Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select board approves assessing contract amid residents' complaints about lakefront valuations
Summary
Board discussed and moved forward with the assessor contract (a five‑year cyclical program and associated fees) after residents raised concerns about inconsistent lakefront property valuations; the board reviewed the appeal and oversight process (request meeting with assessor, BTLA, and state spot checks).
The board reviewed a proposed assessing contract for 2025 that includes a cyclical five‑year program with a stated cyclical cost of $38,000, a field 'pickup' inspection fee of $40 per visit, and assessor office hours billed at about $75 an hour. Speaker 1 summarized the contract and budget implications, saying the town expects a cyclical program of roughly $38,000 over the five‑year cycle and planning to budget $10,000 from operations next year with a warrant article to fund the cyclical work.
Speaker 11 raised substantive objections to the assessor's methods and said that lakefront properties appeared to be undervalued relative to other towns, calling the assessor 'arrogant' and saying they "don't do a very good job." Speaker 11 said this approach resulted in apparent inconsistencies in how lakefront frontage was treated. Other speakers (Speaker 4 and Speaker 5) described the appeal process: first request a meeting with the assessor, then pursue a Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) application if unresolved; the state performs random checks on assessment cards as part of certification.
Board members discussed the limited pool of assessing vendors (several firms operate regionally), past experience switching vendors, and whether to solicit additional public input. Speaker 1 and others said the contract is within the board's purview to approve; Speaker 1 indicated the town previously requested bids several years earlier when switching vendors. The board recorded that staffing and cyclical assessment timing can produce notable assessed‑value changes and that complaints are resolved through formal appeals.
The meeting did not produce a binding revaluation or immediate change to the assessor's methods; board members asked staff to provide assessment reports and run comparisons of assessed values across properties to inform future review.
