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and ML Cutler & Co., Inc. will bear no responsibility to any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.

144

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Friday, June 27, 2014 5:10 PMTo: Michael Panter; Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Access to CAMA Data

Mr. Panter: From our discussions, as part of the implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program your firm is contracted by several municipalities to perform annual inspection of farmland (class 3B) properties. To assist you in providing this service you have verbally requested access to existing FA‐1 applications (which includes the FA‐1 Form and various supporting documents). Please provide me with your request in writing. Once access is approved by the local Assessor such documents will be made available. While much of the application may be accessible through OPRA, there are arguable some data fields that could be protected such as phone numbers and e‐mail addresses. If permission is granted it is my intention to provide the un‐redacted file in PDF format. The file to be provided now, June 2014, is the file submitted to the Assessor by August 1, 2013 for the 2014 tax year. The annual Farmland inspection process would utilize this form to verify current farmland activity against the current‐year’s application. Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 2:21 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: Access to CAMA Data Mr. Clark: As we discussed, RDS has been engaged by a number of Monmouth County municipalities to provide data collection/verification services under the implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program. For this reason, we are seeking to automate our timely access to municipal CAMA data in order to reduce the Tax Assessor blackout period, as discussed. If the County could please provide us with the timeline for making such functionality available it would be greatly appreciated. Michael Panter Michael J. Panter, Esq.


145


146

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Friday, June 27, 2014 5:08 PMTo: 'Michael Panter'; 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: RE: Access to CAMA Data

Mr. Panter: From our discussions, as part of the implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program your firm is contracted by several municipalities to perform annual inspection of farmland (class 3B) properties. To assist you in providing this service you have verbally requested access to existing FA‐1 applications (which includes the FA‐1 Form and various supporting documents). Please provide me with your request in writing. Once access is approved by the local Assessor such documents will be made available. While much of the application may be accessible through OPRA, there are arguable some data fields that could be protected such as phone numbers and e‐mail addresses. If permission is granted it is my intention to provide the un‐redacted file in PDF format. The file to be provided now, June 2014, is the file submitted to the Assessor by August 1, 2013 for the 2014 tax year. The annual Farmland inspection process would utilize this form to verify current farmland activity against the current‐year’s application. Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator

From: Michael Panter [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 2:21 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: Access to CAMA Data Mr. Clark: As we discussed, RDS has been engaged by a number of Monmouth County municipalities to provide data collection/verification services under the implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program. For this reason, we are seeking to automate our timely access to municipal CAMA data in order to reduce the Tax Assessor blackout period, as discussed. If the County could please provide us with the timeline for making such functionality available it would be greatly appreciated. Michael Panter Michael J. Panter, Esq.


151

should happen to server. We will be starting initially with following three towns.

Allenhurst Farmingdale Bradely Beach

Do you have server running at k server? If so please set up username and password to login. Can you provide me the data for only these towns? If refresh is needed can I have refresh file once a day? ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Regards Venku Reddy Koduru Sunrise systems Inc Ph: 732‐603‐2200 X‐4442 Direct: 732‐395‐4442 Fax: 732‐603‐2208

152

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:41 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Informal Hearings

Regulation outside of the Demonstration Program says no – see below. “A commencement date and a completion date, the latter not later than November 1. Assessment notices shall not be sent prior to November 10. Taxpayer's reviews shall be completed not later than December 10; So, you regularly and knowingly violate the regulation by not completing them on time. No one gets pissed when you are late because it doesn’t impact “elections”. While the town might “give you the nod” I do not see that they have the authority to disregard regulation. As such, being that the process rests with the firm (NJAC 18:12‐4.9), a letter from the town requesting early mailings would not provide much shielding from the County Tax Board or the Division. M‐ New Jersey Administrative Code Currentness Title 18. Department of Treasury--Taxation Chapter 12. Local Property Tax: General (Refs & Annos)

Subchapter 4. Revaluation of Real Property by Appraisal Firms 18:12-4.8 Standards for revaluation

(a) Any firm engaged in the revaluation of all of the real property in a municipality shall comply with the standards and conditions set forth in this subchapter. The revaluation firm acts as the agent of the municipal tax assessor and all determinations made by the firm shall be submitted to, and approved by, the municipal tax assessor. 1. Real property shall be valued in accordance with N.J.S.A. 54:4-1 et seq. 2. With regard to real property being constructed or altered, the firm shall determine the percentage of completion and the appraised value of said property as of October 1 of the pretax year. 3. A separate list of exempt properties shall be provided indicating the values of said properties as if taxable. 4. Land qualified under the Farmland Assessment Act of 1964, N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.1 et seq., shall be valued in accordance with its qualified farmland value and its highest best use value. 5. In determining taxable values of all real property, the firm shall employ the three approaches to value where applicable. The capitalization procedure shall be included with the property record card and reconciled with the other approaches to value. 6. To facilitate the use of the approaches to value, the most recent edition of the Real Property Appraisal Manual for New Jersey Assessors shall be used. The use of any other appraisal manual as a basis for valuing real property shall require approval by the Director. 7. The firm shall include real property identification material on properly labeled individual property record cards similar in form and content to those illustrated in the Real Property Appraisal Manual. Distinct property record cards for each of the four classifications of real property shall be provided.

153

8. The real property identification material to be entered on property record cards shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: i. A scaled sketch of the exterior building dimensions; ii. Notations of significant building components as ascertained from both an interior and exterior inspection; iii. Entries on the property record cards respecting the values of each lot and building including such items as age, construction, condition, depreciation, obsolescence, additions and deductions, appraised value, recent sales prices, rental data and other pertinent information pertaining to the valuation of the property; iv. Where more than one property card is required in the description of a property, all cards shall be assembled in a standard file folder and property labeled; v. Each property record card shall identify the individual making the inspection and set forth the date when the interior inspection was made; and vi. Digital photograph(s) of each individual property in the municipality. 9. The inspection of each property shall be performed in the following manner: i. No less than three attempts shall be made to gain entry to each property; ii. If successful entry has not been made after the first attempt, a card shall be left at the property indicating a date when a second attempt to gain entry will be made; iii. The card shall include a phone number and address to permit the property owner to contact the firm to make other arrangements, if necessary; iv. If entry is not possible upon the second visit, written notice shall be left advising that an assessment will be estimated unless a mutually convenient arrangement is made for a third visit to gain access to the property; v. The firm shall schedule inspections during reasonable hours which shall include evenings and Saturdays; and vi. The municipal tax assessor shall be notified in writing of each failure to gain entry to a property and a list of all non-entries and reasons for same shall be provided to the municipal tax assessor prior to the mailing of values. 10. Every contract shall include the following items representing progress and control of operations: i. A commencement date and a completion date, the latter not later than November 1. Assessment notices shall not be sent prior to November 10. Taxpayer's reviews shall be completed not later than December 10; ii. A requirement providing for the submission to the municipal tax assessor of a work schedule or plan of operations; iii. The firm shall provide written monthly progress reports to the municipal tax assessor for his review. The municipal tax assessor shall forward the reports to the county board of taxation. If the county board of taxation does not receive the required monthly progress report, it must notify in writing the Director of the Division of Taxation immediately; iv. Each progress report shall indicate the status or work progress which shall serve as a basis for proportional payments by the municipality. In no event shall more than 90 percent of the total contract price be billed until full completion and performance of the contract, except any requirements for defense of tax appeals. Furthermore, if the character or progress of the work is not satisfactory to the county board of taxation after two consecutive months, the county board shall also notify the Director of the Division of Taxation in writing of such lack of satisfactory progress as soon as possible; and v. Any change in personnel shall be submitted in writing to the municipal tax assessor and county board of taxation.

154

11. A provision committing the firm to conduct and/or assist the municipality in a program of taxpayer orientation and education regarding the revaluation program including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: i. Press releases describing the purpose and nature of the revaluation program; ii. Meetings with public groups in the community; and iii. Mailings approved by the municipal tax assessor, at the firm's expense to all property owners explaining the nature and purpose of the revaluation and setting forth a proposed date for the commencement of inspections in the municipality. 12. The firm shall provide its representatives with photographic identification cards. 13. Following the formulation of land valuations, a land value map shall be prepared for the municipal tax assessor for his or her review which will indicate all unit values and underlying data used to derive unit values. 14. The firm shall create a neighborhood map prepared for the municipal tax assessor that will indicate all neighborhoods and/or value control sectors in the municipality; 15. It is recommended that the municipality obtain a Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal package for purposes of revaluation maintenance; 16. The firm shall provide all office space, furniture, equipment, machines, and other items required in connection with this project unless otherwise provided by contract. 17. The firm shall assist by providing expert witnesses in the defense of all valuations rendered to the municipality which are appealed to the county tax board. The firm's obligation with respect to this requirement is limited to the initial appeal of an assessment filed during the year in which the revaluation is implemented or the following tax year. Such assistance shall include a qualified expert from the firm who is knowledgeable with regard to challenged assessments. In the event the municipality elects to utilize the defense services of the firm for appeals beyond the county board of taxation level and which are filed during the year in which the revaluation is implemented or the following tax year, an hourly rate for such services shall be set forth by the firm. Said hourly rate shall apply to services rendered by the firm in connection with preparation, reinspections, consultations and actual appearances at appeal proceedings.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:25 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: Informal Hearings Can our Reval notification letters be mailed before Nov 1 if the Town is OK with it??


NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY

155

This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is proh bited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.

