tax board emails

1

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 9:16 PMTo: 'George Lockwood'Cc: [email protected]; Clark, Matt; 'DK RDS'Subject: RE: Tinton Falls - 20% ADP Data

George ‐ Any luck? Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA

55 White Road, Unit C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Office: (732) 276-1057 Ext 103 Mobile: Fax: (732) 276-1056 Email: [email protected] Wesbite: www.RDSnj.com

From: Daniel M. Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 10:08 AM To: 'George Lockwood' Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'DK RDS' Subject: RE: Tinton Falls - 20% ADP Data George ‐ Hope you had a nice New Year. Scott just informed us that he has not received the 20% ADP data. Is there an issue with Scott's system, file, etc? Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA

2


From: Daniel M. Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 3:12 PM To: George Lockwood Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'DK RDS' Subject: Tinton Falls - 20% ADP Data George ‐ Hope all is well. Please make the RDS 20% inspection file for Tinton Falls available to the municipality's assessor. Thank you very much for your assistance. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA

55 White Road, Unit C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Office: (732) 276-1057 Ext 103 Mobile: ( Fax: (732) 276-1056 Email: [email protected] Wesbite: www.RDSnj.com

3

Clark, Matt





4




5

Clark, Matt





6




7

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 9:16 PMTo: 'George Lockwood'Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'DK RDS'Subject: RE: Tinton Falls - 20% ADP Data




8




9

Clark, Matt





10




11

Clark, Matt





12




13

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 1:58 PMTo: George LockwoodCc: wfitz122 ; Clark, Matt; 'DK RDS'; 'Brandon Sherwood'Subject: Shrewsbury Boro - 20% ADP Data

George ‐ Please make the Shrewsbury 20% ADP data available to Bill Fitzpatrick (Shrewsbury). Please reply when the assessor has been given access to the file. As always, thank you for your efforts. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


14

Clark, Matt




15

Clark, Matt




16

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 1:58 PMTo: George LockwoodCc: wfitz122 ; [email protected]; 'DK RDS'; 'Brandon Sherwood'Subject: Shrewsbury Boro - 20% ADP Data



17

Clark, Matt



55 White Road, Unit C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Office: (732) 276-1057 Ext 103 Mobile: (7 Fax: (732) 276-1056 Email: [email protected] Wesbite: www.RDSnj.com

18

Clark, Matt




19

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 10:08 AMTo: 'George Lockwood'Cc: [email protected]; Clark, Matt; 'DK RDS'Subject: RE: Tinton Falls - 20% ADP Data

George ‐ Hope you had a nice New Year. Scott just informed us that he has not received the 20% ADP data. Is there an issue with Scott's system, file, etc? Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


From: Daniel M. Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 3:12 PM To: George Lockwood Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'DK RDS' Subject: Tinton Falls - 20% ADP Data George ‐ Hope all is well. Please make the RDS 20% inspection file for Tinton Falls available to the municipality's assessor. Thank you very much for your assistance. Regards,

20

DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


21

Clark, Matt





22



23

Clark, Matt





24



25

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 10:08 AMTo: 'George Lockwood'Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 'DK RDS'Subject: RE: Tinton Falls - 20% ADP Data




26



27

Clark, Matt



55 White Road, Unit C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Office: (732) 276-1057 Ext 103 Mobile: (732) Fax: (732) 276-1056 Email: [email protected] Wesbite: www.RDSnj.com


28



29

Clark, Matt





30



31

Clark, Matt

From: Imbriaco, Michael <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:59 AMTo: Daniel M. KellyCc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Clark, Matt; Michael PanterSubject: RE: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting

Categories: Red Category

Dan, I would still prefer a copy of the photos on a disk please. Hope you have a great holiday too. Thanks, Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 294-2045 (F) [email protected]

From: Daniel M. Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:59 AM To: Imbriaco, Michael Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Michael Panter'; 'DK RDS' Subject: RE: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting Mike ‐ I spoke to Matt, the County is a few days away from having the photos in the OPRS and appeal system. If you would like, we can create a disk in the interim few days ‐ please advise. If you have any questions about the photos, loading, available view, you can certainly reach out for Matt. If we don’t speak prior, have a happy holiday season. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA

