Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town Assessor Walks Moultonborough Selectmen Through Large Inventory Adjustment and Valuation Process
Summary
Town Assessor Tom Hughes reviewed Moultonborough's assessing practices on June 23, explaining a roughly $781 million 2025 inventory adjustment tied to equalization, differences between local revaluation and DRA processes, and next steps to review qualified-sales data with the Board.
Town Assessor Tom Hughes told the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen on June 23 that a large 2025 inventory adjustment reflects differences between local assessed values and market-based equalization after rapid property-value increases, not a parcel-by-parcel reassessment.
Hughes, who led a work session explaining the town's assessing workflow, said the town's annual revaluation dataset can include up to two years of pre-April 1 sales that are trended to current market conditions, while the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) uses a tighter six-month window centered on April 1 for its ratio analysis. He described Whitney Consulting as performing field data collection and data entry, with further review by a named supervisor and by the assessor before DRA oversight.
The explanation mattered because the Board was reviewing large inventory adjustments: Hughes said Moultonborough's 2024 inventory adjustment was about $880 million (roughly 14% of local assessed valuation) and that the 2025 adjustment under discussion was approximately $780,975,785, increasing valuation including utilities from $6,877,160,068 to $7,658,135,853. He said DRA generally seeks at least 20 qualified sales for a statistical sample and will expand the sampling window in six-month increments if necessary, which can be important where sales are thin in certain property classes.
Hughes described the town's cyclical inspection program as reviewing roughly 20% to 25% of properties annually (about 1,600 parcels per year). He said condition and quality ratings are intended to be objective and age-related: for example, a newer home is typically rated average for its age, while an older home may be rated excellent if substantially updated and well maintained.
On software and process, Hughes noted the town previously transitioned from Vision to Avitar and cautioned that different systems may not produce identical modeling results. He emphasized that the town should not change an individual property's assessment solely because it sold for a higher price (what he called "sales chasing"); any change must be supported by verified data and applied consistently across comparable properties. He also said he manually cross-checks equalization calculations and has identified and corrected errors after DRA system upgrades.
The assessor described his service on the Assessing Standards Board Equalization Subcommittee and on the Current Use Board, and said he had previously challenged DRA procedures before the Board of Tax and Land Appeals in pursuit of clearer rules, greater transparency and certification standards for assessing personnel. He outlined possible refinement work outside the regular revaluation cycle, including reviewing site- or neighborhood-code structures and simplifying land-value factors and nomenclature.
At Chairman Kevin D. Quinlan's request, Hughes agreed to review the underlying qualified-sales data and calculation details with the Board.
Votes at a glance: The Board voted unanimously to enter non-public session under RSA 91-A:3, II(l) at 6:08 PM "coming out only to adjourn" (moved by Selectman Christopher P. Shipp; seconded by Selectman Karel A. Crawford; roll call vote 5'''yes). The Board later voted to adjourn at 6:53 PM (moved by Vice Chairman Charles M. McGee; seconded by Selectman Christopher P. Shipp; roll call vote 5''yes).