156

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:39 PMTo: 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: RE: Informal Hearings

Regulation outside of the Demonstration Program says no – see below. “A commencement date and a completion date, the latter not later than November 1. Assessment notices shall not be sent prior to November 10. Taxpayer's reviews shall be completed not later than December 10; So, you regularly and knowingly violate the regulation by not completing them on time. No one gets pissed when you are late because it doesn’t impact “elections”. While the town might “give you the nod” I do not see that they have the authority to disregard regulation. As such, being that the process rests with the firm (NJAC 18:12‐4.9), a letter from the town requesting early mailings would not provide much shielding from the County Tax Board or the Division. M‐ New Jersey Administrative Code Currentness Title 18. Department of Treasury--Taxation Chapter 12. Local Property Tax: General (Refs & Annos)

Subchapter 4. Revaluation of Real Property by Appraisal Firms 18:12-4.8 Standards for revaluation

(a) Any firm engaged in the revaluation of all of the real property in a municipality shall comply with the standards and conditions set forth in this subchapter. The revaluation firm acts as the agent of the municipal tax assessor and all determinations made by the firm shall be submitted to, and approved by, the municipal tax assessor. 1. Real property shall be valued in accordance with N.J.S.A. 54:4-1 et seq. 2. With regard to real property being constructed or altered, the firm shall determine the percentage of completion and the appraised value of said property as of October 1 of the pretax year. 3. A separate list of exempt properties shall be provided indicating the values of said properties as if taxable. 4. Land qualified under the Farmland Assessment Act of 1964, N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.1 et seq., shall be valued in accordance with its qualified farmland value and its highest best use value. 5. In determining taxable values of all real property, the firm shall employ the three approaches to value where applicable. The capitalization procedure shall be included with the property record card and reconciled with the other approaches to value. 6. To facilitate the use of the approaches to value, the most recent edition of the Real Property Appraisal Manual for New Jersey Assessors shall be used. The use of any other appraisal manual as a basis for valuing real property shall require approval by the Director. 7. The firm shall include real property identification material on properly labeled individual property record cards similar in form and content to those illustrated in the Real Property Appraisal Manual. Distinct property record cards for each of the four classifications of real property shall be provided.

157

8. The real property identification material to be entered on property record cards shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: i. A scaled sketch of the exterior building dimensions; ii. Notations of significant building components as ascertained from both an interior and exterior inspection; iii. Entries on the property record cards respecting the values of each lot and building including such items as age, construction, condition, depreciation, obsolescence, additions and deductions, appraised value, recent sales prices, rental data and other pertinent information pertaining to the valuation of the property; iv. Where more than one property card is required in the description of a property, all cards shall be assembled in a standard file folder and property labeled; v. Each property record card shall identify the individual making the inspection and set forth the date when the interior inspection was made; and vi. Digital photograph(s) of each individual property in the municipality. 9. The inspection of each property shall be performed in the following manner: i. No less than three attempts shall be made to gain entry to each property; ii. If successful entry has not been made after the first attempt, a card shall be left at the property indicating a date when a second attempt to gain entry will be made; iii. The card shall include a phone number and address to permit the property owner to contact the firm to make other arrangements, if necessary; iv. If entry is not possible upon the second visit, written notice shall be left advising that an assessment will be estimated unless a mutually convenient arrangement is made for a third visit to gain access to the property; v. The firm shall schedule inspections during reasonable hours which shall include evenings and Saturdays; and vi. The municipal tax assessor shall be notified in writing of each failure to gain entry to a property and a list of all non-entries and reasons for same shall be provided to the municipal tax assessor prior to the mailing of values. 10. Every contract shall include the following items representing progress and control of operations: i. A commencement date and a completion date, the latter not later than November 1. Assessment notices shall not be sent prior to November 10. Taxpayer's reviews shall be completed not later than December 10; ii. A requirement providing for the submission to the municipal tax assessor of a work schedule or plan of operations; iii. The firm shall provide written monthly progress reports to the municipal tax assessor for his review. The municipal tax assessor shall forward the reports to the county board of taxation. If the county board of taxation does not receive the required monthly progress report, it must notify in writing the Director of the Division of Taxation immediately; iv. Each progress report shall indicate the status or work progress which shall serve as a basis for proportional payments by the municipality. In no event shall more than 90 percent of the total contract price be billed until full completion and performance of the contract, except any requirements for defense of tax appeals. Furthermore, if the character or progress of the work is not satisfactory to the county board of taxation after two consecutive months, the county board shall also notify the Director of the Division of Taxation in writing of such lack of satisfactory progress as soon as possible; and v. Any change in personnel shall be submitted in writing to the municipal tax assessor and county board of taxation.

158

11. A provision committing the firm to conduct and/or assist the municipality in a program of taxpayer orientation and education regarding the revaluation program including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: i. Press releases describing the purpose and nature of the revaluation program; ii. Meetings with public groups in the community; and iii. Mailings approved by the municipal tax assessor, at the firm's expense to all property owners explaining the nature and purpose of the revaluation and setting forth a proposed date for the commencement of inspections in the municipality. 12. The firm shall provide its representatives with photographic identification cards. 13. Following the formulation of land valuations, a land value map shall be prepared for the municipal tax assessor for his or her review which will indicate all unit values and underlying data used to derive unit values. 14. The firm shall create a neighborhood map prepared for the municipal tax assessor that will indicate all neighborhoods and/or value control sectors in the municipality; 15. It is recommended that the municipality obtain a Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal package for purposes of revaluation maintenance; 16. The firm shall provide all office space, furniture, equipment, machines, and other items required in connection with this project unless otherwise provided by contract. 17. The firm shall assist by providing expert witnesses in the defense of all valuations rendered to the municipality which are appealed to the county tax board. The firm's obligation with respect to this requirement is limited to the initial appeal of an assessment filed during the year in which the revaluation is implemented or the following tax year. Such assistance shall include a qualified expert from the firm who is knowledgeable with regard to challenged assessments. In the event the municipality elects to utilize the defense services of the firm for appeals beyond the county board of taxation level and which are filed during the year in which the revaluation is implemented or the following tax year, an hourly rate for such services shall be set forth by the firm. Said hourly rate shall apply to services rendered by the firm in connection with preparation, reinspections, consultations and actual appearances at appeal proceedings.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:25 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: Informal Hearings Can our Reval notification letters be mailed before Nov 1 if the Town is OK with it??


159

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:14 AMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: Bradley Beach Tax Map Update for 2015 revaluation

From: edward mullane [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:58 AM To: Clark, Matt Cc: Neil Rubenstein Subject: Bradley Beach Tax Map Update for 2015 revaluation Mr. Clark, Please accept this e-mail as an official update of the Bradley Beach Tax Map/Revaluation situation: 12-15-13 - Revaluation contract signed by Borough and sent to Division. Sitting on Director's Desk. 1-15-14 - The Borough appointed ARH Engineering/Civil Solutions the tax map project. 2-15-14 - The Borough sent all tax maps to the Division of Taxation. 4-10-14 - The map was reviewed/returned by the Division. 5-12-14 - The correction list was completed for final submission. 5-14-14 - Final edits being completed. Awaiting full approval. Respectfully Submitted, Ed Mullane: Assessor From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:59 AM To: Ed Mullane ; [email protected] Subject: Revauation and Tax Map Approval Dear Monmouth County Assessor: As part of the agreed upon implementation schedule of the Assessment Demonstration Program, P.L. 2013, c. 15, the following Monmouth County municipalities are scheduled for revaluation completion November 1, 2015 for the tax year 2016. · Eatontown · Ocean Twp · Lake Como Currently, I have no evidence that the above towns have gone out to bid for revaluation services and more importantly, I have no evidence that the town has begun the process of Tax Map approval with the NJ Division of Taxation. Tax Map approval has become time consuming. There is legislation pending, A-3188, that would require the submission of digital

160

tax maps and New Jersey Administrative Code, NJAC 18:23A-1.1 et seq., pending revisions require significant changes to maps. Point being, you cannot wait until 2015 to begin the process and expect for Map approval, contract approval, public notice, inspection, valuation and finalization to be completed by November 1, 2015. Based on the above I am asking that each municipality begin the Tax Map review process immediately. At the very least this means the submission of the current maps for initial review and BLQ validation with current MODIV. As part of the countywide implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program it is not acceptable to delay the scheduled revaluation date due to Tax Map approval. Please contact me if for any reason you cannot comply with this request. Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator


161

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:14 AMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: Lake Como Tax Map Update

From: edward mullane [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:49 AM To: Clark, Matt Cc: Edward Mullane Subject: Lake Como Tax Map Update Mr. Clark, Please accept this e-mail as an official update of the Lake Como Tax Map situation: 1-15-14 - The Borough decided against requesting RFP's for tax map corrections and appointed the Borough Engineer the project. 2-15-14 - Lake Como sent all tax map changes to Cme Engineering for a complete update for revaluation submission. 4-1-14 - The map was sent to the Division of Taxation. 5-1-14 - The map was reviewed/returned by the Division. The correction list is being completed for final submission. Respectfully Submitted, Ed Mullane: Assessor From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:59 AM To: Ed Mullane ; [email protected] Subject: Revauation and Tax Map Approval Dear Monmouth County Assessor: As part of the agreed upon implementation schedule of the Assessment Demonstration Program, P.L. 2013, c. 15, the following Monmouth County municipalities are scheduled for revaluation completion November 1, 2015 for the tax year 2016. · Eatontown · Ocean Twp · Lake Como Currently, I have no evidence that the above towns have gone out to bid for revaluation services and more importantly, I have no evidence that the town has begun the process of Tax Map approval with the NJ Division of Taxation. Tax Map

162

approval has become time consuming. There is legislation pending, A-3188, that would require the submission of digital tax maps and New Jersey Administrative Code, NJAC 18:23A-1.1 et seq., pending revisions require significant changes to maps. Point being, you cannot wait until 2015 to begin the process and expect for Map approval, contract approval, public notice, inspection, valuation and finalization to be completed by November 1, 2015. Based on the above I am asking that each municipality begin the Tax Map review process immediately. At the very least this means the submission of the current maps for initial review and BLQ validation with current MODIV. As part of the countywide implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program it is not acceptable to delay the scheduled revaluation date due to Tax Map approval. Please contact me if for any reason you cannot comply with this request. Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator


163

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:14 AMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: Ocean Tax Map Update: Revaluation and Tax Map Approval

From: Ed Mullane [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:31 AM To: Clark, Matt Subject: Ocean Tax Map Update: Revaluation and Tax Map Approval Mr. Clark, Please accept this e-mail as an official update of the Ocean Township Tax Map situation: 1-15-14 - Ocean Township sent all tax map changes to ARH Engineering/Civil Solutions for a complete update for revaluation submission. The maps should be back for a proof reading in the next 3 weeks. The map will then be sent to the Division of Taxation. Respectfully Submitted, Ed Mullane: Assessor

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:59 AM To: Ed Mullane; [email protected] Subject: Revauation and Tax Map Approval Dear Monmouth County Assessor: As part of the agreed upon implementation schedule of the Assessment Demonstration Program, P.L. 2013, c. 15, the following Monmouth County municipalities are scheduled for revaluation completion November 1, 2015 for the tax year 2016.