55 White Road, Unit C Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Office: (732) 276-1057 Ext 103

32

Mobile: (732) Fax: (732) 276-1056 Email: [email protected] Wesbite: www.RDSnj.com

From: Imbriaco, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:31 AM To: Michael Panter Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting Mike, I asked Dan about this a few weeks ago and he told me to speak with Matt because the County has our photos. I would like my photos from RDS, regardless if the County has them. Please send me a file and/or disc of the photos for Freehold Township. Thank you. Sincerely, Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 294-2045 (F) [email protected]

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; Imbriaco, Michael; 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]; [email protected] Subject: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting 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 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

33

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 Shrewsbury, NJ 07702 Tel: 732.276.1057 Fax: 732.276.1056

34

www.rdsnj.com

35

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:59 AMTo: 'Imbriaco, Michael'Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Clark, Matt; 'Michael Panter'; 'DK RDS'Subject: RE: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting

Mike ‐ I spoke to Matt, the County is a few days away from having the photos in the OPRS and appeal system. If you would like, we can create a disk in the interim few days ‐ please advise. If you have any questions about the photos, loading, available view, you can certainly reach out for Matt. If we don’t speak prior, have a happy holiday season. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


From: Imbriaco, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 11:31 AM To: Michael Panter Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting Mike, I asked Dan about this a few weeks ago and he told me to speak with Matt because the County has our photos. I would like my photos from RDS, regardless if the County has them. Please send me a file and/or disc of the photos for Freehold Township. Thank you. Sincerely,

36

Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 294-2045 (F) [email protected]

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; Imbriaco, Michael; 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]; [email protected] Subject: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting 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 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

37

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

38

Clark, Matt





39



40



41

Clark, Matt





42



43



44

Clark, Matt





45



46



47

Clark, Matt





48



49



50

Clark, Matt





51



52



53

Clark, Matt





54



55



56

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:59 AMTo: 'Imbriaco, Michael'Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Michael

Panter'; 'DK RDS'Subject: RE: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting




57


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; Imbriaco, Michael; 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]; [email protected] Subject: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting 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 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.

58

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.


59

Clark, Matt






60


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; Imbriaco, Michael; MITCH ELIAS; PETER J. BARNETT; RENEE FROTTON; SCOTT IMBRIACO; SCOTT KINEAVY; TIMOTHY ANFUSO; VICTORIA BUTCHON; VICTORIA BUTCHON; [email protected]; WILLIAM FITZPATRICK - NEPTUNE C Cc: Dan Kelly; Neil Rubenstein; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Assessment Demonstration Program - 2015 Planning/Budgeting 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 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.

61



62

Clark, Matt






63



64



65

Clark, Matt






66



67



68

Clark, Matt






69



70



71

Clark, Matt






72



73



74

Clark, Matt






75



76



77

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 3:21 PMTo: [email protected]: 'DK RDS'; Clark, MattSubject: Tinton Falls 20% ADP Data

Scott ‐ A request to make the 20% ADP data available was made to MicroSystems. The NOTES screen was updated when applicable/available with information (i.e. 2006 SWW). Thank you for your patience in this first year of the ADP. RDS is streamlining some processes and enhancing the deliverable in an effort to provide the Monmouth County assessment community the necessary data to perform your duties. I sincerely appreciate your efforts. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


78

Clark, Matt




79

Clark, Matt




80

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 3:21 PMTo: [email protected]: 'DK RDS'; [email protected]: Tinton Falls 20% ADP Data



81

Clark, Matt




82

Clark, Matt




83

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.

84

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.

85

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.

86

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

88

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.

89

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.


90




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).



91







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.


93

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

94

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.

95

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

96

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.

97


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

98

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]


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; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Fair Haven - 2014 Data Collection

99


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.

100

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

101

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.









102


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

103

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:

104

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.

105

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).









