Assessors warn removing FY26 revaluation funding risks larger costs later

Justice Graves, the town—s deputy assessor, told the Select Board and Advisory Committee that the board of assessors had expected an article in the FY26 warrant to fund routine revaluation and cyclical-review work but found the town administrator recommended dropping that request from the proposed budget.

Graves said the omission risks escalating costs and repeated one-time requests. "Templeton has a history of, especially when it comes to some items like this. If we don't fund it in 1 year, we tend to not fund it in in Yeah. Consecutive years," he told the board, urging the Select Board to restore funding now rather than face larger bills later.

The significance is practical: the assessors plan recurring statistical and cyclical work tied to the five-year revaluation cycle, and contractors require funds to be committed before they will bid. Graves presented a multi-year outline showing a modest FY26 request (the assessors proposed $15,000) rising to an estimated $22,500 in 2027 if the current request is skipped. He warned that deferring this work increases the amount that will be needed in later years and complicates contractor procurement.

Town Administrator Adam Lamontagne explained why the FY26 placeholder was removed from his recommended budget, saying he had to make difficult tradeoffs. "I was gonna actually reduce town hall hours by 2 hours each week for fiscal year 26, and I had to make the decision. I talked to Sue O'Koyne, the chair of the board, about this," Lamontagne said. He added that he had hoped to find a way to fund the revaluation request but that constrained funds led to the omission.

Advisory and Select Board members pressed for alternatives that would avoid a growing multi-year funding shortfall. Several members suggested spreading small, steady amounts across years rather than deferring and then asking for a large sum later. Advisory Chair Francis and other board members said the town should prioritize budgeting for recurring items to avoid using one-time revenues repeatedly for operating needs.

Graves recommended returning the $15,000 revaluation article to the FY26 warrant and noted the practical timing: the assessors must show contractors that funds are available ahead of bid requests for a 2029 revaluation, and some technical work (mapping, commercial review and software upgrades) will be needed before then. "We need the funds secured at least by the end of FY28, because these contractors like Vision and RRC—s need to know that we have the funds before we go out to bid," Graves said.

Select Board members asked the administration to revisit revenue projections and find small adjustments that could restore the revaluation funding without jeopardizing other services. Several suggested the town could use certified free cash or modest annual increases to build a predictable funding stream rather than relying on ad hoc special articles.

The discussion closed with a clear instruction to include the revaluation funding on the Select Board—s upcoming agenda for a final decision so the assessors can plan procurement and meet the DOR-related requirements that accompany five-year revaluations.

Ending: The Select Board directed staff to bring the revaluation article and options back to a near-term meeting so members can decide whether to restore the $15,000 request for FY26 or adopt an alternative multi-year approach requested by the assessors.