Council debates estimated third-quarter tax bills after city revaluation

The Paterson Municipal Council spent the bulk of its June 4 workshop pressing the administration for clearer numbers and public-facing explanations of how a recent property revaluation will affect residents’ tax bills.

Council members opened the discussion by asking whether the estimated third-quarter bills — the resolution to authorize issuance was listed as item 23 — reflect an actual tax-rate change or merely an interim municipal estimate. “We’re sending estimated bills for the third quarter,” Council President Mims said, asking the CFO and business administrator to clarify the municipal portion. The CFO and BA (referred to in the meeting as Javier and Mr. Ba) said the municipal component would be near 2.0–2.3 percent, but cautioned that county, school and open-space figures are still estimated and will be finalized later in July.

Why it matters: Several council members warned that even a modest municipal rate increase will produce large dollar impacts for homeowners whose assessed values rose sharply in the revaluation. “If your assessment went from $250,000 to $450,000, your municipal tax could rise substantially even at a 2% rate,” Councilman Vez said during the discussion. Council members repeatedly requested parcel-level impact examples and a plain-language chart showing last year’s amounts, this year’s reassessment values and the estimated municipal, county and school components for an average set of property types.

CFO/BA response and timing: The CFO and BA argued they face a timing mismatch: the state and county release final numbers later in the summer, while the city must issue estimated bills to maintain cash flow. The BA urged caution against introducing a formal municipal budget before transitional-aid (TA) letters arrive, saying an early introduction risks major revisions if TA differs from expectations. He described ongoing weekly contact with the Department of Community Affairs and said the city is “optimistic” about increased TA but could not promise a final figure.

Council demands and follow-up: Several members said that optimism is insufficient and asked for (1) written confirmation of the municipal estimate to circulate before the June 9 voting session, (2) the exact or closest-available county and school percentages used in the estimate, (3) parcel examples showing the combined effect of reassessment plus municipal, county and school components, and (4) a list of any outstanding prior-year bills from event organizers cited in the afternoon’s event licensing discussion. The CFO agreed to circulate an updated spreadsheet and to endeavor to provide the best available county and school estimates before the next meeting.

What the action was: The council debated but did not change the legal requirement to approve the issuance of estimated tax bills; members clarified that the bills are based on estimates for county, school and open-space charges and that the municipal portion under consideration is the municipal governing body’s estimated share. The CFO said final adjustments will be made when the budget is adopted and county/school numbers are finalized.

Next steps: The administration agreed to send a consolidated memo and supporting tables to all council members ahead of the June 9 meeting showing the municipal estimate used, sources for the county/school estimates, and representative parcel impact examples. The council scheduled a budget hearing and asked the administration to provide a clear timeline for when final numbers will be available.