106



107

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];





108







109










110



111

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];





112







113










114



115

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];





116







117










118



119

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 1:47 PMTo: 'Imbriaco, Michael'Cc: Clark, Matt; 'DK RDS'; 'Brandon Sherwood'; 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: RE: New Data

Mike ‐ First and foremost, please accept my apologies for the issues. As you know Freehold Twp was the first municipality to be inspected using the new application, data load process, etc. The first run played a role in some of the issues (i.e. detached items) because it appears some of the data didn’t populate correctly in the tablet and/or back to your MicroSystems access. The heat type was inspector error, but we are adding a pop‐up alert to confirm the property requires a second heat type. The 2S vs 1S addition appears to be inspector error ‐ it added to the existing improvement rather than drawing the new addition as 1s. Lastly, there seems to be a missing digit with respect to the END/ROW unit field in the data push (which will be corrected ASAP). There is a review process in place with changed field reporting, sketch review, and QA via random spot checking, but some of the issues are related to sharing the data and subsequent loading into Microsystems. With respect to a REFUSAL, RDS is marking the data as such and as you stated, the determination and/or change of data is up to the assessor. RDS is not changing data based on a REFUSAL. I understand your frustration with these issues, but please know that this process is being enhanced every step of the way to provide you (and entire assessment community) the data and tools so you are able to focus on valuation, appraisal, and other aspects of your profession and the demonstration program. We are working diligently to perfect the data collection function, and always welcome your feedback. Although this was your pain, I can't thank you enough for your diligence and attention to your craft. Your precision has afforded us to rectify a data load issue with MicroSystems so there will be less issues for other assessors. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience, and sincerely thank you for your efforts. I am of course available at your convenience to discuss your concerns, thoughts, and suggestions. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


120


From: Imbriaco, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:25 AM To: Daniel M. Kelly; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: New Data Neil, Per our conversation see attached. Dan, I called Neil earlier because I am finding quite a few errors with the inspections. I had a stack of files, roughly 40 properties that had permits taken out for various work that was part of the 20% inspection process. My office had gone to all of them already and we costed them out in our official file but I did not update the added assessment yet because I didn’t want the file to be overwritten (which wouldn’t have happened anyway). As I was going through and comparing my added’s to the RDS inspections I found quite a few errors for how little properties I reviewed. The record cards are attached as well as some photos. Some of these have already been corrected in the Reval file, just in case you happen to check it. Block 85.33 Lot 10‐the heat was inputted twice Block 85.41 Lot 2‐there was an addition on the back of the house, RDS has 2 story addition, my office has 1 story addition with patio; I field checked it today and it’s a 1 story addition with a patio Block 85.46 Lot 6‐shed missed Block 85.48 Lot 14‐ shed missed Block 85.51 Lot 15‐pool size incorrect, listed as 192 SF Block 86.10 Lot 1.52 s03‐end unit, end unit removed by RDS Block 86.13 Lot 1.117 s03‐end unit, end unit removed by RDS Block 86.23 Lot 24.166 s06‐end unit, end unit removed by RDS I understand this is a new process and it is going to take time, but this is just my personal opinion, I feel the tablets are a disadvantage, not an advantage. When paper was used, someone was inputting the data and it was handwritten so it was much easier to pick up on a mistake. With the tablets, how are these being checked? Is there someone reviewing the work that was done by the inspector because it’s hard for me to believe that is the case. I found 8 errors in about 40 cards. Also, I was under the impression that if there was a refusal there was going to be an estimate. This does not seem to be the case. I was told refusals would be estimated, and “estimates” would be left up to me to decide what I wanted to do. Sincerely, Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 431-0449 (F) [email protected]

From: Daniel M. Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:17 AM To: Imbriaco, Michael; [email protected]; djtuftgal ; Delre, Michael; [email protected]; [email protected]; pbarnett44

