32 N.J. Towns Could Face Reassessments - And Big Tax Hikes

For the first time in 40 years, the N.J. Division of Taxation says it's forcing towns to begin property tax revaluations because they have been delinquent in complying with state law.

And the state is also investigating towns that have gone at least 25 years without completing the unpopular revaluation process, which could lead to property owners getting higher tax bills after the value of their properties is reassessed.

Three towns - Jersey City, Dunellen and Elizabeth - have been ordered to complete a revaluation by Nov. 1, 2017, while another six are being investigated, according to a state Division of Taxation press release.

The state also plans to investigate:

• Westfield
• South River
• East Newark
• Harrison
• Roselle
• Winfield Township

Overall, 32 towns across the state could ultimately be ordered to complete a revaluation because their property hasn't been assessed in 25 years or more.

If a town has not had a revaluation in 10 years, this is typically an indication that the town may be in need of a revaluation, according to Division of Taxation.

Joseph Perone, a spokesman for the division, didn't address whether all 32 are subject to investigation, but he did provide a list of the 32 towns that could ultimately be targeted.

Roselle Park was on the original list, but the town has completed it's revaluation, according to state officials.

Those towns are (including the county and years they've gone without a reassessment):

1. WINFIELD TWP, UNION 43
2. UNION TWP, UNION 40
3. ELIZABETH, UNION 39
4. DUNELLEN, MIDDLESEX 33
5. EAST BRUNSWICK, MIDDLESEX 32
6. FANWOOD, UNION 32
7. PORT REPUBLIC, ATLANTIC 31
8. MOUNTAINSIDE, UNION 31
9. SCOTCH PLAINS, UNION 31
10. KEARNY TOWN, HUDSON 30
11. CLARK, UNION 30
12. GARWOOD, UNION 30
13. EAST NEWARK, HUDSON 29
14. MIDDLESEX BORO, MIDDLESEX 29
15. SOUTH PLAINFIELD, MIDDLESEX 29
16. SOUTH RIVER, MIDDLESEX 29
17. WOODBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX 29
18. SPRINGFIELD TWP, UNION 29
19. WESTFIELD, UNION 29
20. WALPACK, SUSSEX 28
21. HARRISON, HUDSON 27
22. JERSEY CITY, HUDSON 27
23. EDISON, MIDDLESEX 27
24. KENILWORTH, UNION 27
25. SECAUCUS, HUDSON 26
26. SOUTH BRUNSWICK, MIDDLESEX 26
27. HAWTHORNE, PASSAIC 26
28. LINDEN, UNION 26
29. ROSELLE, UNION 26
30. PEMBERTON, BURLINGTON 25
31. OLD BRIDGE TWP, MIDDLESEX 25

The orders represent the beginning of a larger effort to address issues of noncompliance by municipalities in the absence of action by county tax boards, according to the release.

The orders followed a four-month investigation that culminated in public hearings that the Division held in each town to elicit public testimony. Towns can challenge the order by filing a complaint with the state's tax court within the next three months.

Several officials affected by the order decried the state's actions.

J. Christian Bollwage, mayor of Elizabeth, told nj.com that "the cooperation with the state of New Jersey on this forced revaluation from the city of Elizabeth will be minimal."

"It's been driven autocratically and not in a process that allows Elizabeth to be part of the solution," Bollwage told nj.com. "They jammed it down our throat."

Jersey City spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill blamed the Christie administration, telling nj.com that the orders represent "Trenton politics at work because of the documented and rocky relationship between Mayor Fulop and Governor Christie dating back to Bridgegate."

"If it wasn't politics," she told nj.com, "why not treat all [32] New Jersey municipalities that are in the same situation the same way?"

The division, however, said no member of the public spoke during the Elizabeth hearing, and the majority of the 14 residents who spoke in Jersey City were in favor of a revaluation, according to the release.

Although 25 people spoke against the form of the public hearing in Dunellen, not one citizen offered any substantive evidence to preclude the Division from issuing an order, according to the release.

John Ficara, the acting director of the Division of Taxation, ordered the revaluations because Jersey City, Dunellen and Elizabeth have been "persistent violators" of the uniformity clause”of the State Constitution, which requires property taxes to be assessed uniformly state-wide, according to the release.

The investigation revealed that municipal governing bodies in Jersey City, Dunellen and Elizabeth fostered a climate of unfair and inequitable taxation within their boundaries, according to the release.

“Municipal officials in Jersey City, Dunellen and Elizabeth failed to meet their statutory obligation to comply with the State Constitution, which requires a uniform distribution of the tax burden,” Ficara said.

“As a result of their disregard for state law, these municipal officials caused some property owners to pay far too much in taxes and some to pay far too little," he added. "These revaluations will bring the towns back into compliance and ensure that all taxpayers are treated fairly and equally, whether they have recently purchased property or are longtime owners."

The investigation revealed the municipalities’ noncompliance partly resulted from "failed supervision" by the Hudson, Middlesex and Union county tax boards, according to the release.

“The county tax boards were complicit in this conduct by their abject failure to provide oversight of these municipalities,” Ficara said. “They have a fiduciary responsibility to recommend revaluations, where warranted, in their respective taxing districts. Instead, they ignored the mandates of the State Constitution and, thereby, shirked their responsibilities.”

Jersey City has not had a revaluation in 28 years, Elizabeth in more than 40 years and Dunellen in 34 years.

The next steps for the municipalities include the following:

• As part of the revaluation program, each municipality is required to submit up-to-date tax maps, with an “as of date” within the current tax year, within 90 days of the order for revaluation to the acting director of the Division of Taxation for review.
• The municipal tax assessor for each town must, within 30 days from the date of the revaluation order, submit a proposed plan of compliance.
• The municipal governing body shall take all necessary actions to enter into a revaluation contract in accordance with the law.
• The municipal governing body shall prepare the necessary specifications for the revaluation contract and submit a copy to the Division of Taxation and the County Board of Taxation.