Eatontown

Ocean Twp

Lake Como Currently, I have no evidence that the above towns have gone out to bid for revaluation services and more importantly, I have no evidence that the town has begun the process of Tax Map approval with the NJ Division of Taxation. Tax Map approval has become time consuming. There is legislation pending, A‐3188, that would require the submission of digital tax maps and New Jersey Administrative Code, NJAC 18:23A‐1.1 et seq., pending revisions require significant changes to maps. Point being, you cannot wait until 2015 to begin the process and expect for Map approval, contract approval, public notice, inspection, valuation and finalization to be completed by November 1, 2015. Based on the above I am asking that each municipality begin the Tax Map review process immediately. At the very least this means the submission of the current maps for initial review and BLQ validation with current MODIV. As part of the countywide implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program it is not acceptable to delay the scheduled revaluation date due to Tax Map approval. Please contact me if for any reason you cannot comply with this request. Matthew Clark

164

Monmouth County Tax Administrator



165

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:12 AMTo: 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: FW: Lake Como Tax Map Update

From: edward mullane [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:49 AM To: Clark, Matt Cc: Edward Mullane Subject: Lake Como Tax Map Update Mr. Clark, Please accept this e-mail as an official update of the Lake Como Tax Map situation: 1-15-14 - The Borough decided against requesting RFP's for tax map corrections and appointed the Borough Engineer the project. 2-15-14 - Lake Como sent all tax map changes to Cme Engineering for a complete update for revaluation submission. 4-1-14 - The map was sent to the Division of Taxation. 5-1-14 - The map was reviewed/returned by the Division. The correction list is being completed for final submission. Respectfully Submitted, Ed Mullane: Assessor From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:59 AM To: Ed Mullane ; [email protected] Subject: Revauation and Tax Map Approval Dear Monmouth County Assessor: As part of the agreed upon implementation schedule of the Assessment Demonstration Program, P.L. 2013, c. 15, the following Monmouth County municipalities are scheduled for revaluation completion November 1, 2015 for the tax year 2016. · Eatontown · Ocean Twp · Lake Como Currently, I have no evidence that the above towns have gone out to bid for revaluation services and more importantly, I have no evidence that the town has begun the process of Tax Map approval with the NJ Division of Taxation. Tax Map

166

approval has become time consuming. There is legislation pending, A-3188, that would require the submission of digital tax maps and New Jersey Administrative Code, NJAC 18:23A-1.1 et seq., pending revisions require significant changes to maps. Point being, you cannot wait until 2015 to begin the process and expect for Map approval, contract approval, public notice, inspection, valuation and finalization to be completed by November 1, 2015. Based on the above I am asking that each municipality begin the Tax Map review process immediately. At the very least this means the submission of the current maps for initial review and BLQ validation with current MODIV. As part of the countywide implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program it is not acceptable to delay the scheduled revaluation date due to Tax Map approval. Please contact me if for any reason you cannot comply with this request. Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator

167

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:12 AMTo: 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: FW: Bradley Beach Tax Map Update for 2015 revaluation

From: edward mullane [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:58 AM To: Clark, Matt Cc: Neil Rubenstein Subject: Bradley Beach Tax Map Update for 2015 revaluation Mr. Clark, Please accept this e-mail as an official update of the Bradley Beach Tax Map/Revaluation situation: 12-15-13 - Revaluation contract signed by Borough and sent to Division. Sitting on Director's Desk. 1-15-14 - The Borough appointed ARH Engineering/Civil Solutions the tax map project. 2-15-14 - The Borough sent all tax maps to the Division of Taxation. 4-10-14 - The map was reviewed/returned by the Division. 5-12-14 - The correction list was completed for final submission. 5-14-14 - Final edits being completed. Awaiting full approval. Respectfully Submitted, Ed Mullane: Assessor From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:59 AM To: Ed Mullane ; [email protected] Subject: Revauation and Tax Map Approval Dear Monmouth County Assessor: As part of the agreed upon implementation schedule of the Assessment Demonstration Program, P.L. 2013, c. 15, the following Monmouth County municipalities are scheduled for revaluation completion November 1, 2015 for the tax year 2016. · Eatontown · Ocean Twp · Lake Como Currently, I have no evidence that the above towns have gone out to bid for revaluation services and more importantly, I have no evidence that the town has begun the process of Tax Map approval with the NJ Division of Taxation. Tax Map approval has become time consuming. There is legislation pending, A-3188, that would require the submission of digital

168

tax maps and New Jersey Administrative Code, NJAC 18:23A-1.1 et seq., pending revisions require significant changes to maps. Point being, you cannot wait until 2015 to begin the process and expect for Map approval, contract approval, public notice, inspection, valuation and finalization to be completed by November 1, 2015. Based on the above I am asking that each municipality begin the Tax Map review process immediately. At the very least this means the submission of the current maps for initial review and BLQ validation with current MODIV. As part of the countywide implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program it is not acceptable to delay the scheduled revaluation date due to Tax Map approval. Please contact me if for any reason you cannot comply with this request. Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator

169

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:12 AMTo: 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: FW: Ocean Tax Map Update: Revaluation and Tax Map Approval

From: Ed Mullane [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:31 AM To: Clark, Matt Subject: Ocean Tax Map Update: Revaluation and Tax Map Approval Mr. Clark, Please accept this e-mail as an official update of the Ocean Township Tax Map situation: 1-15-14 - Ocean Township sent all tax map changes to ARH Engineering/Civil Solutions for a complete update for revaluation submission. The maps should be back for a proof reading in the next 3 weeks. The map will then be sent to the Division of Taxation. Respectfully Submitted, Ed Mullane: Assessor

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:59 AM To: Ed Mullane; [email protected] Subject: Revauation and Tax Map Approval Dear Monmouth County Assessor: As part of the agreed upon implementation schedule of the Assessment Demonstration Program, P.L. 2013, c. 15, the following Monmouth County municipalities are scheduled for revaluation completion November 1, 2015 for the tax year 2016.

Eatontown

Ocean Twp

Lake Como Currently, I have no evidence that the above towns have gone out to bid for revaluation services and more importantly, I have no evidence that the town has begun the process of Tax Map approval with the NJ Division of Taxation. Tax Map approval has become time consuming. There is legislation pending, A‐3188, that would require the submission of digital tax maps and New Jersey Administrative Code, NJAC 18:23A‐1.1 et seq., pending revisions require significant changes to maps. Point being, you cannot wait until 2015 to begin the process and expect for Map approval, contract approval, public notice, inspection, valuation and finalization to be completed by November 1, 2015. Based on the above I am asking that each municipality begin the Tax Map review process immediately. At the very least this means the submission of the current maps for initial review and BLQ validation with current MODIV. As part of the countywide implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program it is not acceptable to delay the scheduled revaluation date due to Tax Map approval. Please contact me if for any reason you cannot comply with this request. Matthew Clark

170

Monmouth County Tax Administrator


171

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:25 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: RE: ADP Overview

He’s the owner of Appraisal Systems. He will be fine.. Hope Wednesday goes well!


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:22 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: ADP Overview Hope he has enough grease to become the county Assessor

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:18 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: RE: ADP Overview If I had to bet, Rick isn’t pushing too hard.. I’m sure he’s happy with the status quo..


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:08 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: ADP Overview I don’t understand the support requested from town. If they are receiving all of the inspections what remains? For those that had “inspection line items” simply spend it on “mass assessment valuation consulting” until they get a handle on it.

172

Of more concern is “what will the Tax Board do to assist them”. Technology and education are the keys to transforming the current assessor into a “ADP Assessor”. If needed, the CTB could buy a “block of time” from revaluation firms to provide initial assistance.

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 2:14 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: FW: ADP Overview Comment from Rick Del Guercio after the Tri‐County meeting..


From: rdel234 [mailto:rdel234 ] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 2:01 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: Re: ADP Overview The big concern (especially from Passaic Assessors) is the support they would get from their town. Most agree that doing the rolling reassessment without this support would be a huge burden. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 21, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]> wrote:

Rick, How did the meeting go? Neil


From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:45 PM To: 'rdel234 ' Subject: FW: ADP Overview

173


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:38 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: ADP Overview To maximize taxpayer savings, it is expected that the Assessor, with the support of education, technology and the Tax Board, will perform all valuation in the future. With that said, from a practical standpoint it is expected that many will need the assistance of an annual valuation consultancy for assistance in the annual reassessment. So the hybrid of the future will be:

The Monmouth County Assessment Demonstration Program,

5‐year annual 20% internal inspections being performed by outside entity, and

valuation consultancy as needed.

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distr bution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is proh bited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.



174

Clark, Matt








175








176









177

Clark, Matt








178








179









180

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:22 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: ADP Overview

Hope he has enough grease to become the county Assessor



From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:08 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: ADP Overview I don’t understand the support requested from town. If they are receiving all of the inspections what remains? For those that had “inspection line items” simply spend it on “mass assessment valuation consulting” until they get a handle on it. Of more concern is “what will the Tax Board do to assist them”. Technology and education are the keys to transforming the current assessor into a “ADP Assessor”. If needed, the CTB could buy a “block of time” from revaluation firms to provide initial assistance.


Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue Suite 4 West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203

181

www.realtyappraisal.net






From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:38 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: ADP Overview To maximize taxpayer savings, it is expected that the Assessor, with the support of education, technology and the Tax Board, will perform all valuation in the future. With that said, from a practical standpoint it is expected that many will need the assistance of an annual valuation consultancy for assistance in the annual reassessment.

