Earlier this year, Councilman Michael Nochimson told the Town Council about the escrow shortage notice he had received from his bank last fall to make a point about how taxes have increased in Verona. Last Tuesday, April 7, at a workshop on Verona’s 2015 budget, he repeated that he had had an escrow shortage of $1,400. This time, Councilman Frank Sapienza challenged it, saying that Nochimson’s increase was only $868.70.
Sapienza appeared to have been ready to challenge Nochimson: As Nochimson spoke, he can be seen in the meeting video reaching to his left for a folder and pulling out a piece of paper. “I can help you out with that,” Sapienza said in the meeting. “I can help you out a little bit with that. Because the first time that you brought that up, I had concerns. I was wondering where my escrow was going because mine came in up. And when you said what bank you have, I have the same bank. So I looked mine up and I looked yours up because I’m like how can yours be so much different than mine. And I found that mine went up.” He read the number for Nochimson, and said that his own increase was $667. Sapienza’s phrasing made it seem as if he had gotten into his opponent’s private bank information and Nochimson was stunned. “So much for privacy,” he said.
With both Sapienza and Nochimson running for re-election on May 12, we decided that it was time for some fact checking.
Here’s what we’ve learned:
1. Nochimson’s escrow shortage was not $1,400, it was more. The correct figure was $1,568.92, highlighted in red in the photo below. Nochimson provided MyVeronaNJ.com with a copy of his escrow shortage notice. We blocked out any personally identifiable data on his account. (The blurry gray line was caused by Nochimson attempting to use a highlighter on the statement before scanning it.)
2. Sapienza got information from an assessment database, not a bank. The New Jersey Association of County Tax Boards allows anyone, anywhere to check assessments and taxes on any property in the state. You can search by town and county, by address or tax lot number to see your own assessment, or that of your neighbor. You can learn the assessment for the land, the improvements and the total. What Sapienza was tallying was Nochimson’s tax increase, not his escrow increase, but that still leaves a $700.22 difference between Sapienza’s number and Nochimson’s.
3. Escrow shortages can occur for several reasons. If the assessed value of your property rises, your taxes will rise and what you’ve been paying for your mortgage may not be enough. If your insurance costs go up, it could also produce a shortfall. If your tax rate goes up, it could result in a shortfall, even if your assessed value stays the same. Nochimson’s assessment fell in 2013 from 2012, but his assessments for 2014 and 2015 are the same as they were in 2013. The pattern is exactly the same for Sapienza’s assessment, according to the NJACTB database.
4. Nochimson’s insurance went up. With no policy changes or surcharges, his homeowners went from $1,256 for 2013–2014, to $1,570 for 2014–2015, an increase of $314. But that still leaves $386.22 unaccounted for.
5. Verona’s tax rates have gone up. According to the New Jersey Department of Taxation, Verona’s general tax rate–the rate that is used to compute our tax bills–was 2.946 for 2014, up from 2.801 for 2013, and 2.678 for 2012. The rate was 2.550 in 2011, and 2.416 in 2010, which was the first year after the town-wide revaluation.
6. Escrow calculations are made in anticipation of taxes. The bank that holds your mortgage pays property taxes on your behalf. When taxes rise, a lender can be caught short if they did not anticipate the increase. They can ask you to add to your escrow–by sending a shortfall notice–to make sure that they will be covered in the future. That’s the likeliest explanation for the $386.22, making Nochimson’s total increase attributable to taxes to be $1,254.92.
MyVeronaNJ.com sent Sapienza an email last week to ask about his assertions. He initially responded that he had spoken about Nochimson’s tax bill not his escrow shortage, then followed up with an email that, “under the advice” of his personal attorney, he had no comment. Last Thursday afternoon he emailed again to say that “Just to update you after Tuesday’s meeting there was a one way communication from councilman Nochimson to me. By the advice of my personal attorney I have been told not to make any comments.”
We asked Nochimson about all this. “I was taken aback Tuesday evening when Councilman Sapienza presented, in a public meeting, a discussion about my personal finances,” he said in an email. “After the meeting, I let him know that via electronic message. Despite the Councilman’s incorrect observations, I stand by what I said at prior meetings regarding my mortgage and tax bill increases. My family’s escrow shortfall is exactly what I have stated. I find it disturbing that Councilman Sapienza with no financial expertise at all said this and even more troublesome is that he never took the time to verify the accuracy of his public statement regarding my personal finances. Why he is researching my personal finances is quite concerning and creepy. Anyone who knows me, is comfortable asking me questions when there is disagreement or a question on an issue. That type of communication could have avoided Councilman Sapienza’s irresponsible statements on Tuesday evening.”
