The City Centre strip mall at Maple Avenue and West Front Street is one of five properties under common ownership that will see lower tax bills.
The Red Bank Council last night greenlighted settlements of five tax appeal lawsuits, but only after a lengthy closed-door session that left members of the governing body clearly dispirited.
"Yes, under duress," Councilman Ed Zipprich said after a long pause when called on to vote on the first of the batch. He repeated the phrase each time he voted, as did Councilwoman Kathleen Horgan.
The votes represented a win for landlord John Bowers and other stakeholders in the five commercial properties, knocking down the net assessments on the group by $1.6 million, or 8.6 percent.
The specifics of what the council discussed in its closed-door executive session were not disclosed last night. The council re-opened its public session afterward to hold the vote.
But Councilwoman Sharon Lee told redbankgreen afterward that her reluctance to approve the settlements had less to do with the particulars of the lawsuits on the table than "the process," which she said left the council largely at the mercy of competing experts.
"We spent a lot of time on the validity of the whole process," wherein experts for property owners challenge the judgment of the borough assessor, she said.
She added that she was concerned particularly about impact of appeals "in this type of economic environment," in which property values have fallen sharply even though the last reassessment, which the appeals challenged, was concluded near the peak of a rising market.
"This is a huge process, and it takes a lot of time and energy, and it always translates into a lot of dollars," Lee said.
"There's a fair criticism of the system, but it's the system we have to work with," said borough Attorney Tom Hall, who negotiated the settlements. He said he had pressed the lawyer for Bowers to offer hard proof that the assessments were erroneous, and that the attorney had done so.
"There were good reasons to settle" rather than have the case go before a judge, he said.
The Bowers appeals concerned valuations on the properties for tax years 2007 and 2008. Borough Assessor Mitch Elias had booked the properties at an aggregate value of $18.7 million. The settlements reduce that to $17.1 million.
At the 2008 tax rate of 44.5 cents per $100 value, the change means $7,174 less in the current fiscal year for the borough coffers, according to borough CFO Frank Mason.
Zipprich, Horgan and Lee voted in favor of the settlements. Council President Art Murphy, sitting in for absent Mayor Pasquale Menna, abstained on all, as did Councilmember Juanita Lewis. Councilman Mike DuPont was absent for the vote.
Here are the resolutions, which show the before and after valuations of the subject properties.
09-96 64-68
White Street, home of Cigars Plus and other businesses.
09-97 2-150 Water Street, City Center Plaza.
09-99 73
West Front Street, used as a parking lot.
09-100 43 West
Front Street, offices.
09-101 70 White
Street, home of a Charles Schwab & Co. branch.
Why vote under duress? Who is causing the duress? Why only three council members voting? If the assessment is correct vote yes, if not vote no. Why the drama of the duress vote if the case was made to lower the assessment. Doesn't make sense.
That's the Democractic way. Thesetwo, Zipperich and Horgan sound like they are for themselves and not the Borough.
It so pity you voters in Red Bank. You really don't have anyone to really vote for. You had Canghemi, but she got voted out because everyone hated George Bush. You all made a big mistake.
The abstainers were 'hired' to make decisions and vote. Recusals are for legitimate cause such as conflicts of interest but abstentions are a cop-out.
This just shown the lunacy of the property tax system .Property values have clearly fallen 10% to 20% by not lowering property taxes is crazy .would the IRS expect you to pay the same income tax on 2006 earnings as on 2008 ? if you made 300K in 2006 and paid 90K in taxes would you be expected to pay 90K in taxes if you only made 100K in 2008?If your property is worth less should you pay the same amount ?
Rob, all property values are down. If property values are reduced, the tax rate will increase. Net/Net no savings.
^^ typical voter indifference, which is just sad. If the borough could keep expenses in line nobody would worry. But this town spills gobs of money down endless rat holes in so many nefarious ways that it defies any civic responsibility. This council is a sham. Tax payers need to get pissed. Lord Warfen, do we need a permit to start a tax revolt?
LordJohn may be living under a rock these days, but we have an animal control vehicle now? Is this new, have we always had one?
I'd like to Know who the principals at "Red Bank Investors Co." are and what their connection with the Town Council is, Is Mr. Zipperich a Realtor for them?
Why not learn to spend less money. Most of the people who vote for these people are making less than they use to and have had to stop spending money they do not have. The Democrats have screwed this State up so bad that now there is no place to draw money from to pay for their no bid contracts and triple pensions, ect. People are not paying the income taxes they once did, sales tax revenue is down because people cannot afford to buy things and still the cost to live here exceeds every other state in the nation. They should be figuring out ways to make NJ more affordable and business friendly.
Joseph Seneca, an economics professor at Rutgers University, said during boom times, counties may have pointed to transfer taxes and recording fees as a justification to spend beyond their means.
"From 2004 to 2007, expenses exceeded revenues," Seneca said. "Those revenues got built into the budget. Now it all works, unfortunately, in reverse."
When Red Bank boomed in the 90’s taxes still went up.
Dark buildings downtown were added to the tax rolls. Taxes went up. Until the voter wakes up nothing will change.