182

So the hybrid of the future will be:







183

Clark, Matt


If I had to bet, Rick isn’t pushing too hard.. I’m sure he’s happy with the status quo..





From: rdel234 [mailto:rdel234 ] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 2:01 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: Re: ADP Overview

184

The big concern (especially from Passaic Assessors) is the support they would get from their town. Most agree that doing the rolling reassessment without this support would be a huge burden. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 21, 2014, at 1:55 PM, Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]> wrote:









185



186

Clark, Matt








187










188



189

Clark, Matt








190










191



192

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:20 PMTo: 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: RE: ADP Overview

Hope he has enough grease to become the county Assessor





Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue Suite 4 West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203

193

www.realtyappraisal.net






From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:38 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: ADP Overview To maximize taxpayer savings, it is expected that the Assessor, with the support of education, technology and the Tax Board, will perform all valuation in the future. With that said, from a practical standpoint it is expected that many will need the assistance of an annual valuation consultancy for assistance in the annual reassessment.

194

So the hybrid of the future will be:






195

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:08 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: ADP Overview

I don’t understand the support requested from town. If they are receiving all of the inspections what remains? For those that had “inspection line items” simply spend it on “mass assessment valuation consulting” until they get a handle on it. Of more concern is “what will the Tax Board do to assist them”. Technology and education are the keys to transforming the current assessor into a “ADP Assessor”. If needed, the CTB could buy a “block of time” from revaluation firms to provide initial assistance.





Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue Suite 4

196

West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net









197

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Monday, April 21, 2014 4:06 PMTo: 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: RE: ADP Overview

I don’t understand the support requested from town. If they are receiving all of the inspections what remains? For those that had “inspection line items” simply spend it on “mass assessment valuation consulting” until they get a handle on it. Of more concern is “what will the Tax Board do to assist them”. Technology and education are the keys to transforming the current assessor into a “ADP Assessor”. If needed, the CTB could buy a “block of time” from revaluation firms to provide initial assistance.





Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue Suite 4

198

West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net








199

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 2:14 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: FW: ADP Overview

Comment from Rick Del Guercio after the Tri‐County meeting..






200







201

Clark, Matt








202







203

Clark, Matt








204







205

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:38 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: ADP OverviewAttachments: PL 2013 Chapter 15 PP Implementation 4-3-14 Passaic.pdf

To maximize taxpayer savings, it is expected that the Assessor, with the support of education, technology and the Tax Board, will perform all valuation in the future. With that said, from a practical standpoint it is expected that many will need the assistance of an annual valuation consultancy for assistance in the annual reassessment. So the hybrid of the future will be:





206

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:36 PMTo: 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: ADP OverviewAttachments: PL 2013 Chapter 15 PP Implementation 4-3-14 Passaic.pdf

To maximize taxpayer savings, it is expected that the Assessor, with the support of education, technology and the Tax Board, will perform all valuation in the future. With that said, from a practical standpoint it is expected that many will need the assistance of an annual valuation consultancy for assistance in the annual reassessment. So the hybrid of the future will be:




207

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:39 AMTo: Clark, MattCc: JohnButowSubject: Re: Coast Star Sea Girt reval

To be honest he should have let me do all of the talking... Sent from my iPhone On Mar 21, 2014, at 9:17 AM, "Clark, Matt" <[email protected]> wrote:

Might be the worst article ever.

“If, I guess, you live in Buckingham Palace,” Mr. Haney said, “it’s absolutely your right [to not let the inspector inside], but it is also my job. Courts said in maintaining that right, you give up that right, too.”

From: JohnButow [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 8:51 AM To: Clark, Matt; Neil Rubenstein Subject: Coast Star Sea Girt reval

Tax assessor, firm get residents ready for revaluation pilot program

<image001.gif><image002.gif>

Discusses process with residents as part of workshop meeting

By Caren Caterina SEA GIRT — Ready or not, here it comes. The property revaluation pilot program is heading this way, leaving waves of questions in the wake of borough residents. The goal of the revaluation program, essentially, is to adjust all property assessments to fair market value. To help address concerns regarding this new program, the borough organized a workshop last Wednesday night, held prior to the regular council meeting. Advertisement <image003.jpg> ABOUT THE PROGRAM

Sea Girt is just one of the many municipalities in Monmouth County which will be forced to undergo a mandated program called the Monmouth County Assessment Demonstration Program. The pilot program of the Monmouth County Tax Board is advancing the county’s tax process by having local tax assessors complete property reassessments on individual properties every five years. Part of the new law is that 20 percent of homes have to be inspected every year. An inspection must be done in both the inside and the outside of homes.

208

Additionally, boroughs who were mandated to participate in this program had to look into bids for firms who do this type of work. Sea Girt previously approved its lowest bidder, Realty Appraisal Company, of West New York, in the amount of $110,000. This is the cost for the complete revaluation of all real property in the borough as of Oct. 1, 2014, to be effective for the 2015 tax year. ADDRESSING CONCERNS Borough tax assessor Bernard Haney and Neil Rubenstein, of Realty Appraisal, conducted the workshop last Wednesday night. “Many towns were ordered to do a revaluation,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “Sea Girt is not alone.” One of the biggest concerns residents had was regarding the inspection. According to Mr. Haney, the inspections should take about five minutes long. “[Inspectors] have a whole list of things they check off,” Mr. Haney said. In addition to physically checking the outside of a property, they also need to check the inside. One of the main questions asked is whether the homeowner has to let the inspector into their home. “The answer is no, but there is a caveat,” Mr. Haney said. The inspector, therefore, will have to make an educated guess. “If, I guess, you live in Buckingham Palace,” Mr. Haney said, “it’s absolutely your right [to not let the inspector inside], but it is also my job. Courts said in maintaining that right, you give up that right, too.” If no one is home when an inspector shows up, there will be a telephone number left for homeowners to call for an inspection appointment, Mr. Haney said. The inspectors will keep track of all the homes that were not inspected. They also understand that some homeowners are “snowbirds” and may not be home at that time. Mr. Rubenstein said the goal simply is to appraise every property at “fair market value.” “There is no crystal ball,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “No two homes will be the same. “We are not ramming this down anyone’s throat,” Mr. Rubenstein continued. “When we do these inspections, if it is not a convenient time, we don’t take this as a refusal.” Mr. Rubenstein said letting the inspector in will help to provide a fair and accurate appraisal on the property. “There is no requirement to let us in,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “If you don’t let us in, it just defers an accurate appraisal.” Following inspections, Mr. Rubenstein said residents will be mailed a letter regarding individual appraisals, and how homeowners can discuss the appraisal with them. “All we are doing is leveling the playing field.” Mr. Rubenstein said. Mr. Haney said if homeowners are not home at the time of an inside inspection, inspectors will do the outside work only. In May, they will send a notice to residents who were not home for inside inspections. Those residents will be asked to schedule an appointment, which may include nights and weekends, he said. Inspectors will look at the overall condition of the house. Councilman Michael Mulroy, who stated that he works in real estate industry, said the program will be a challenge for inspectors. “You aren’t walking into Wall where every home is a cookie-cutter,” Councilman Mulroy said. Mayor Ken Farrell said there are homes in Sea Girt that are 100 years old, as well as newer homes. Mr. Rubenstein said part of the challenge is the fact that this process is “subjective.” “We drive up and down and look at every property,” he said. “The final step is appraising the property.” Mr. Rubenstein said data will be collected and marked down on a form. Mr. Rubenstein said they will also ask homeowners, as inspections are done, about their home.

209

“They are trained to physically collect that data with your help,” he said. “Most people tell us the truth,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “Let’s not over-complicate it,” Mr. Haney added. Rooms that are in their original condition, for example, are considered “normal.” Recent upgrades, such as a jacuzzi tub in the bathroom, is considered “modern,” Mr. Haney said. Though these factors can affect the appraisal of a home, Mr. Haney said it is not something residents “need to fret about.” Mr. Haney said residents would not see any new numbers on their new tax bill until Aug. 1, 2015. “It is more than a year away before this will impact you,” he said. Councilman Paul Cerami also asked how the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s [FEMA] new flood zone maps might have an effect on this. “It would be next year before we know what that does,” Mr. Haney said. “The most important part is making sure the information we have is correct.” Mr. Haney said he has further information if anyone would like more. Mr. Haney can be reached by contacting Sea Girt Borough Hall at 732-449-9433, ext. 119, or by emailing him at [email protected]. John E. Butow, CTA, SCRREA Assessor City of Long Branch 344 Broadway Long Branch, NJ 07740 732‐571‐5658 Fax 732‐222‐1516


210

Clark, Matt











211


212



213

Clark, Matt











214


215



216

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:17 AMTo: JohnButow; Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Coast Star Sea Girt reval






By Caren Caterina SEA GIRT — Ready or not, here it comes. The property revaluation pilot program is heading this way, leaving waves of questions in the wake of borough residents. The goal of the revaluation program, essentially, is to adjust all property assessments to fair market value. To help address concerns regarding this new program, the borough organized a workshop last Wednesday night, held prior to the regular council meeting. Advertisement

ABOUT THE PROGRAM

Sea Girt is just one of the many municipalities in Monmouth County which will be forced to undergo a mandated program called the Monmouth County Assessment Demonstration Program. The pilot program of the Monmouth County Tax Board is advancing the county’s tax process by having local tax assessors complete property reassessments on individual properties every five years. Part of the new law is that 20 percent of homes have to be inspected every year. An inspection must be done in both the inside and the outside of homes. Additionally, boroughs who were mandated to participate in this program had to look into bids for firms who do this type of work. Sea Girt previously approved its lowest bidder, Realty Appraisal Company, of West New York, in the amount of $110,000. This is the cost for the complete revaluation of all real property in the borough as of Oct. 1, 2014, to be effective for the 2015 tax year.

