Rise in average property value created tax hike
By: Michelle McGuinness
Taxes may be one of the few things guaranteed in life, but higher taxes came as an unwelcome surprise for many Cranbury residents when they received their tax bill on July 13.
Many homeowners in Cranbury have seen a spike in their taxes due to a township revaluation that was conducted in February. The revaluation, the first in the township since 1986, raised the average property value from $219,439 in 2006 to $673,176 in 2007.
The rise in property value translated to a rise in taxes for some who were surprised at the increase. Others, however, said the revaluation more evenly distributed the tax burden.
Residents living in older homes such as Keith Graydon, of Station Road near the edge of the historic district, said they believed they were hit pretty hard.
Mr. Graydon said his home dates back to the 1850s. His taxes jumped from a little over $4,000 in 2006 to about $6,200 in 2007.
"It’s ridiculous," he said. "My taxes went up 50 percent."
Mr. Graydon said he and his wife considered appealing the assessment, but decided not to when they discovered most of their neighbors were probably experiencing a similar spike in taxes.
"We both work. We’re not wealthy people," he said. "Whether you make a lot of money or not, I don’t think it’s right."
One resident living in a house over 100 years old reported a tax increase of about 56 percent.
Dan Harshbarger, of Prospect Street, said when he bought the house last year, he never anticipated his taxes shooting up from about $12,000 to about $19,000 this year. He said he spoke to several people, including the Tax Assessor’s Office, and got the impression that taxes would remain reasonable.
"I think it is unreasonable for the township to expect families in Cranbury to pay any level of increase in taxes they deem appropriate," he said via e-mail. "I am told that there was discussion about setting a cap on increases. I would like to know who decided to discard this plan."
Township Tax Assessor Steve Benner said the revaluation helped to bring market and assessed values for both residential and non-residential buildings closer. He said that, between 1986 and 2007, "there was a build up of inequity between property owners that needed to be corrected."
Mr. Benner said that, on average, people were previously assessed at about 42 percent below the true value of their residences. This disparity came about partly because it had been 21 years since the township had conducted a revaluation.
Mr. Benner said assessment appeals by non-residential property owners primarily commercial properties also spurred the revaluation.
"We had a couple warehouse appeals last year and the year before," he said.
He said the appeals are normal and are usually filed because businesses discover they are paying more than what they believe should be their share of taxes. They determine this by looking at the state-published director’s ratio that comes out at the end of the year.
"The non-residential property owners could then measure their value against that ratio and determine in effect they were being overtaxed," Mr. Benner said.
Many residents, however, questioned the worth of the revaluation.
Robert Diamond, of Old Trenton Road, said Cranbury used to be proud of arranging the warehouses around town so as to keep taxes low.
"That doesn’t seem to be true anymore," he said.
He said taxes on his home have risen almost 50 percent.
"It’s a surprise," he said. "I don’t have a choice. Basically the choice is you pay the tax or you sell your house."
Linda Palmer, of Dey Road, said she bought her 16-year-old house in Cranbury partly because of the lower taxes.
Ms. Palmer, who bought her house in April, said she wasn’t aware of the revaluation and sees her increased taxes as a big change from what she thought she’d be getting by moving to Cranbury.
She said the taxes on her house were previously about $8,000 and have now gone up to $9,900.
"For me, this was a big shock," she said.
Part of the reason Ms. Palmer did not expect the increase was because of the age of her house, she said. Ms. Palmer said that when she bought her previous house in Old Bridge, she was prepared for higher taxes because it was a new home.
"I knew when I built it and when I bought it that I’d be paying more. That’s the choice you make when you build a new home," she said. "So yeah, they should pay more and I was willing to do that at my old house."
Ms. Palmer’s experience is not unusual. Many owners of older homes in Cranbury, like Ms. Palmer, are seeing some of the largest percentage increases in their taxes in comparison with owners of newer homes, Mr. Benner said. Prior to the revaluation, he said, owners of newer homes were bearing a greater share of the tax burden.
"By and large the newer homes would have been paying on a proportional basis higher taxes," he said.
With the revaluation, that disparity has been leveled out, he said.
Former Mayor Alan Danser, of Plainsboro Road, said he doesn’t think the revaluation was necessary in the first place.
"I think it’s a shame that it was done," he said.
Mr. Danser said his own taxes for his 27-year-old home have risen from $8,800 in 2006 to $12,000 in 2007.
While Mr. Danser wasn’t surprised by how much his taxes went up, he believes part of the cause could be linked to the municipal and school budgets.
"Given that it’s been done, the revaluation doesn’t really cost people money," he said. "It’s budgets going up that does."
The Cranbury school budget has gone up from last year to this year, according to School Business Administrator Carolyn Eversole, from $15.9 million to $16.8 million.
According to Chief Financial Officer Denise Marabello, the municipal budget was reduced from about $12.5 million in 2006 to $12.2 million in 2007. However, the portion of that budget coming from taxes has risen about $1.2 million this year to almost $6.5 million.
Ms. Marabello said this is because there is less money available in the township’s surplus. So, while the amount of state aid the township received rose slightly this year from about $745,000 to about $758,000 taxes still had to rise.
Mr. Benner said his office has received about half a dozen calls so far about the tax increase. He said any residents with concerns should schedule an appointment with his office to review their assessment. The deadline to appeal the assessment passed on April 1.
Mr. Benner said this is the only option residents have as of now if they are concerned over their new assessment.
He said the concern expressed by some residents is a "natural occurrence" after a revaluation.
"Everyone probably feels their taxes are too high," he said, "but the question is whether their assessment measures market value or not."

