Hubbardston officials review tax classification; motion proposed to keep single rate amid data gaps

At a Town of Hubbardston tax-classification hearing, town officials reviewed levy and property-valuation figures, discussed incomplete new-growth data after a software migration and debated whether to keep a single municipal tax rate or switch to two rates.

The meeting included packet review and a presentation of levy calculations. "This is our annual, we do this every year, tax classification hearing," Speaker 4 said while outlining steps and noting signatures would be needed the next day to meet state filing deadlines. Speaker 4 stated last year’s levy as "8,765,054" and (as spoken) projected this year at "$9,000,001.44 90," which Speaker 2 questioned, saying his paperwork showed "9,140,000." The discrepancy was raised for staff to check.

Staff described a migration from the old permit system (OpenGov) to a new platform (CivicPlus) that left some imported records incomplete. "We only had some of the information," Speaker 3 said, adding that the imported Excel did not indicate what many permits were for or their inspection status. Speaker 3 said CivicPlus support ("John at Civic Plus") assisted with importing permits and that the town now receives notifications when permits are opened or closed; Speaker 3 also said an interim staffer ("Duffy") is expected to return December 1.

Speaker 4 explained the levy limit process: the town starts with last year’s levy, adds the 2.5% factor allowed by the Department of Revenue and then adds new growth, and noted a debt exclusion previously posted to DOR for a school roof that remains in the calculation. Speaker 4 said year-end assessments allowed lowering the single tax rate from "11.68 to 11.11" (as stated). He also offered a two-rate example: "the residential would drop to 10.75 and the commercial would go up to $15.67." The presenter cautioned that whether to adopt two rates is a local decision and that Hubbardston has a relatively small commercial/industrial tax base to shift burden away from residents.

On the motion side, Speaker 1 moved to maintain the single tax rate and (as recorded) also said "Second." The transcript records the motion being voiced but contains no roll-call vote or tally; Speaker 4 subsequently sought "permission to present this at the board tonight," which attendees affirmed. The minutes-acceptance motion earlier in the meeting was likewise moved and seconded (Speaker 1 moved; Speaker 2 seconded) but no formal vote tally is recorded in the transcript.

There were no public comments recorded. The meeting scheduled a December 17 date for a further session and adjourned after a motion to adjourn was made and seconded.

Next steps recorded in the discussion: staff will check and reconcile the levy figures that were contested, continue importing and reconciling permit/new-growth data from OpenGov into CivicPlus, and obtain necessary signatures to file classifications with the state before the holiday deadline. The transcript contains numeric figures as spoken but several amounts and formatted values appear garbled in the recording and should be verified against the official packet and DOR filings for final accuracy.