217

ADDRESSING CONCERNS Borough tax assessor Bernard Haney and Neil Rubenstein, of Realty Appraisal, conducted the workshop last Wednesday night. “Many towns were ordered to do a revaluation,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “Sea Girt is not alone.” One of the biggest concerns residents had was regarding the inspection. According to Mr. Haney, the inspections should take about five minutes long. “[Inspectors] have a whole list of things they check off,” Mr. Haney said. In addition to physically checking the outside of a property, they also need to check the inside. One of the main questions asked is whether the homeowner has to let the inspector into their home. “The answer is no, but there is a caveat,” Mr. Haney said. The inspector, therefore, will have to make an educated guess. “If, I guess, you live in Buckingham Palace,” Mr. Haney said, “it’s absolutely your right [to not let the inspector inside], but it is also my job. Courts said in maintaining that right, you give up that right, too.” If no one is home when an inspector shows up, there will be a telephone number left for homeowners to call for an inspection appointment, Mr. Haney said. The inspectors will keep track of all the homes that were not inspected. They also understand that some homeowners are “snowbirds” and may not be home at that time. Mr. Rubenstein said the goal simply is to appraise every property at “fair market value.” “There is no crystal ball,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “No two homes will be the same. “We are not ramming this down anyone’s throat,” Mr. Rubenstein continued. “When we do these inspections, if it is not a convenient time, we don’t take this as a refusal.” Mr. Rubenstein said letting the inspector in will help to provide a fair and accurate appraisal on the property. “There is no requirement to let us in,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “If you don’t let us in, it just defers an accurate appraisal.” Following inspections, Mr. Rubenstein said residents will be mailed a letter regarding individual appraisals, and how homeowners can discuss the appraisal with them. “All we are doing is leveling the playing field.” Mr. Rubenstein said. Mr. Haney said if homeowners are not home at the time of an inside inspection, inspectors will do the outside work only. In May, they will send a notice to residents who were not home for inside inspections. Those residents will be asked to schedule an appointment, which may include nights and weekends, he said. Inspectors will look at the overall condition of the house. Councilman Michael Mulroy, who stated that he works in real estate industry, said the program will be a challenge for inspectors. “You aren’t walking into Wall where every home is a cookie-cutter,” Councilman Mulroy said. Mayor Ken Farrell said there are homes in Sea Girt that are 100 years old, as well as newer homes. Mr. Rubenstein said part of the challenge is the fact that this process is “subjective.” “We drive up and down and look at every property,” he said. “The final step is appraising the property.” Mr. Rubenstein said data will be collected and marked down on a form. Mr. Rubenstein said they will also ask homeowners, as inspections are done, about their home. “They are trained to physically collect that data with your help,” he said. “Most people tell us the truth,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “Let’s not over-complicate it,” Mr. Haney added. Rooms that are in their original condition, for example, are considered “normal.” Recent upgrades, such as a jacuzzi tub in the bathroom, is considered “modern,” Mr. Haney said. Though these factors can affect the appraisal of a home, Mr. Haney said it is not something residents “need to fret about.” Mr. Haney said residents would not see any new numbers on their new tax bill until Aug. 1, 2015. “It is more than a year away before this will impact you,” he said. Councilman Paul Cerami also asked how the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s [FEMA] new flood zone maps might have an effect on this.

218

“It would be next year before we know what that does,” Mr. Haney said. “The most important part is making sure the information we have is correct.” Mr. Haney said he has further information if anyone would like more. Mr. Haney can be reached by contacting Sea Girt Borough Hall at 732-449-9433, ext. 119, or by emailing him at [email protected]. John E. Butow, CTA, SCRREA Assessor City of Long Branch 344 Broadway Long Branch, NJ 07740 732‐571‐5658 Fax 732‐222‐1516


219

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:15 AMTo: 'JohnButow'; Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Coast Star Sea Girt reval






By Caren Caterina

SEA GIRT — Ready or not, here it comes.

The property revaluation pilot program is heading this way, leaving waves of questions in the wake of borough residents.

The goal of the revaluation program, essentially, is to adjust all property assessments to fair market value.

To help address concerns regarding this new program, the borough organized a workshop last Wednesday night, held prior to the regular council meeting.

Advertisement

ABOUT THE PROGRAM

220

Sea Girt is just one of the many municipalities in Monmouth County which will be forced to undergo a mandated program called the Monmouth County Assessment Demonstration Program.

The pilot program of the Monmouth County Tax Board is advancing the county’s tax process by having local tax assessors complete property reassessments on individual properties every five years.

Part of the new law is that 20 percent of homes have to be inspected every year. An inspection must be done in both the inside and the outside of homes.

Additionally, boroughs who were mandated to participate in this program had to look into bids for firms who do this type of work.

Sea Girt previously approved its lowest bidder, Realty Appraisal Company, of West New York, in the amount of $110,000. This is the cost for the complete revaluation of all real property in the borough as of Oct. 1, 2014, to be effective for the 2015 tax year.

ADDRESSING CONCERNS

Borough tax assessor Bernard Haney and Neil Rubenstein, of Realty Appraisal, conducted the workshop last Wednesday night.

“Many towns were ordered to do a revaluation,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “Sea Girt is not alone.”

One of the biggest concerns residents had was regarding the inspection.

According to Mr. Haney, the inspections should take about five minutes long.

“[Inspectors] have a whole list of things they check off,” Mr. Haney said.

In addition to physically checking the outside of a property, they also need to check the inside.

One of the main questions asked is whether the homeowner has to let the inspector into their home.

“The answer is no, but there is a caveat,” Mr. Haney said.

The inspector, therefore, will have to make an educated guess.


If no one is home when an inspector shows up, there will be a telephone number left for homeowners to call for an inspection appointment, Mr. Haney said.

The inspectors will keep track of all the homes that were not inspected. They also understand that some homeowners are “snowbirds” and may not be home at that time.

Mr. Rubenstein said the goal simply is to appraise every property at “fair market value.”

“There is no crystal ball,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “No two homes will be the same.

221

“We are not ramming this down anyone’s throat,” Mr. Rubenstein continued. “When we do these inspections, if it is not a convenient time, we don’t take this as a refusal.”

Mr. Rubenstein said letting the inspector in will help to provide a fair and accurate appraisal on the property.

“There is no requirement to let us in,” Mr. Rubenstein said. “If you don’t let us in, it just defers an accurate appraisal.”

Following inspections, Mr. Rubenstein said residents will be mailed a letter regarding individual appraisals, and how homeowners can discuss the appraisal with them.

“All we are doing is leveling the playing field.” Mr. Rubenstein said.

Mr. Haney said if homeowners are not home at the time of an inside inspection, inspectors will do the outside work only.

In May, they will send a notice to residents who were not home for inside inspections. Those residents will be asked to schedule an appointment, which may include nights and weekends, he said.

Inspectors will look at the overall condition of the house.

Councilman Michael Mulroy, who stated that he works in real estate industry, said the program will be a challenge for inspectors.

“You aren’t walking into Wall where every home is a cookie-cutter,” Councilman Mulroy said.

Mayor Ken Farrell said there are homes in Sea Girt that are 100 years old, as well as newer homes.

Mr. Rubenstein said part of the challenge is the fact that this process is “subjective.”

“We drive up and down and look at every property,” he said. “The final step is appraising the property.”

Mr. Rubenstein said data will be collected and marked down on a form.

Mr. Rubenstein said they will also ask homeowners, as inspections are done, about their home.

“They are trained to physically collect that data with your help,” he said.

“Most people tell us the truth,” Mr. Rubenstein said.

“Let’s not over-complicate it,” Mr. Haney added. Rooms that are in their original condition, for example, are considered “normal.” Recent upgrades, such as a jacuzzi tub in the bathroom, is considered “modern,” Mr. Haney said.

Though these factors can affect the appraisal of a home, Mr. Haney said it is not something residents “need to fret about.”

Mr. Haney said residents would not see any new numbers on their new tax bill until Aug. 1, 2015.

“It is more than a year away before this will impact you,” he said.

222

Councilman Paul Cerami also asked how the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s [FEMA] new flood zone maps might have an effect on this.

“It would be next year before we know what that does,” Mr. Haney said. “The most important part is making sure the information we have is correct.”

Mr. Haney said he has further information if anyone would like more.

Mr. Haney can be reached by contacting Sea Girt Borough Hall at 732-449-9433, ext. 119, or by emailing him at [email protected].

John E. Butow, CTA, SCRREA Assessor City of Long Branch 344 Broadway Long Branch, NJ 07740 732‐571‐5658 Fax 732‐222‐1516

223

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:01 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Cc: 'George Lockwood'Subject: RE: Photographs

Matt, I have the original photo disk for Spring lake Heights. Send it to ?? Neil


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:41 PM To: Mark Fitzpatrick; Schenk, Veronica Cc: [email protected]; Brian Enright, Tax Assessor; [email protected]; edward mullane; [email protected]; Bernie Haney; Tom Davis; [email protected]; Eileen Marchetti; Tom Glock Subject: Photographs Hello: The Monmouth County Tax Board is in the process of updating the way in which its various software applications accesses and portrays parcel photographs. The Tax Board has no photographs for the municipalities listed below. If they exist please provide them as soon as possible.

13 Englishtown. Last Revaluation 2008 15 Farmingdale. Last Revaluation 2005 – ordered for 2015 ADP 20 Holmdel. Last Revaluation 2007 28 Manalapan. Last Revaluation 2007 33 Millstone. Last Revaluation 2010 43 Sea Girt. Last Revaluation 2005 – ordered for 2015 ADP 45 Shrewsbury Twp. Last Revaluation 2008 46 Lake Como. Last Revaluation 2006 – ordered for 2016 (Tax Court Appeal) 47 Spring Lake. Last Revaluation 2005 – ordered for 2017 ADP 48 Spring Lake Hgts. Last Revaluation 2008 50 Union Beach Last Revaluation 2003 – ordered for 2015

52 Wall Last Revaluation 2002 – ordered for 2015 (Tax Court Appeal 2016)

224

Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator


225

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 5:17 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: RE: Photographs

M Shocker.. With the exception of Spring Lake Hts and Shrewsbury Twp, they were all done by other reval firms… I will get those two to you. N


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 1:41 PM To: Mark Fitzpatrick; Schenk, Veronica Cc: [email protected]; Brian Enright, Tax Assessor; [email protected]; edward mullane; [email protected]; Bernie Haney; Tom Davis; [email protected]; Eileen Marchetti; Tom Glock Subject: Photographs Hello: The Monmouth County Tax Board is in the process of updating the way in which its various software applications accesses and portrays parcel photographs. The Tax Board has no photographs for the municipalities listed below. If they exist please provide them as soon as possible.