121

Cc: [email protected]; George Lockwood; [email protected]; Mike; [email protected]; 'Neil Rubenstein' Subject: RE: New Data All ‐ Thanks for pointing out Mike, and I apologize for not having explained this to each assessor with completed 2014 data collection. We could not expand the NOTES field or add another line to the current layout in MicroSystems; the only option is to overwrite existing notes that may exist on the PRC (displayed or not). Currently, assessors use different NOTES lines for various reasons and/or information important to he/she (i.e. ) making it nearly impossible to programmatically automate in a file upload. The determination of critical vs non‐critical NOTES could not be made by RDS, and the risk of removing (via overwrite) assessor's information is too great. We know (first hand) the importance of the NOTES fields, and therefore we did not push them in the file resulting in your current view. With that ‐ the data was collected when accessible/possible, and as an interim solution will be provided (coming days) in a spreadsheet (by BLQ). The NOTES (kitchen information and other) has been addressed in our next release. MicroSystems has been very helpful in this respect, and is reviewing NOTES field 9 to learn of its common use throughout the Monmouth County assessment community. Depending on what we learn, RDS may utilize it as a place holder for kitchen information and other information (if so, this will be communicated to all assessors). Also, our inspectors will be able to view the notes (

and add notes to currently used lines without removing/altering the assessor's own notes. As we progress, this is one of the items/desired deliverables that we would like to discuss with the assessment community. We look forward to continuing an open dialogue as vendors and municipalities work together in the success of the demonstration program. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


From: Imbriaco, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:44 PM To: George Lockwood; [email protected]; djtuftga ; Delre, Michael; [email protected]; [email protected]; pbarnett44

122

Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Bill Raska; Mike Chin; Trevor McGhee Subject: RE: New Data I’ve noticed that the notes field did not copy over from the official folder, nor is there anything in the notes field such as the kitchen breakdown. Is there another step to be done that will copy over the notes field and also, I’m gathering the kitchen data was collected. Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 431-0449 (F) [email protected]

From: George Lockwood [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 10:46 AM To: [email protected]; djtuftgal ; Imbriaco, Michael; Delre, Michael; [email protected]; [email protected]; pbarnett44 Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Bill Raska; Mike Chin; Trevor McGhee Subject: New Data Good Morning, The records from the RDS 20% inspections are now available for you. In your CAMA menu, you should now have a “reval” option, which is a copy of your official file with the newly inspected records merged into it. These records have been encoded with 2014 in the AA Months field. Please call or email us with any questions that you might have. George Lockwood MicroSystems-NJ.com 908-704-8862 [email protected]

123

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 1:47 PMTo: 'Imbriaco, Michael'Cc: [email protected]; 'DK RDS'; 'Brandon Sherwood'; 'Neil Rubenstein'Subject: RE: New Data

Mike ‐ First and foremost, please accept my apologies for the issues. As you know Freehold Twp was the first municipality to be inspected using the new application, data load process, etc. The first run played a role in some of the issues (i.e. detached items) because it appears some of the data didn’t populate correctly in the tablet and/or back to your MicroSystems access. The heat type was inspector error, but we are adding a pop‐up alert to confirm the property requires a second heat type. The 2S vs 1S addition appears to be inspector error ‐ it added to the existing improvement rather than drawing the new addition as 1s. Lastly, there seems to be a missing digit with respect to the END/ROW unit field in the data push (which will be corrected ASAP). There is a review process in place with changed field reporting, sketch review, and QA via random spot checking, but some of the issues are related to sharing the data and subsequent loading into Microsystems. With respect to a REFUSAL, RDS is marking the data as such and as you stated, the determination and/or change of data is up to the assessor. RDS is not changing data based on a REFUSAL. I understand your frustration with these issues, but please know that this process is being enhanced every step of the way to provide you (and entire assessment community) the data and tools so you are able to focus on valuation, appraisal, and other aspects of your profession and the demonstration program. We are working diligently to perfect the data collection function, and always welcome your feedback. Although this was your pain, I can't thank you enough for your diligence and attention to your craft. Your precision has afforded us to rectify a data load issue with MicroSystems so there will be less issues for other assessors. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience, and sincerely thank you for your efforts. I am of course available at your convenience to discuss your concerns, thoughts, and suggestions. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