Thank you for your extensive research on this matter and setting the “proverbial” record straight. For further clarification, my goal was to communicate how exhausted Verona citizens/tax payers are by the continued annual increases due in one part to wasteful spending.
As you so aptly determined, the main increase in my escrow account was directly related to tax increases, which must also be affecting ALL Verona families. Just for the record, after further research, my escrow was actually $170 higher than I had stated during our meeting. Unlike Mr. Sapienza, I believe we as citizens of Verona deserve some explanation for these increases. I plan to change the way Verona allocates their resources and provide a much greater level of transparency for all constituents.
Michael Nochimson
I am ALL for keeping taxes under control. But taxes go up over time because things cost more over time. The fact that a bank decided to increase an escrow this year tells you very little. I’ve worked for a bank for many years. Just like taxes, escrows increase over time as well. If someone wanted to make this argument there are many other facts required. When was the last escrow increase? Has the bank generally increased the escrow every 10 years, 5 years, 2 years? Was this increase larger and more frequent than in the past? Did the assessed value increase? If a assessed value increases (a good thing), so will an escrow account. I am a recent resident in Verona. What is the township portion of our taxes? 20%? If you consider homeowners insurance, the township portion of your escrow is probably around 10%. So maybe 10% of an increase is directly tied to the township. All that a single escrow increase tells us is that taxes have gone up over time (which our wallets already told us). Hopefully the other councilman just misspoke and knows the difference between property taxes and mortgage escrows.
Bratty children squabbling on the playground. What’s new? It’s business-as-usual for the Verona council.
Again I ask – how can ANYONE endorse for re-election this brand of complete buffoonery coupled with continued inaction. Clearly, Verona deserves better than this.
And I agree with Mr. Nochimson’s statement on taxes, the “citizens of Verona deserve some explanation for these increases.” Who better to ask than you, sir? What have you done in 4 YEARS as a sitting council-member to counter these increases?
And please don’t assert the “I was outnumbered” excuse. Your job as a councilman is to create and present quality solutions that leave little room for debate – instead of the same old abstract, rhetorical vocalizations that everyone is tired of hearing.
So, where are they? Where are your solutions?
Can you provide a link to your alternative budget? Or your research papers that provide real-world, non-contentious solutions? Or ordinances that you wrote and presented? Or ANYTHING that shows you have invested time and effort and possess any expertise in finding alternative solutions to Verona’s high taxes?
Or do you think that the childish, misguided bickering is fulfilling your obligations as a councilman? Because I don’t. And why do you continue to appear to lack even a fundamental understanding of municipal processes and your role as a councilman?
Do you need to be reminded that you voted FOR the fields project, a project that many criticized as unnecessary and many more criticized as an unaffordable luxury? Is this your solution to “wasteful spending?”
Is your platform to expect 4 more years of your infantile, self-indulgent whining while you actually do NOTHING to lower taxes and everything to raise them?
Steven, were you not aware that in the Job Description for a NJ local politician states “strong ability to blame others, pretend to know what you are talking about, and throw out misleading/false information while not actually contributing value.”
This report completely missed the point, and skewed the facts to support the candidate that the editor so blindly endorses. The real story of that April 7 Town Council budget meeting was thoroughly ignored.
Firstly, this is the fourth time Mr. Nochimson has publicly held up his escrow bill and claimed that he has a shortage because taxes went up, thereby opening the door to public scrutiny. Then when someone calls him on it, he cries foul. As a money guy, you would think he would have a better idea what the cost drivers of an escrow balance are, or at least what a small percentage of the municipal portion of your property tax it represents. Could the shortage have anything to do with the renovations to his house? Hmmmmm.