13 Englishtown. Last Revaluation 2008 15 Farmingdale. Last Revaluation 2005 – ordered for 2015 ADP 20 Holmdel. Last Revaluation 2007 28 Manalapan. Last Revaluation 2007 33 Millstone. Last Revaluation 2010 43 Sea Girt. Last Revaluation 2005 – ordered for 2015 ADP 45 Shrewsbury Twp. Last Revaluation 2008 46 Lake Como. Last Revaluation 2006 – ordered for 2016 (Tax Court Appeal) 47 Spring Lake. Last Revaluation 2005 – ordered for 2017 ADP 48 Spring Lake Hgts. Last Revaluation 2008 50 Union Beach Last Revaluation 2003 – ordered for 2015

52 Wall Last Revaluation 2002 – ordered for 2015 (Tax Court Appeal 2016)

226

Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator


227

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:41 AMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: FW: Monday's Special Meeting

FYI


From: Theresa Casagrande [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:29 AM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: Monday's Special Meeting

Neil, I trust that you heard the meeting on Monday went well and we will not be filing any appeals. We have some things that need follow-up, but I think it will all fall to Steve Walters and/or his replacement. Thanks for your assistance. Best regards, Theresa ______________________________________ Theresa S. Casagrande, MBA, RMC, CTC, NJMMA Executive Board Member Administrator, Borough of Fair Haven 748 River Road Fair Haven, NJ 07704 [email protected] Phone # 732-747-0241 Fax # 732-747-6962

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2014 5:00 PM To: Theresa Casagrande Subject: Re: Monday's Special Meeting I believe it is accurate and well put. I will do my best to try and look some of these up prior to the meeting, but I Can't guarantee that I will find any info. Neil Sent from my iPhone On Jan 4, 2014, at 3:33 PM, "Theresa Casagrande" <[email protected]> wrote:

236

<TAX VALUATION COMPARISONS.pdf>

237

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 10:29 AMTo: Neil Rubenstein

Consider below‐ NJSA 54:4‐38.1. Notification of current assessment and preceding year's taxes; notification of change in assessment; contents a. Except as provided in subsection b. of this section, every assessor, prior to February 1, shall notify by mail each taxpayer of the current assessment and preceding year's taxes. Thereafter, the assessor or county board of taxation shall notify each taxpayer by mail within 30 days of any change to the assessment. This notification of change of assessment shall contain the prior assessment and the current assessment. The director shall establish the form of notice of assessment and change of assessment. Any notice issued by the assessor or county board of taxation shall contain information instructing taxpayers on how to appeal their assessment. b. In the case of a municipality located in a county where the county board of taxation is participating in the demonstration program established in section 4 of P.L.2013, c. 15 (C.54:1‐104), every assessor, on or before November 15 of the pretax year, shall notify by mail each taxpayer of the preliminary assessment and preceding year's taxes. Thereafter, the assessor or county board of taxation shall notify each taxpayer by mail within 30 days of any change to the assessment. This notification of change of assessment shall contain the prior assessment and the current assessment. The director shall establish the form of notice of assessment and change of assessment. Any notice issued by the assessor or county board of taxation shall contain information instructing taxpayers on how to appeal their assessment. c. The county board of taxation of the demonstration county shall make the preliminary data electronically accessible to the public by posting the data in searchable form on the county's website not later than 15 business days after the submission of the preliminary data. Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator


238

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 4:19 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: RE: Pilot Program Help

Sure... me neither... Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 4:15 PM To: Neil Rubenstein Subject: RE: Pilot Program Help Yup! Want to do 5:30 ‐ I'm not loving it here today? ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 4:13 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: FW: Pilot Program Help FYI... Isn't his time up???? Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Scott Pezarras [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 1:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Pilot Program Help

239

Neil Are you going to be in the office tomorrow? I would like to pick your brain about my 2014 assessments. Please let me know. Thanks Scott ________________________________ NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e‐mail if you have received this message in error.

240

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 4:13 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: FW: Pilot Program Help

FYI... Isn't his time up???? Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Scott Pezarras [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 1:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Pilot Program Help Neil Are you going to be in the office tomorrow? I would like to pick your brain about my 2014 assessments. Please let me know. Thanks Scott

241

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:21 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: Verizon v. HopewellAttachments: Verizon 2014 Preliminary Export - 10-30-2013.pdf

From: Clark, Matt Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:08 PM To: 'Gregory Hutchinson'; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr ; gibbsboroassessor ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; djtuftga ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Erin Serfass; [email protected]; dcpnj ; [email protected]; joerahman ; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica Cc: Spracklen, Nicholas Subject: RE: Verizon v. Hopewell Hello: Please see attached summary of 2014 Verizon Assessments. The Verizon ratios for 2014 revaluation districts (Asbury Park, Fair Haven and Rumson) must be revised by Verizon. In the past, the Monmouth County Board of Taxation recommended that, in the event of a reduction in the Verizon assessment, the Assessor would place the higher assessment on the books and the Tax Board would remove it as part of the Equalization “review and revise” process. This approach was intended to protected the town’s standing in a future appeal and it reduced the current‐years Net Value prior to the certification of General Tax Rates thereby avoiding refunds and under‐collection. Within the Assessment Demonstration Program, because the budgetary process comes after the appeal season, Monmouth is unique in the way this would be processed. Please discuss with municipal counsel as to which assessment serves the town’s best long‐term interest. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. Regards, Matthew Clark


242

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, September 23, 2013 1:21 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: RE: Update on Conditional Approval

Any news? Gulp…

Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:36 PM To: Applegate, Jessica Cc: Miller, Judy Subject: RE: Update on Conditional Approval Jessica: Sure, by “conditional approval for revaluation within the Demonstration County” I mean the ability to have the Revaluation Contract approved, thereby permitting data collection to commence, conditioned on the receipt of final approval of the tax map from the State prior to acceptance by the County Tax Board. To be clear, this is within the Demonstration County Only and no revaluation numbers may be accepted by the County Tax Board unless the State has given final approval of the Tax Maps. Understanding that there is a very tight timeline for implementation of new revaluations, I am seeking to “suspend” the requirement of having the tax maps completed before the revaluation contract can be signed and the data collection can proceed. My singular goal is to get the revaluation firms collecting data in the field sooner. From our discussions I would like to have the tax map process begin immediately, run in parallel with data collection and funneled through the Tax Board so that I can shepherd timely completion. Any issues caused by the data collection beginning without final tax maps can be reconciled before final costing. In other words, the tax map finalization would be targeted for the last 4 months of the process without causing significant if any duplication of process. Please let me know what I need to do as the County Tax Administrator to make this a possibility. I am not against saber‐rattling that, under the authority to compel revaluation within the Demonstration Program, the County will update the tax map and send them the bill via single‐year debit and credit. Regards, Matthew

From: Applegate, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:05 PM To: Clark, Matt

243

Cc: Miller, Judy Subject: RE: Update on Conditional Approval Hi Matt, Can you give us clarification on your meaning of “conditional approval for revaluation within the Demonstration County”. Thanks Jessica

Jessica L Applegate Senior Field Representative Property Administration Local Assessment Compliance Phone: 609-633-7907

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:15 PM To: Miller, Judy; Applegate, Jessica Subject: Update on Conditional Approval Hello: Can you provide me an update on the availability of “conditional approval for revaluation within the Demonstration County”? Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator



244

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:06 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: RE: Update on Conditional Approval

We are going to start Keyport and or Brielle without approvals… The administrator in Keyport is ok with this…


From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:36 PM To: Applegate, Jessica Cc: Miller, Judy Subject: RE: Update on Conditional Approval Jessica: Sure, by “conditional approval for revaluation within the Demonstration County” I mean the ability to have the Revaluation Contract approved, thereby permitting data collection to commence, conditioned on the receipt of final approval of the tax map from the State prior to acceptance by the County Tax Board. To be clear, this is within the Demonstration County Only and no revaluation numbers may be accepted by the County Tax Board unless the State has given final approval of the Tax Maps. Understanding that there is a very tight timeline for implementation of new revaluations, I am seeking to “suspend” the requirement of having the tax maps completed before the revaluation contract can be signed and the data collection can proceed. My singular goal is to get the revaluation firms collecting data in the field sooner. From our discussions I would like to have the tax map process begin immediately, run in parallel with data collection and funneled through the Tax Board so that I can shepherd timely completion. Any issues caused by the data collection beginning without final tax maps can be reconciled before final costing. In other words, the tax map finalization would be targeted for the last 4 months of the process without causing significant if any duplication of process. Please let me know what I need to do as the County Tax Administrator to make this a possibility. I am not against saber‐rattling that, under the authority to compel revaluation within the Demonstration Program, the County will update the tax map and send them the bill via single‐year debit and credit. Regards, Matthew

From: Applegate, Jessica [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:05 PM

245

To: Clark, Matt Cc: Miller, Judy Subject: RE: Update on Conditional Approval Hi Matt, Can you give us clarification on your meaning of “conditional approval for revaluation within the Demonstration County”. Thanks Jessica

Jessica L Applegate Senior Field Representative Property Administration Local Assessment Compliance Phone: 609-633-7907

From: Clark, Matt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:15 PM To: Miller, Judy; Applegate, Jessica Subject: Update on Conditional Approval Hello: Can you provide me an update on the availability of “conditional approval for revaluation within the Demonstration County”? Matthew Clark Monmouth County Tax Administrator



246

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 3:09 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: FW: Tax Board Meeting September 12th

I really do want this to work as much as you.. (well almost).. I hope it’s ok for me to suggest that George spend a few minutes explaining how to “calculate” land values… What I mean is, many Assessors’ force in a land value into the “Site Value” field vs. entering a VCS, Lot Size, and zone into the cama file…and then just letting the system compute the appropriate land assessment. It really isn’t that difficult and I think its lack of knowing how to do it… When we do reassessments, clearing the prior tax appeal “flat add” amounts is part of our routine and is fairly strait forward, but most sub‐divisions that have occurred since the last reval have been avoided.

Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net Begin forwarded message:

From: "Clark, Matt" <[email protected]> Date: August 20, 2013, 3:17:55 PM EDT To: Gregory Hutchinson <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "pbarnett44 " <pbarnett44 >, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "emagnani@holmdeltownship‐nj.com" <emagnani@holmdeltownship‐nj.com>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "ahcessr " <ahcessr >, "gibbsboroassesso " <gibbsboroassessor >, "Asstx " <Asstx >, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]‐branch.nj.us" <[email protected]‐branch.nj.us>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "rfrotton@marlboro‐nj.gov" <rfrotton@marlboro‐nj.gov>, "taxassessor@manasquan‐nj.com" <taxassessor@manasquan‐nj.com>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "djtuftga " <djtuftga >, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "george@microsystems‐nj.com" <george@microsystems‐nj.com>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]‐branch.nj.us"

247

<[email protected]‐branch.nj.us>, "emarchetti@holmdeltownship‐nj.com" <emarchetti@holmdeltownship‐nj.com>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Erin Serfass <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "dcpn " <dcpn >, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "joerahman " <joerahman >, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: "tomre " <tomre >, "byrnet " <byrnet >, Daniel M Kelly <[email protected]>, "lincroftathome " <lincroftathome >, "taxcompomanow " <[email protected]>, "Schenk, Veronica" <[email protected]> Subject: Tax Board Meeting September 12th

Dear Monmouth County Assessors: In continuation of our preparation for the implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program there will be a mandatory educational meeting of the Monmouth County Assessors on Thursday September 12th at 1:00 in the Hall of Records, Freehold Borough, 3rd floor Hearing room. Topic Description: Instructions on using MicroSystems’ CAMA programs to update land formulas and depreciation schedules, run calculations, and analyze the impact of global assessment changes to properties within the assessment district. Presenter: George Lockwood, Union Beach Assessor The attendance of Deputy Assessors is expected, additional staffing attendance must be approved prior to the meeting. Please contact me by email if there is any issue with attendance. Regards, Matthew Clark, County Tax Administrator


248

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 1:41 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Monmouth Pilot Demonstartion Program

Please respond with “Realty Appraisal views the Assessment Demonstration Program as a positive for both the taxpayer and the firm”.

249

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 1:05 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: FW: Monmouth Pilot Demonstartion Program See below… Any idea who this is? Neil Rubenstein Realty Appraisal Company 4912 Bergenline Avenue West New York, NJ 07093 Tel: 201.867.3870 Fax: 201.867.0203 www.realtyappraisal.net

From: clownberg666 [mailto:clownberg666 ] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Monmouth Pilot Demonstartion Program Joe LaVorgna has sent you a message using your contact form at: www.realtyappraisal.net/Contact Senders email: clownberg666 How will this new pilot program starting Oct 1 in Monmouth County affect your business ?

250


251

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 1:05 PMTo: 'Clark, Matt'Subject: FW: Monmouth Pilot Demonstartion Program

See below… Any idea who this is?


From: clownberg666 [mailto:clownberg666 ] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 12:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Monmouth Pilot Demonstartion Program Joe LaVorgna has sent you a message using your contact form at: www.realtyappraisal.net/Contact Senders email: clownberg666 How will this new pilot program starting Oct 1 in Monmouth County affect your business ?

252

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Monday, August 05, 2013 2:17 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: FW: Implementation OrdersAttachments: Internal Inspection Reassessment Order CTB Signed 2013.pdf; Revaluation Internal

Inspection_Reassessment Order Signed CTB 2013.pdf

The orders……

From: Clark, Matt Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:15 PM To: 'Gregory Hutchinson'; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr ; gibbsboroassessor t; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; djtuftgal t; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Erin Serfass; [email protected]; dcpnj t; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica Cc: tomre ; byrnet ; 'Daniel M Kelly'; 'lincroftathome '; taxcompomanowski Subject: Implementation Orders Dear Monmouth County Assessors: On June 19th, 2013 the Commissioners of the Monmouth County Board of Taxation formally adopted a schedule for the implementation of the Assessment Demonstration Program. Please note that each of Monmouth County’s 53 municipalities are being directed to undertake specific steps in accordance with the adopted schedule.

Order to perform Revaluation, Annual Internal Inspection and Annual Qualified Reassessment: Allenhurst Borough, Atlantic Highlands Borough, Bradley Beach Borough, Eatontown Borough, Farmingdale Borough, Freehold Borough, Keansburg Borough, Keyport Borough, Long Branch City, Monmouth Beach Borough, Ocean Township, Oceanport Borough, Red Bank Borough, Sea Bright Borough, Sea Girt Borough, Spring Lake Borough and Upper Freehold Township ORDER REQUIREMENTS:

1. Implement Revaluation, 2. Begin annual 20% internal inspection program in year of revaluation implementation 3. Annually implement Qualified Reassessment thereafter

Order to perform Annual Internal Inspection and Annual Qualified Reassessment: Aberdeen Township, Allentown Borough, Asbury Park City, Avon‐by‐the‐Sea Borough, Belmar Borough, Brielle Borough, Colts Neck Township, Deal Borough, Englishtown Borough, Fair Haven Borough, Freehold Township, Hazlet Township, Highlands Borough, Holmdel Township, Howell Township, Interlaken Borough, Little Silver Borough, Loch Arbour Village, Manalapan Township, Manasquan Borough, Marlboro Township,

253

Matawan Borough, Middletown Township, Millstone Township, Neptune Township, Neptune City Borough, Roosevelt Borough, Rumson Borough, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Lake Como Borough, Spring Lake Heights Borough, Tinton Falls Borough, Union Beach Borough, Wall Township, West Long Branch Borough ORDER REQUIREMENTS

1. Begin annual 20% internal inspection program in year of revaluation implementation (or 2014 if revaluation is not required),

2. Annually implement Qualified Reassessment thereafter Copies of the attachments are being delivered via certified mail to the municipal Clerk of each governing body. Please contact me if there are any questions. Regards, Matthew Clark, County Tax Administrator


254

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 11:09 AMTo: Neil Rubenstein; 'Erick Aguiar'Cc: brandonsherwood2Subject: RE: Asbury Park Progress ReportAttachments: Implementation Meeting 6-4-2013 Handout 2 Page.pdf

N‐ See the attached table (and below). Reval is DONE 1 week prior to November 1st. November 1st MODIV and PRC posted to County website Reval Assessment Letters (taxpayer Informal hearing notice) sent on November 1st Reval taxpayer informal hearings completed by November 30th Reval Notification of Assessment Postcards (including hearing revisions) sent on or before December 1st. (this gives 45 days before January 15th Appeal filing date) Hope this clears it up. M‐

256


258

Dear Monmouth County Municipal Assessment Practitioners: Previously I distributed a “save the date” email for the week of February 25th 2013. With the Assessment Demonstration program now law (P.L. 2013 Chapter 15) and Monmouth County’s letter of intent to implement the program as of October 1st, 2013 submitted and accepted by the NJ Division of Taxation and DCA, we must now begin the process of changing the way by which we perform the overall assessment function within Monmouth County. This change begins with the development of a new and sophisticated set of tools that are required by the local assessor to perform annual reassessments. The first step in this journey begins with IAAO Course 300 ‐ Mass Appraisal. February 25 – 29th. 9:00‐5:00 in the training room located on the 3rd floor of the Hall of Records. These are exciting times rich with opportunity for personal growth. While it is easy to rise up for any single event, this is a 5‐year challenge that will test the metal of all participants. The Monmouth County Board of Taxation and the core of the Monmouth County Assessor’s Association will band together and provide all of the tools necessary to ensure that this 5‐year journey is successful. Be assured that the benefits to the taxpayers and the governing bodies that we serve will not be jeopardized by any individual. Regards, Matthew Clark, County Tax Administrator

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or del berative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or del berative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.

260

change begins with the development of a new and sophisticated set of tools that are required by the local assessor to perform annual reassessments. The first step in this journey begins with IAAO Course 300 ‐ Mass Appraisal. February 25 – 29th. 9:00‐5:00 in the training room located on the 3rd floor of the Hall of Records. These are exciting times rich with opportunity for personal growth. While it is easy to rise up for any single event, this is a 5‐year challenge that will test the metal of all participants. The Monmouth County Board of Taxation and the core of the Monmouth County Assessor’s Association will band together and provide all of the tools necessary to ensure that this 5‐year journey is successful. Be assured that the benefits to the taxpayers and the governing bodies that we serve will not be jeopardized by any individual. Regards, Matthew Clark, County Tax Administrator

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or del berative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. Ifyou are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.



262

These are exciting times rich with opportunity for personal growth. While it is easy to rise up for any single event, this is a 5‐year challenge that will test the metal of all participants. The Monmouth County Board of Taxation and the core of the Monmouth County Assessor’s Association will band together and provide all of the tools necessary to ensure that this 5‐year journey is successful. Be assured that the benefits to the taxpayers and the governing bodies that we serve will not be jeopardized by any individual. Regards, Matthew Clark, County Tax Administrator

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or del berative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. Ifyou are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.


264

Matthew Clark, County Tax Administrator



266

any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.

