Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeals Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cape May County tax board tightens appeals rules: appraisals, inspections and comparables disclosures required
Summary
At its May 6 meeting the Cape May County Board of Taxation adopted multiple resolutions tightening procedures for property tax appeals and settlements, including a new appraisal threshold for large settlements, rules for late filings, inspector testimony requirements, and a seven‑day disclosure for comparable sales.
The Cape May County Board of Taxation on May 6 adopted several rules tightening how property assessment appeals and settlements are handled, including a requirement that large settlements be supported by a formal appraisal and new procedures for late filings and evidence disclosure.
The measures are intended to standardize hearing practice and reduce post‑hearing disputes, board members said when they approved the resolutions by motion during the board's regular meeting.
Why it matters: The changes affect property owners, municipal assessors and appraisal firms across Cape May County by imposing documentation and inspection requirements that could change how appeals are prepared and resolved.
The board approved Resolution #1, which requires that any settlement that reduces an assessment by $1 million or more be supported by a formal narrative appraisal prepared by a state certified general appraiser and submitted seven days in advance of the hearing. The resolution says that if no appraisal is submitted, the settlement will be disapproved and the matter rescheduled for a full Board hearing with ten days' notice.
Separately, Resolution #2 addresses filing deadlines. The resolution cites N.J.S.A. 54:3-21 and case law saying the statutory filing deadline is strictly construed and directs the County Tax Administrator to accept untimely petitions but return late filings endorsed with the delivery date, attached fees, and a judgment for dismissal for the 2025–2026 tax year. The resolution quotes the statutory deadlines that normally conclude with the close of business April 1 each year or May 1 where a reassessment or revaluation occurred.
Resolution #7 and related language reinforce evidentiary and inspection rules at hearings. The board adopted a rule that assessors and representatives from revaluation companies must inspect properties that are the subject of appeals and that no one may testify as to a property's value if they have not inspected it (citing N.J.A.C. 18:12A-1.9(k)). The resolution also requires a representative of a revaluation company to examine appealed properties with the assessor before scheduled hearings in revalued districts.
Resolution #10 requires that assessors produce a list of specific comparable sales they intend to rely upon and provide a copy to the taxpayer‑appellant at least seven days in advance of the hearing. The resolution provides that if no such list is provided, the assessor's testimony will be restricted and previously undisclosed sales will not be considered by the board.
The board also addressed farm classification appeals (Resolution #9). That resolution restates a prior review of qualified farm parcels and directs that an assessor contemplating denial of an FA‑1 agricultural classification application must conduct a physical inspection of the farm before denial. It states Pictometry aerial imagery is a useful tool but must not substitute for required physical inspections; the assessor should hand‑measure actively devoted areas with a measuring wheel or other device in addition to using Pictometry. The resolution also reaffirms the obligation to inspect every farm biannually and that witnesses must have inspected a farm before testifying.
Actions taken at the meeting were recorded as motions that were seconded and carried; the minutes identify movers and seconders (most resolutions were moved by Elizabeth A. Barry and seconded by Lu Ann Wowkanech). The minutes do not record roll‑call vote tallies.
What the board directed staff to do: The County Tax Administrator, Lori L. Rosell, is directed in practice to enforce these documentation and inspection requirements when preparing hearing dockets and when processing settlements and filings.
What was not decided: The minutes record these as board resolutions setting procedures; they do not reflect any individual appeal outcomes or specific settlements. The record does not show the board establishing penalties beyond disallowing settlements that lack the required appraisal or restricting testimony where disclosure rules are not met.
Context and next steps: The board's new rules reference state statutes and administrative rules (see authorities list). Assessors and appraisal firms will need to adapt their pre‑hearing workflows to meet the seven‑day disclosure and inspection requirements; property owners involved in appeals should expect stricter documentary and inspection standards at hearings.