Rather than his whining about his escrow because he was questioned on it, the real story that night was that during the Tax Assessor’s presentation, Councilman Nochimson eluded to the fact that he would actually prefer to cut services to residents so that the Township can give the Board of Education more money? I had to rewind it a twice to make sure I heard what I thought I heard. When the Mayor told him that the only way to keep our revenue neutral and still give the BoE more money was to cut the municipal budget, he agreed! To cut the budget with any real savings to tax payers MUST mean cuts in services. Essentially he is in favor of giving the BoE more than 54% of our property tax which would result in either a reduction in essential municipal services, or an increase of the municipal portion of our property tax. Then he tried to back pedal and said that he was not in favor of cutting services. Really? Then how would you cut taxes? Tell us, please?
He could not seem, or simply refused to understand, even after repeated explanations from the Tax Assessor, that giving the BoE a larger share of property tax creates a short fall on the municipal anticipated revenue side which needs to be made up in an increase in municipal property tax, or a cut in essential services. Watch the video.
During the Town CFO’s report, while the CFO talked about our town debt saying that our debt is comparatively low, and actually a good thing because it helps keep our AA Stable bond rating, and Verona is in great financial shape, Nochimson agreed that debt is good! That seemed odd to me because on his campaign website he called that same debt, “Insane”. Which is it, good or insane?
He continues to claim that he is the “Taxpayers’ Voice” and that the town debt is too high, but yet he has voted “YES” on every single bond debt ordinance, and then voted “NO” on two consecutive budgets of a 0% increases in the tax levy. The contradictions and hypocrisy continue.
Please, please, DO NOT be duped by this guy!
Bill,
Thanks for your views. To clarify, MyVeronaNJ.com has not and does not make endorsements in municipal elections.
The funniest part about Nochimson flip flopping on the debt issue was that he thought he had a bombshell saying debt has risen 40%! It was later pointed out that he voted to approve every single debt ordinance since he has been on council. So if its such a bad thing Councilman, why did you approve every ordinance? It was later pointed out that the vast majority of debt was for the fields project and the rest being road projects paid for by DOT Grants.
How in the world would sharing future PILOT revenues with the Board of Ed result in cutting town services? It wouldn’t. There is NO cause and effect relationship here.
First off, the Board of Ed is among one of our township’s TOP ‘services’; at the very least, keeping our home values at a steady level during the recent recession and at best, sending Verona’s children off to a fruitful future. But that’s beside the point…
The problem is that these assertions are based upon the Mayor’s statement (quoting from Mr. Caulfield’s comment) that ‘the only way to keep our revenue neutral and give the BOE money is to cut the municipal budget.’ That’s utterly incorrect. And it isn’t what Mr. Nochimson has suggested, but it IS what some people would like to scare us into thinking.
To be clear, Mr. Nochimson has never once suggested a shift of the Ad Valorem tax distribution. It’s what your statement intends to convey, but respectfully, it is very misleading and untrue. Mr. Nochimson has shown favor towards sharing future PILOT revenues—keywords here: “future” and “revenues” with the Board of Education, especially in the case of residential uses, like one planned for the Annin Site. Not just at this particular meeting, but consistently at many meetings. Additionally, Mr. Nochimson clearly stated that he has absolutely no intention of cutting any town services. How did you miss that part of the meeting?
Comments from George Librizzi,Verona’s tax assessor: (again, quoting from Mr. Caulfield’s comments) that “giving the BOE a larger share of property tax creates a short fall on the municipal anticipated revenue side” is inappropriate for two reasons. For one, he is comparing apples to oranges. Property taxes and PILOT revenues are two different animals. Mr. Nochimson hasn’t suggested giving a larger share of the property tax to the BOE…the Ad Valorem rate ‘is what it is’. What Mr. Nochimson IS suggesting is that we share future PILOT revenues, not property taxes.
Secondly, exactly what business is it of Mr. Librizzi to tell Verona how to invest its revenue? Currently, Verona has 3 PILOT properties, none of which share revenues with the BOE. And since Annin’s PILOT revenue doesn’t even exist yet, exactly which revenue expectation is Mr. Librizzi referring to when he mentions a shortfall? Is he counting the chickens before they’ve hatched?
Mr. Librizzi was also incorrect in his reference to the land value vs improvement value of the Annin properties. He stated that the land was likely of greater value than the improvement value. According to our current tax records, the land value of the 3 Annin properties is $1,330,400 vs the improvement value of $2,331,400. Meh- what’s a million dollars in Verona? Imagine the significant increase in that improvement value once there are grand lofts in place.