What seems the most interesting aspect of this story, having sat through the meeting last night, is that these 5 resolutions were tabled during the public portion of the meeting. Not sure if it was before Mayor Menna left the meeting or thereafter.
There was public comment on these resolutions at the previous meeting when it was subsequently tabled then. Mayor Menna at that meeting expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed settlements.
Tabling the issue in the open portion of the meeting nullified public comment. And nobody sticks around(other than RBG and a reporter) when they break into executive session. No mention either that they would be taking action on the matter.
SMF - I don't know - I think this council is pretty transparent - I can see right through them….
I too agree with "answer me this". Who are the principals in Red Bank Investment Co.? Possibly some type of simbiotic relationship exists between the principals and certain council members that should be addressed in public. And I too would like to know what the "duress" was. Possibly that is something that could constitute extortion.
^^^ Out of line. We have some of the best public Officials in the County. Elected and non-elected. Not everyone who goes above and beyond gets recognized for what they do on this web site.
Please refrain from speculation when trying to catch up with the nay say wagon.
Some very good people who work for our town go unnoticed for what they contribute to our quality of life here.
How about some positives once in a while ?
Your right. I positively think it should be looked into. that way we will all know why almost everybody bailded out before the vote.
We need some council members to stand up and take on this issue, like John Curley. When the the settlement of the tax appeal for the Verizon building on Broad came before the council, he said he was going to vote against it. But when Menna suggested rejecting the settlement, Curley objected to the cost of litigating.
http://www.redbankgreen.com/redbankgreen/2007/11/verizon-tax-pac.html
Not to pick on Curley, though. It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" issue. The Council members have two choices:
1) Accept the settlement, and raise taxes for everyone else.
2) Reject the settlement, incur the court costs, and probably lose anyway.
A vote either way is going to make people mad. I think the abstentions and claims of duress are probably just council members frustrated that there is no politically palatable choice on this issue. They'd like the process to change so that they can make a vote that would be popular, like being able to vote to send the issue go to some board (Zoning, Planning, whatever) which could then make the decision and take the heat.
I wonder if the executive session included a discussion of which members would get to abstain. Murphy's up this year, so he's an obvious choice to get a pass. DuPont is also up this year, but he missed the meeting. Did Lewis win at rock-paper-scissors to get the other abstention slot?
Just guessing.
The solution is what the town did back in the '90's after the housing market peaked right around the time of a reassessment and then declined soon after. There were a ton of tax appeals, based on the new market values. So, the town (as I remember it) gave a blanket reassessment to all of the property owners (if the market decreased by 10%, then everyone got a 10% decrease in their assessment). Then, they raised the tax rate to compensate for the loss of value. It reduced the appeals (can't appeal if you're at market value again) and made it more fair.
But they never slowed down the spending….
Dan,
Councilman Dupont was present at the workshop and open portion of the council meeting. Choosing to leave before the executive session was probably due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr.Dupont indicated for the record at the previous meeting (April 27th), that he had a conflict.
…and so the spending continues….
I'm still at a loss as to why it is that we (RB) doesn't GO to court when someone or group theatens to take us their. It boggles the mind to think that our hired gun (lawyer) already thinks he is a judge and decides the case. Keep in mind it also costs the other side to go to court. I remember when the Shore Builders Assoc. theatened to take RB to court over the proposed "pay to play" issue. RB caved and basically let them write the ordinance rather than thrash it out in front of a judge. Most things would work out better if you weren't allowed to settle out of court but had to go the whole nine yards. Just too many lawyers in town hall building. Part of that simbiotic relationship disease going around town.
….simple answer Engraver: in court there exists the concept of “discovery" – where we the public at large get to read the known facts; by extension, without that court appearance, obfuscation may rule the day. Rest assured, we are well beyond “pay to play” here in Jersey – an entire network of crooked political favors trades thrivingly for those willing to keep such affairs sub rosa….
Hey wait a SECOND aren't all property owners with heavy tax burden under duress. Who do I pay my kick back too, to get on this list?? Please anyone.
Nemo,
Which side in the court case would want to expose underhanded dealing?
I think the reason that there is no court case is that the town would spend thousands of dollars in legal fees, and lose anyway. I wouldn't be happy to see my tax dollars wasted on a useless court case.
The town needs to do 3 things. Give an across the board 20% reduction in all assesments in town to prevent people from fighting their assessment and costing the town money to stop it. Two, they need to operate more efficiently. They can no long run the town on hope of development and other benefits that a town receives during better economic times. They need to cut jobs, benefits/pensions and regionalize services with other communities. And three, they need to stop raising the property taxes for several years to make it a more affordable place to live which is the reason NJ keeps losing residents to other states.
Wouldn't the county have something to say about a 20% cut in assessments? Since the county gov't is funded by property taxes, lowering assessments in RB would result in higher taxes for the rest of the county.
NJ, by the way, is increasing in population. You can find out more about the in- and out-migration in our state at:
http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/dmograph/InterPopMigrTrends.html
http://www.princeton.edu/prior/PRIOReconomy-Final-(2).pdf