Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Revaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Johnsburg board approves $91,000 contract to pursue townwide revaluation
Summary
After hours of debate about prior data quality and cost, the Town of Johnsburg board voted 3–2 to contract with KOW Municipal to pursue a revaluation option priced at about $91,000 (plus an estimated $3,000 for mailers) aimed at restoring the town's equalization rate to roughly 100%.
The Town of Johnsburg board voted to hire KOW Municipal to conduct a revaluation of town property values under a $91,000 proposal, with an additional roughly $3,000 for residential mailers, after a divided discussion about the reliability of previously collected data and the likely fiscal benefits.
Supervisor (chair) read the motion and called the roll; the clerk recorded a 3–2 tally in favor of moving ahead with the $91,000 option. The board's proponents argued the measure would help restore the town's equalization rate from approximately 78% to 100%, recapturing what one member described as roughly $198,000 per year in lost revenue tied to sales-tax distribution. As one board member put it, "We have 1 of 2 options We can we're at 78%" (Board member, discussion explaining posture and options).
Opponents questioned the underlying data quality used for valuation and objected to paying $91,000 to a process that, they said, would rely on previously collected records. One board member expressed skepticism that checking 20 randomly selected parcels out of about 3,000 would be a sufficient verification: "20 places out of 3,000 parcels does not sound like a very, very good verification to me" (Resident/board speaker). Supporters replied that the $91,000 option included an inventory verification using county aerial imagery and targeted road-side observations combined with comparable-sales valuation methods. A board member who explained the technical approach said the firm would "compare it to comparable sales" and run neighborhood-based valuations to produce values aligned with recent market transactions.
The board also discussed the assessor's role: the assessor had sign-off authority and signaled she preferred an independent third party to run the public-facing informal meetings; the board emphasized the assessor would still verify and sign off on final data. Following the roll call, the clerk announced the result: "We have 3 yeses, 2 noes." The motion carried, authorizing the contract process to move forward.
The board did not record the mover and seconder in the transcript. The contract award is subject to the assessor's review process and the firm's chosen scope; the board discussed but did not adopt the larger $120,000 or more-expansive inventory options at the meeting. Next procedural steps noted by the board included finalizing the scope with the firm and running the informal verification meetings for property owners who wish to correct records.
