Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Revaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget committee presses for clearer wording on municipal revaluation warrant after DRA contact
Summary
Committee members urged clearer language on a revaluation warrant article and debated the consequences if voters reject it; staff said the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) can require a revaluation even if the warrant fails and suggested more explanatory language for voters.
Members of the Wolfeboro Budget Committee spent substantial time on Jan. 9 discussing a proposed warrant article to authorize the town’s 2025 revaluation and how to explain consequences to voters.
Town staff said the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) has requested a meeting and that DRA model language on revaluations is complicated; legal counsel had advised against certain phrasing. The RSA language that governs municipal revaluations was discussed repeatedly during the meeting.
Why it matters: Committee members said voters must understand that a warrant defeat does not remove the statutory requirement for a revaluation and that DRA could impose procedures or penalties if the town fails to complete the process. Several members proposed clear, non‑threatening wording that explains potential outcomes — for example, that the state could require the town to proceed under DRA supervision and that doing so could have cost or timing implications for residents.
Key points from committee discussion - Staff said DRA may step in if a local article fails, and earlier DRA practice would likely involve administrative review and, if needed, a petition to the Board of Land and Tax Appeals. Committee members asked legal counsel to confirm whether DRA intervention could increase costs; one participant said DRA-imposed proceedings could take longer and potentially cost more. - Members agreed to include explanatory material for the deliberative session and the public hearing that sets out likely consequences if the article is defeated while avoiding language that appeared to “threaten” voters.
Next steps: Town staff will meet with legal counsel to try to clarify model language and return to the committee with suggested wording for the warrant backup and the deliberative-session presentation.
Ending: Committee members said they want concise language for voter information that explains statutory obligations under the RSA and notes that some costs could shift to future budgets if the revaluation proceeds under state direction.