124


From: Imbriaco, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 11:25 AM To: Daniel M. Kelly; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: New Data Neil, Per our conversation see attached. Dan, I called Neil earlier because I am finding quite a few errors with the inspections. I had a stack of files, roughly 40 properties that had permits taken out for various work that was part of the 20% inspection process. My office had gone to all of them already and we costed them out in our official file but I did not update the added assessment yet because I didn’t want the file to be overwritten (which wouldn’t have happened anyway). As I was going through and comparing my added’s to the RDS inspections I found quite a few errors for how little properties I reviewed. The record cards are attached as well as some photos. Some of these have already been corrected in the Reval file, just in case you happen to check it. Block 85.33 Lot 10‐the heat was inputted twice Block 85.41 Lot 2‐there was an addition on the back of the house, RDS has 2 story addition, my office has 1 story addition with patio; I field checked it today and it’s a 1 story addition with a patio Block 85.46 Lot 6‐shed missed Block 85.48 Lot 14‐ shed missed Block 85.51 Lot 15‐pool size incorrect, listed as 192 SF Block 86.10 Lot 1.52 s03‐end unit, end unit removed by RDS Block 86.13 Lot 1.117 s03‐end unit, end unit removed by RDS Block 86.23 Lot 24.166 s06‐end unit, end unit removed by RDS I understand this is a new process and it is going to take time, but this is just my personal opinion, I feel the tablets are a disadvantage, not an advantage. When paper was used, someone was inputting the data and it was handwritten so it was much easier to pick up on a mistake. With the tablets, how are these being checked? Is there someone reviewing the work that was done by the inspector because it’s hard for me to believe that is the case. I found 8 errors in about 40 cards. Also, I was under the impression that if there was a refusal there was going to be an estimate. This does not seem to be the case. I was told refusals would be estimated, and “estimates” would be left up to me to decide what I wanted to do. Sincerely, Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 431-0449 (F) [email protected]

From: Daniel M. Kelly [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:17 AM To: Imbriaco, Michael; [email protected]; djtuftgal ; Delre, Michael; [email protected]; [email protected]; pbarnett44

125

Cc: [email protected]; George Lockwood; [email protected]; Mike; [email protected]; 'Neil Rubenstein' Subject: RE: New Data All ‐ Thanks for pointing out Mike, and I apologize for not having explained this to each assessor with completed 2014 data collection. We could not expand the NOTES field or add another line to the current layout in MicroSystems; the only option is to overwrite existing notes that may exist on the PRC (displayed or not). Currently, assessors use different NOTES lines for various reasons and/or information important to he/she (i.e. ) making it nearly impossible to programmatically automate in a file upload. The determination of critical vs non‐critical NOTES could not be made by RDS, and the risk of removing (via overwrite) assessor's information is too great. We know (first hand) the importance of the NOTES fields, and therefore we did not push them in the file resulting in your current view. With that ‐ the data was collected when accessible/possible, and as an interim solution will be provided (coming days) in a spreadsheet (by BLQ). The NOTES (kitchen information and other) has been addressed in our next release. MicroSystems has been very helpful in this respect, and is reviewing NOTES field 9 to learn of its common use throughout the Monmouth County assessment community. Depending on what we learn, RDS may utilize it as a place holder for kitchen information and other information (if so, this will be communicated to all assessors). Also, our inspectors will be able to view the notes (



From: Imbriaco, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:44 PM To: George Lockwood; [email protected]; djtuftga ; Delre, Michael; [email protected]; [email protected]; pbarnett44

126

Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Bill Raska; Mike Chin; Trevor McGhee Subject: RE: New Data I’ve noticed that the notes field did not copy over from the official folder, nor is there anything in the notes field such as the kitchen breakdown. Is there another step to be done that will copy over the notes field and also, I’m gathering the kitchen data was collected. Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 431-0449 (F) [email protected]


128


From: Imbriaco, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:44 PM To: George Lockwood; [email protected]; [email protected]; Delre, Michael; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Bill Raska; Mike Chin; Trevor McGhee Subject: RE: New Data I’ve noticed that the notes field did not copy over from the official folder, nor is there anything in the notes field such as the kitchen breakdown. Is there another step to be done that will copy over the notes field and also, I’m gathering the kitchen data was collected. Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 431-0449 (F) [email protected]


129

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:17 AMTo: 'Imbriaco, Michael'; [email protected]; djtuftga ; 'Delre,

Michael'; [email protected]; [email protected]; pbarnett44

Cc: [email protected]; George Lockwood; [email protected]; Mike; [email protected]; 'Neil Rubenstein'