267

Clark, Matt

From: Neil Rubenstein <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 6:40 PMTo: Clark, MattSubject: Re: Bill Passed In Senate Today

I was going to write "gulp" after!! But for you, I'm ecstatic!!! Sent from my iPhone On Oct 4, 2012, at 6:28 PM, "Clark, Matt" <[email protected]> wrote:

I KNOW you don’t mean it – but that is OK

From: Neil Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 6:28 PM To: Clark, Matt Subject: Re: Bill Passed In Senate Today Congratulations!!! Sent from my iPhone On Oct 4, 2012, at 6:13 PM, "Clark, Matt" <[email protected]> wrote:

<image001.png>

VAN DREW BILL CREATING PROPERTY ASSESSMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ADVANCES

Measure Would Shift Property Tax Appeal Calendar,

Create More Certainty In Local Budget Process TRENTON – Legislation sponsored by Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May, Cumberland, Atlantic) to pilot a new system for real property assessment that would provide more certainty in the municipal budget process by changing the tax appeal calendar was approved today by the full Senate. The bill (S1213) is aimed at staving off dramatic and unexpected revenue losses experienced by municipalities due to successful tax appeals by residents and businesses. Since appeals are often decided after a municipality has crafted its budget, towns and cities are left scrambling to fill the budget gap. "The current property assessment system creates an environment of unpredictability for local officials. Successful tax appeals can make anticipated revenue plummet, leaving local officials scrambling to make up for the loss. In cases of excessive appeal reductions, municipalities have been forced to borrow money to pay their bills, which can further harm their financial position," said Senator Van Drew. "This program is intended to create a more accurate and predictable system for local officials, by implementing an assessment appeal structure that takes place before the budget process is completed." The number of tax appeals filed in New Jersey has increased exponentially in recent

268

years, partly because of a weakening housing market. According to an analysis published in The Star-Ledger in March, the state saw nearly four times the number of appeals last year as it did in 2007, hitting the highest mark in almost 20 years. In total, municipalities across the state lost more than $3.8 billion in their tax base in 2011 due to reduced assessments, according to the report. The key to the legislation is in changing the calendar for assessments and appeals so that appeals are decided before the adoption of a municipal budget. Changing the property tax assessment calendar to ensure municipalities know what they owe in refunds before budgets are made will help localities. However, moving the assessment calendar will not be effective if revaluations are not kept up in a timely manner. Towns and cities often wait too long to perform property revaluations for a variety of reasons. To remedy the problem of untimely revaluations, the pilot program would give demonstration counties authority to require municipalities to perform timely revaluations when necessary. "Local governments must be able to work within a predictable system in order to properly budget operational costs," said Senator Van Drew. "Putting in place a structure that creates more certainty will allow local governments to budget under an improved system, but will also better ensure that taxpayers are not forced to shoulder increasing debt loads due to bonding or to endure spikes in property taxes." Four counties would be permitted to participate in the demonstration program – up to two in the first two full tax years after the bill's enactment and two more in the third and fourth years after enactment. The central premise of the demonstration program is a collaborative effort between the county tax board and municipal assessors and is based on the utilization by all of a demonstration county's municipalities of the same property assessment software, the MOD-IV / CAMA system. Under the bill, the assessment and appeal process would be moved up. Property tax appeals would be heard in the months of February, March and April under the bill, rather than in May, June and July under the current structure. The final tax list would be filed on May 5, in advance of the June mailing of tax bills. The tax list is currently finalized on Jan. 10, well after tax bills have been sent and revenue estimated by a municipality. No state funds would be necessary for the implementation of this demonstration program. The county board of taxation in a demonstration county would absorb the cost of assessment data conversion through assessment appeal filing fees collected by the board. The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 36-0. The bill next heads to the Assembly for consideration.

269



270

Clark, Matt





<image001.png>




271


272



273

Clark, Matt





<image001.png>




274


275



276

Clark, Matt

From: ClarkSent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 6:29 PMTo: Neil RubensteinSubject: RE: Bill Passed In Senate Today



<image001.png>



Create More Certainty In Local Budget Process TRENTON – Legislation sponsored by Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May, Cumberland, Atlantic) to pilot a new system for real property assessment that would provide more certainty in the municipal budget process by changing the tax appeal calendar was approved today by the full Senate. The bill (S1213) is aimed at staving off dramatic and unexpected revenue losses experienced by municipalities due to successful tax appeals by residents and businesses. Since appeals are often decided after a municipality has crafted its budget, towns and cities are left scrambling to fill the budget gap. "The current property assessment system creates an environment of unpredictability for local officials. Successful tax appeals can make anticipated revenue plummet, leaving local officials scrambling to make up for the loss. In cases of excessive appeal reductions, municipalities have been forced to borrow money to pay their bills, which can further harm their financial position," said Senator Van Drew. "This program is intended to create a more accurate and predictable system for local officials, by implementing an assessment appeal structure that takes place before the budget process is completed." The number of tax appeals filed in New Jersey has increased exponentially in recent years, partly because of a weakening housing market. According to an analysis published in The Star-Ledger in March, the state saw nearly four times the number of appeals last year as it did in 2007, hitting the highest mark in almost 20 years. In total, municipalities across the state lost more than $3.8 billion in their tax base in 2011 due to reduced assessments, according to the report. The key to the legislation is in changing the calendar for assessments and appeals so that appeals are decided before the adoption of a municipal budget. Changing the property tax assessment calendar to ensure municipalities know what they owe in refunds before budgets are made will help localities. However, moving the assessment calendar will not be effective if revaluations are not kept up in a

277

timely manner. Towns and cities often wait too long to perform property revaluations for a variety of reasons. To remedy the problem of untimely revaluations, the pilot program would give demonstration counties authority to require municipalities to perform timely revaluations when necessary. "Local governments must be able to work within a predictable system in order to properly budget operational costs," said Senator Van Drew. "Putting in place a structure that creates more certainty will allow local governments to budget under an improved system, but will also better ensure that taxpayers are not forced to shoulder increasing debt loads due to bonding or to endure spikes in property taxes." Four counties would be permitted to participate in the demonstration program – up to two in the first two full tax years after the bill's enactment and two more in the third and fourth years after enactment. The central premise of the demonstration program is a collaborative effort between the county tax board and municipal assessors and is based on the utilization by all of a demonstration county's municipalities of the same property assessment software, the MOD-IV / CAMA system. Under the bill, the assessment and appeal process would be moved up. Property tax appeals would be heard in the months of February, March and April under the bill, rather than in May, June and July under the current structure. The final tax list would be filed on May 5, in advance of the June mailing of tax bills. The tax list is currently finalized on Jan. 10, well after tax bills have been sent and revenue estimated by a municipality. No state funds would be necessary for the implementation of this demonstration program. The county board of taxation in a demonstration county would absorb the cost of assessment data conversion through assessment appeal filing fees collected by the board. The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 36-0. The bill next heads to the Assembly for consideration.

NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This message, including any prior messages and attachments, may contain advisory, consultative and/or deliberative material, confidential information or privileged communications of the County of Monmouth. Access to this message by anyone other than the sender and the

278

intended recipient(s) is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, any disclosure, copying, distr bution or action taken or not taken in reliance on it, without the expressed written consent of the County, is proh bited. If you have received this message in error, you should not save, scan, transmit, print, use or disseminate this message or any information contained in this message in any way and you should promptly delete or destroy this message and all copies of it. Please notify the sender by return e-mail if you have received this message in error.


279

Clark, Matt


Congratulations!!! Sent from my iPhone On Oct 4, 2012, at 6:13 PM, "Clark, Matt" <[email protected]> wrote:

<image001.png>



Create More Certainty In Local Budget Process TRENTON – Legislation sponsored by Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May, Cumberland, Atlantic) to pilot a new system for real property assessment that would provide more certainty in the municipal budget process by changing the tax appeal calendar was approved today by the full Senate. The bill (S1213) is aimed at staving off dramatic and unexpected revenue losses experienced by municipalities due to successful tax appeals by residents and businesses. Since appeals are often decided after a municipality has crafted its budget, towns and cities are left scrambling to fill the budget gap. "The current property assessment system creates an environment of unpredictability for local officials. Successful tax appeals can make anticipated revenue plummet, leaving local officials scrambling to make up for the loss. In cases of excessive appeal reductions, municipalities have been forced to borrow money to pay their bills, which can further harm their financial position," said Senator Van Drew. "This program is intended to create a more accurate and predictable system for local officials, by implementing an assessment appeal structure that takes place before the budget process is completed." The number of tax appeals filed in New Jersey has increased exponentially in recent years, partly because of a weakening housing market. According to an analysis published in The Star-Ledger in March, the state saw nearly four times the number of appeals last year as it did in 2007, hitting the highest mark in almost 20 years. In total, municipalities across the state lost more than $3.8 billion in their tax base in 2011 due to reduced assessments, according to the report. The key to the legislation is in changing the calendar for assessments and appeals so that appeals are decided before the adoption of a municipal budget. Changing the property tax assessment calendar to ensure municipalities know what they owe in refunds before budgets are made will help localities. However, moving the assessment calendar will not be effective if revaluations are not kept up in a timely manner. Towns and cities often wait too long to perform property revaluations for a variety of reasons. To remedy the problem of untimely revaluations, the pilot program would give demonstration counties authority to require municipalities to perform timely revaluations when necessary. "Local governments must be able to work within a predictable system in order to properly budget operational costs," said Senator Van Drew. "Putting in place a structure that creates more certainty will allow local governments to budget under an improved system, but will also better ensure that taxpayers are not forced to shoulder increasing debt loads due to bonding or to endure spikes in property taxes."

280

Four counties would be permitted to participate in the demonstration program – up to two in the first two full tax years after the bill's enactment and two more in the third and fourth years after enactment. The central premise of the demonstration program is a collaborative effort between the county tax board and municipal assessors and is based on the utilization by all of a demonstration county's municipalities of the same property assessment software, the MOD-IV / CAMA system. Under the bill, the assessment and appeal process would be moved up. Property tax appeals would be heard in the months of February, March and April under the bill, rather than in May, June and July under the current structure. The final tax list would be filed on May 5, in advance of the June mailing of tax bills. The tax list is currently finalized on Jan. 10, well after tax bills have been sent and revenue estimated by a municipality. No state funds would be necessary for the implementation of this demonstration program. The county board of taxation in a demonstration county would absorb the cost of assessment data conversion through assessment appeal filing fees collected by the board. The Senate approved the bill by a vote of 36-0. The bill next heads to the Assembly for consideration.


281

Clark, Matt



<image001.png>




282



283

Clark, Matt



<image001.png>




284



neil rubenstein letter

Documents

neil neil

neil rubenstein cc

regular mail

ed mullane subject

ed xwtw

edward mullane

s ready

themget reimbursted