Red Bank's tax base more than doubles
Property owners may challenge assessed values
BY LAYLI WHYTE
Staff Writer

RED BANK - The total value of taxable property in the borough has increased from around $968 million to more than $2.2 billion after completion of the recent borough-wide reassessment.

Neil Rubenstein, president of Realty Appraisal Co., the firm that conducted the reassessment of borough properties, said Tuesday the total property assessment for the borough had increased more than 2 1/2 times from the previous level.

Rubenstein said taxpayers will have a chance to appeal the assessment increases.

Borough residents and other property owners received letters last week notifying them of the new, and invariably higher, assessed value of their properties.

At the Borough Council meeting last week, a large group of residents attended to find out what could be done to keep their assessed property value from increasing and taxes from going up.

Mayor Pasquale Menna told those in attendance that he understood their concerns about already high property taxes, but that an increased assessment does not necessarily mean increased taxes.

"[A reassessment] doesn't mean that your taxes will go up," he said. "In fact, the numbers I've seen look very, very much in favor of the future of Red Bank."

Rubenstein was on hand at the council meeting to explain the procedure for assessing property.

"This is the fifth time for us working for the borough," he said. "The first four times were complete reevaluations, with physical inspections both interior and exterior."

Rubenstein explained that a reassessment is based on exterior inspection, as well as analyzing comparable sales.

Danny Murphy, owner of Danny's Steakhouse and Seafood Grill, Bridge Avenue, questioned Rubenstein on the accuracy of recent comparable sales.

"A year ago," he said, "the real estate market was hot. It's been going down, so how can the sales of a year ago tell you anything about values now?"

Borough Tax Assessor Mitchell Elias, who was also present at the council meeting, said that the new assessed value of properties in the borough is based on what the market value of the property was on Oct. 1, 2006.

That date, according to Elias, comes from the state Division of Taxation Guidelines, and any changes on or around the property that occurred after that date cannot be factored in to any adjustment that may be made to a property's assessed value.

Elias said that Realty Appraisal was required to look at neighborhood property sales for the past three years, but that more weight was given to the prices that properties had sold for in 2006.

David Prown, Hillside Place, asked, "What if the most current sale in your neighborhood occurred during the hot period in the real estate market?"

Elias said that other, similar neighborhoods were also looked at, and that comparable sales of comparable houses in comparable neighborhoods were inspected to arrive at the assessments.

According to Rubenstein, residents wishing to appeal their assessments will be permitted to look at the data collected by Realty Appraisal that affected the assessed value of their property.

In 2005, the borough was ordered to undertake a revaluation, which is more extensive and more expensive than a reassessment, by the Monmouth County Board of Taxation.

The borough appealed the revaluation order, and the county permitted a reassessment instead.

According to Elias, property owners in the borough have had their property values adjusted to reflect 100 percent of market value.

"If people have questions or if they disagree with the assessed value, there is a phone number to call on the letter they receive that they should call and make an appointment to come to Borough Hall," Elias said last week.

Elias said that if people disagree with the new assessed value of their property, they should gather whatever information they can to support their point, such as photographs or lists of sales of comparable property.

"For example," he said, "if someone wants to show that their home is in poor condition, which would decrease the value of their home, then they should take photographs showing that. If there is something nearby that they feel would decrease the value of the property, they should take a picture of that."

Rubenstein said the letter that borough property owners received does not give specific information on taxes, and that only the assessment, not the property taxes, can be appealed.

"After the informal hearings [with our company]," he said, "a second letter will be sent to the property owners who attended the informal hearings stating whether or not the assessment will change."

Rubenstein said that the second step for property owners wishing to appeal the assessment, is to have a formal hearing in front of the Monmouth County Board of Taxation, which must occur within 45 days of the date that Elias certifies the new assessment on the tax rolls.

The third step, if the first two appeals are denied, is for property owners to appeal to the Tax Court of New Jersey, according to Rubenstein.

"We don't know what the taxes will be," he said, "because we don't know what the budget will be. Everyone's assessment went up, and that means the tax rate should drop dramatically."

Residents will see any changes in their July tax bills, and while some people may see an increase in their tax bill, others will see a decrease, and still others may have no change at all.

"It's common to say that it's a third, a third and a third," Elias said, "but if the schools ask for a budget increase this year, that could easily change."

"The tax rate," said Elias, "will decrease based on the average assessed value. If you are close to the average, your taxes should stay the same. If you are above the average, your taxes will increase, and if you are below it, your taxes will decrease. If the average home doubled in value, then the tax rate will be cut in half."