Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rolling Reassessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council over timing of rolling‑reassessment exchange with county tax board
Summary
Multiple residents accused borough officials of creating the appearance of a 'sham' vote after an attorney's June 17 letter to the county tax board said the borough "decided not to proceed" with a rolling reassessment before the council's June 24 vote; special counsel said his wording was imprecise and apologized.
Several residents pressed the Chatham Borough Council on Aug. 12 over a June exchange with the county tax board tied to a proposed rolling reassessment, saying the timing created the perception that the June 24 council vote was a 'sham.'
Bob Webber and Bridget McMenamin told the council they had obtained an attorney letter dated June 17 that said the borough "decided not to proceed with the request this year" before the council voted on June 24. Webber asked why council members did not know about the letter earlier and said the sequence left the public with the impression of a pretextual vote.
Special counsel for tax appeals (identified in the meeting) told the council that he had asked the county tax board to reserve a June 20 hearing date as a placeholder while the borough evaluated options and that, in his view, the language he used in a June letter could have been clearer. "I should have used a better choice of words in my letter to the board," he said, adding that he lacked authorization from the governing body at the time and that, when it became clear the borough would not proceed, he requested removal from the county agenda. He described the process as "thoughtful" and said the administration had not taken unilateral action to bind the governing body.
Council members and the mayor responded that they understood the concerns, that the administration did not intend to mislead residents and that the special counsel had acted to preserve legal options. Council members emphasized the value of public engagement during the deliberations and said they would explain timelines and communications more fully to restore confidence.
The discussion on Aug. 12 did not produce a new vote; members framed the issue as a communications and process problem and said the borough would provide additional information to residents about how the rolling-reassessment matter was handled.
Provenance (selected excerpts): topicintro — "I was last here on July 8...and I commented on a vote you took on June 24 regarding the rolling reassessment." (SEG 778); topfinish — "I should have used a better choice of words in my letter to the board." (Special counsel) (SEG 1646).