Subject: RE: New Data

All ‐ Thanks for pointing out Mike, and I apologize for not having explained this to each assessor with completed 2014 data collection. We could not expand the NOTES field or add another line to the current layout in MicroSystems; the only option is to overwrite existing notes that may exist on the PRC (displayed or not). Currently, assessors use different NOTES lines for various reasons and/or information important to he/she (i.e. making it nearly impossible to programmatically automate in a file upload. The determination of critical vs non‐critical NOTES could not be made by RDS, and the risk of removing (via overwrite) assessor's information is too great. We know (first hand) the importance of the NOTES fields, and therefore we did not push them in the file resulting in your current view. With that ‐ the data was collected when accessible/possible, and as an interim solution will be provided (coming days) in a spreadsheet (by BLQ). The NOTES (kitchen information and other) has been addressed in our next release. MicroSystems has been very helpful in this respect, and is reviewing NOTES field 9 to learn of its common use throughout the Monmouth County assessment community. Depending on what we learn, RDS may utilize it as a place holder for kitchen information and other information (if so, this will be communicated to all assessors). Also, our inspectors will be able to view the notes



130


From: Imbriaco, Michael [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:44 PM To: George Lockwood; [email protected]; djtuftgal ; Delre, Michael; [email protected]; [email protected]; pbarnett44 Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Bill Raska; Mike Chin; Trevor McGhee Subject: RE: New Data I’ve noticed that the notes field did not copy over from the official folder, nor is there anything in the notes field such as the kitchen breakdown. Is there another step to be done that will copy over the notes field and also, I’m gathering the kitchen data was collected. Mike Imbriaco, CTA Assessor Freehold Township (732) 294-2041 (P) (732) 431-0449 (F) [email protected]


131

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:22 PMTo: [email protected]: Clark, Matt; 'DK RDS'Subject: Demonstration Program Data - Middletown

Charlie ‐ Our firm has completed a portion (Middletown block/lots provided by your office) of the 2014 data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make the property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. Please note that the remaining Middletown property data will be collected throughout the remainder of the year, and this same process will take place. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


132

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:22 PMTo: [email protected]: 'Clark, Matt'; 'DK RDS'Subject: Demonstration Program Data - Middletown

Charlie ‐ Our firm has completed a portion (Middletown block/lots provided by your office) of the 2014 data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make the property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. Please note that the remaining Middletown property data will be collected throughout the remainder of the year, and this same process will take place. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


133

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:29 PMTo: ghutch5577Cc: Clark, Matt; [email protected]: Demonstration Program Data - Fair Haven

Greg ‐ Our firm has completed the 2014 portion of the data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make changes to property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


134

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 3:29 PMTo: ghutch5577Cc: 'Clark, Matt'; [email protected]: Demonstration Program Data - Fair Haven

Greg ‐ Our firm has completed the 2014 portion of the data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make changes to property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


135

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:41 AMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]: 'Clark, Matt'; [email protected]: Demonstration Program Data - Freehold Twp

Mike/Mike ‐ Our firm has completed the 2014 portion of the data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make changes to property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


136

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:45 PMTo: pbarnett44Cc: 'Clark, Matt'; [email protected]: Demonstration Program Data - Deal

Peter ‐ Our firm has completed the 2014 portion of the data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make changes to property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


137

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:33 PMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; 'Clark, Matt'Subject: Avon - 20% Demonstration Program

Tim ‐ Our firm has completed the 2014 portion of the data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make changes to property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


138

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 8:35 AMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; 'Clark, Matt'Subject: Demonstration Program Data

Victoria ‐ Our firm has completed the 2014 portion of the data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make changes to property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


139

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:35 PMTo: djtuftgaCc: [email protected]; 'Clark, Matt'Subject: Demonstration Program Data

Donna ‐ Our firm has completed the 2014 portion of the data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make changes to property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


140

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 3:07 PMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; 'Clark, Matt'Subject: Demonstration Program Data

Mark ‐ As we’ve discussed, our firm has completed the 2014 portion of the data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make changes to property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


141

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M. Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:12 PMTo: [email protected]: [email protected]; 'Clark, Matt'Subject: Demonstration Program Data