The BOE currently receives ad valorem taxes from Annin and the surrounding properties. Once converted into residencies and placed into a PILOT program, the BOE will lose those current funds as well as all new revenues for the life of the PILOT. How long? 20 years? 30 Years?
Does Mr. Librizzi know how many families will move into the lofts? And who will pay for the increases in matriculation? The Ad Valorem taxpayers will; the Rest of Verona will have that burden shifted to them. All because Mr. Librizzi and a few shortsighted others don’t want to share with or invest in one of the best services Verona has to offer—the schools.
Our Council has the power to share PILOT revenue with the BOE. Based upon the residential use proposed for Annin, Mr. Nochimson feels that “it is the right thing to do.”
I agree.
Mr. Oliva,
You mentioned you were a relatively new resident– so welcome sir to Verona. Respectfully, you are mistaken in your statement that Mr. Nochimson has “voted to approve every single debt ordinance since he has been on council”. One that immediately comes to mind occurred as recently as last fall.
If you attend council meetings regularly, you’d be able to more closely follow the minutiae of these ordinances and the way in which they are written. And you’d also be able to follow the way in which our councilmen approach spending in our town. Which guys always vote YES and which two always question the composition of our ordinances? I think you may have things a bit backwards.
Quite often, essential needs for the township are bundled with a number of non-essential accessory stipulations. Voting NO is a difficult thing to do because it puts off the essentials until such time that a “clean bill” is reintroduced. Why bills are bundled in such a way is at issue and why it took our Manager months and months to reintroduce the same essential in a bill, without the riders is another issue altogether.
If we need streets repaved or sidewalks fixed, then draft a clean bill that addresses those very issues. But that isn’t how it goes.
That is precisely why last year, Councilmen Nochimson and Ryan voted “NO” on Ordinance 4-14, because of the fact that it was bundled with upwards of $435,000 dollars of unrelated spending.
Ordinance 4-15, a clean version of that bill, passed this year without those riders and wholly addressed the streets and sidewalks (it included equipment for truck with plow/saltspreader- which is street related). The cost of that equipment was also reduced from $420,000 in (4-14) to $220,000 in (4-15) in the bill that passed.
The NJDOT Grant for $200,000 and Community Block grant for $110,000 to fix the streets was part of both last year’s proposed Ordinance 4-14 and this year’s passed Ordinance 4-15. Verona has secured those grants and they were never at issue.
Please feel free to OPRA both ordinances to fact check.
Jessica Pearson,
So you are saying that a councilman who approved almost $8 million is debt through out his time on council and then one time asks for a reduction that amounted to about $200,000 has the right to complain about “soaring” debt costs? From reading the minutes, Nochimson was the one pushing for the street sweeper that was eliminated and lead to the reduction.
The guy has no idea what he is talking about. His whole escrow argument is case and point. Bringing up an increase in escrow with no substance behind it and trying to blame it on Township taxes is blatantly trying to mislead the public. I have seen too many politicians get elected in my time by using theses cheap scare techniques.
Maybe Verona needs some changes but electing someone with no substance or knowledge leads to disasters that we have seen in neighboring communities (layoffs of police and fire, furloughs, cutting of essential services)
PILOT, schmilot. Another overblown issue where NO ONE on the council is taking any initiative or putting in any effort. The equitable distribution of PILOT monies requires a multi-faceted formula. And there should be no implication that “multi-faceted” equals “too complicated.”
This ain’t brain surgery, people. I think even the casual viewer of council meetings is aware that any variation on the term “cutting town services” is a lame excuse for not wanting to put any further effort to correct an issue.
And here is the issue EVERYONE should be concerned with when it comes to PILOT monies; is there any windfall for Verona? Because if there is, it should NOT be treated as “mad money” for either the BOE or the council – it should be returned to where is belongs, back into the hands of Verona’s taxpayers – either in the form of a rebate or subtracted directly from the bottom line of the next budget.
Jessica, has “your candidate,” Michael Nochimson, presented an equitable formula for the distribution of PILOT money? Let me answer that for you, NO, he hasn’t. He has instead made it yet another topic to waste time and whine like a bratty child about without investing the 20 minutes it would take to create and present an impartial, non-contentious solution.
Again I ask – how can ANYONE endorse for re-election this brand of complete buffoonery coupled with continued inaction. Clearly, Verona deserves better than this.