Residents urge action on tax reassessment practices, public‑record accuracy and park safety at Clifton council meeting

During the meeting's public comment period dozens of residents raised concerns spanning property tax revaluation, perceived errors by assessors, alleged public‑record problems and neighborhood safety.

Joseph Siena (who identified himself from the Lakeview section) told the council he and other residents have received assessor notices that list finished basements or attics without prior notice or proper appointments; he recounted a personal security‑camera recording that he said showed an assessor failing to actually knock and later leaving a notice. "I have you on camera ... he never pushed the doorbell," he said, and asked the council to investigate assessor practices and provide oversight and transparency to residents who plan to appeal assessments.

An anonymous resident who asked to remain unnamed said that minutes from a prior meeting had reduced a detailed public comment about a preschool to a single sentence in the official record and urged the council to correct the official minutes, citing the Open Public Meetings Act requirement that minutes be reasonably comprehensible. "This is the full and complete summary of everything that I said that night: 'a resident who called himself anonymous spoke about a preschool in town.' That is the entire record," the speaker said, and requested that the record be corrected.

Several residents called for a safety fence at Chelsea Park where children retrieving balls can run toward a busy street. One speaker, a Clifton fireman and longtime volunteer, provided a cost estimate he found online and urged the council to install a 4‑foot chain‑link fence at an estimated cost of about $5,000 to prevent a traffic tragedy: "It would be approximately a little over $5,000 to put a 4 foot chain link fence up there. Is that worth it to you guys?" he asked.

Council members and administration responded by promising follow‑up: administration said it would develop a scope and cost estimate for a fence and bring it back; the appraisal/revaluation contractor was scheduled for a public Q&A at the next meeting and residents were invited to submit questions ahead of time; and the council noted some items may be subject to attorney‑client privilege or ongoing litigation and therefore discussed in executive session where appropriate.

What comes next: the council set a follow‑up session with the appraisal/revaluation vendor at the next meeting and requested that fence costs and scope be drafted and returned for consideration.