Alex ‐ As we’ve discussed, our firm has completed the 2014 portion of the data collection project under the Assessment Demonstration Program, and will be transmitting the results of our inspections to Microsystems (MS). Your office will be copied on our communication to MS, which will make changes to property records available for your review. Once their work is complete, the “blackout” period will conclude with respect to the 20% of properties subject to this year’s inspections (after which you can enter any changes in CAMA which you may have gathered during this period). As mentioned previously, Added and farmland (3B) inspections (as applicable to your municipality) will be completed as separate projects, each with a similar procedure and blackout period for those properties. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, DK Daniel M. Kelly, CTA


142

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Friday, March 14, 2014 2:21 PMTo: '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]; byrnet ; [email protected]; tomre ; [email protected]; dankelly1 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Erin Serfass; [email protected]; [email protected]; taxcompomanowsk ; [email protected]; joerahman ; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica

Subject: Rapidly Evolving Issues - Attachments: A-2495 Extend Gloucester to Atlantic.pdf; A-2621 County Assessing - Gloucester

expanded.pdf; S1801 County Assessing Expansion Draft.docx

Dear Assessors: The issue of “County Assessing” is back in front of the Legislature. A2495 (Mazzeo) specifically asks for “County Assessing” for Atlantic County. A2621 and S1801 are the same. They are looking to permit any County to start County Assessing. This bill is in the Senate Committee this Monday. Using the points outlined below I will testify against the bill on behalf of the New Jersey Association of County Tax Boards and the Monmouth County Board of Taxation. I have attached a copy of the bills as well as a draft for your use in the event you need to comment on S‐180. Summary of S‐180:

Makes the Gloucester County Pilot P.L. 2009 Ch 118 (AKA County Assessing) available (permissive) to any county in New Jersey.

Permits the ability to change the appeal calendar.

The bill requires the county to (initially) pay the costs associated with the municipal revaluations.

The bill requires the State to reimburse the county for the cost of the revaluations at the end of the three year period during which the municipalities must conduct the revaluations with monies from the SHARE program or the Consolidation Fund.

The bill exempts monies paid for municipal revaluations and the county’s administrative start‐up costs from the caps on increases in the county tax levy.

The New Jersey Association of County Tax Boards NJACTB respectfully objects to the proposed legislation based on the following points:

143

1. The bill makes the Gloucester County Pilot P.L. 2009 Ch 118 (AKA County Assessing) available to any county in New Jersey. With a clear understanding that the current property tax system must be improved upon, the Legislature carefully crafted two opposing models of the assessment function to be tested. Namely, they are the Gloucester PILOT and the Assessment Demonstration Program. Before another penny of funds collected statewide is spent for the benefit of any individual county, the two models MUST be allowed to be tested fully and then forensically reviewed and compared. On or about the sixth year of implementation both programs are required to submit reports to the Governor and the Legislature so that it can be determined which direction, if either, is in the best long‐term interest of the taxpayers. Only then will we have performed the appropriate due diligence to support a statewide change to the assessment function.

2. The bill requires the county to pay the costs associated with the municipal revaluations. This means that the cost of implementation and maintenance will be apportioned throughout the County based on each town’s Equalized Value. The result of this form of cost apportionment is that a small but affluent town will typically see a significant increase in cost associated with the Assessment function. While this funding mechanism will provide relief to some, it will cause an increased burden for others through an INCREASE in property taxes. This increased holding cost on the most affluent may accelerate the exodus of the wealthy and permanently reduce the upper tier of property values.

3. The bill requires the State to reimburse the county for the cost of the revaluations at the end of the three year period during which the municipalities must conduct the revaluations with monies from the SHARE program or the Consolidation Fund. This means that money collected statewide will be used to pay for the revaluations performed in participating counties. Counties and towns that have already incurred the cost of remaining current in their assessments should not have to underwrite the neglect of others. The “permissive not mandatory” argument does not make this program acceptable statewide. By making the program “permissive” you are providing access to money collected statewide. One program is already being tested and paid for by statewide funds, another similar program is not needed at this time. Use of such precious pooled money prior to fully understanding the impact of the centralized model is irresponsible at this juncture.

4. The bill exempts monies paid for municipal revaluations and the county’s administrative start‐up costs from the caps on increases in the county tax levy. Levy Cap exception was not permitted within the Assessment Demonstration Program. In the spirit of creating a level playing field between two competing models, the Levy Cap exception should not be available.

Regards, Matthew Clark, Monmouth County Tax Administrator

144

Clark, Matt


[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]; byrnet ; [email protected]; tomre ; [email protected]; dankelly1 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Erin Serfass; [email protected]; [email protected]; taxcompomanowsk ; [email protected]; joerahman ; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica










145






146

Clark, Matt


[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]; byrnet ; [email protected]; tomre ; [email protected]; dankelly1 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Erin Serfass; [email protected]; dcpnj ; taxcompomanowsk ; [email protected]; joerahman ; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica










147






148

Clark, Matt

From: Clark, MattSent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:20 PMTo: 'Erick Aguiar'; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ;

[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]; [email protected]; djtuftga ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; byrnet ; [email protected]; tomre ; [email protected]; dankelly1 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; taxcompomanowsk ; joerahman ; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: 8th Annual Monmouth ConferenceAttachments: Tax Appeal Hearing Schedule 2014 FINAL Public.pdf

Hello: Attached please find the final/complete 2014 appeal hearing schedule for the Monmouth County Board of Taxation. Regards, Matthew Clark, Tax Administrator

From: Erick Aguiar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 10:58 AM To: 'Erick Aguiar'; [email protected]; pbarnett44 ; [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]; [email protected]; djtuftgal ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; byrnet ; Clark, Matt; [email protected]; tomre ; [email protected]; dankelly1 ; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; taxcompomanowsk ; joerahman ; [email protected]; Schenk, Veronica; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: 8th Annual Monmouth Conference All, Just an update‐ the State has approved this course for 5 Appraisal Credits and 1 PTA Credit. If you have not already registered, please take the time to do so now.

149

Looking forward to seeing you there!!! Erick

From: Erick Aguiar [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 10:57 AM To: '[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]'; '[email protected]'; 'djtuftgal '; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'byrnet ; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'tomre ; '[email protected]'; 'dankelly1 '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'taxcompomanowsk ; 'joerahman ; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: 8th Annual Monmouth Conference All, We are only a couple weeks away from the 8th annual Monmouth Conference which is being held at the Sheraton Eatontown Hotel on 2/6/14. If you have not already done so, please send your registration to George Lockwood. Attached is the brochure. It is understood that it is a busy time of the year with the Assessment Demonstration Program’s new calendar, however members of our association should attend to show support. If anyone has any questions, direct them to Greg Hutchinson @ 732‐938‐6242. See everyone there, Erick Aguiar, CTA Assessor City of Asbury Park 1 Municipal Plaza Asbury Park, NJ 07712 732‐502‐5750

150

Clark, Matt

From: Daniel M Kelly <[email protected]>Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 10:26 AMTo: 'jbutow'; [email protected]; ahcessrSubject: RE: FW: Innovators Insights | April 4, 2013

Yes…and make sure the there are banners across the auditoriums “MATT CLARK – MATT CLARK – MATT CLARK” with a picture of him squatting a station wagon DK Cell (732) 757‐7838

From: jbutow [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 10:15 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; ahcessr Subject: RE: FW: Innovators Insights | April 4, 2013 Nice. Should Steve start booking speaking engagements? Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

-------- Original message -------- From: "Clark, Matt" <[email protected]> Date: 04/05/2013 9:54 AM (GMT-05:00) To: Daniel M Kelly <[email protected]>,ahcessr ,jbutow <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Innovators Insights | April 4, 2013

From: Callas, Stephen Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 9:33 AM To: Clark, Matt Subject: Innovators Insights | April 4, 2013

Matt,

Scroll down to public finance section. Congratulations. You have put a Monmouth County shared service on one of the most prestigious international maps in the public sector. I will make certain the Administrator and Freeholder are made aware. THIS IS A BIG DEAL! GREAT JOB!

tax board emails

Documents

kelly mailto

unit c shrewsbury

tinton falls

cta55 white road

dk rds subject

adp datageorgeanyluck

george lockwood cc

george lockwoodcc