 |
Minutes
Selectmen’s Meeting
October 5, 2007
8:35 AM Chair Bock opened the meeting and asked all those present to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members Present: Peter Bock, Bill Netishen, Mary Bonser and Town Administrator Charles Brown.
Others: Approximately 50 taxpayers/residents and Heidi Seaverns.
Mr. Bock explained that this meeting was a workshop. He asked how many people had come prepared to speak. About 5 people indicated they had come prepared to speak. Mr. Bock read the statement from Nottingham’s DRA representative indicating that the disportionality exists between the Pawtuckaway Lake properties and the rest of the Town and it should be corrected. Mr. Brown reported to the Board that he had spoken with the Town Attorney and he had provided the BTLA case involving New London with a similar situation. The Board members had not had the opportunity to read the decision yet. Mr. Bock recognized Mr. McClafin who asked about the criteria for including a sale in the sales analysis. Ms. Seaverns stated that in order for a sale to be included in the sales analysis it had to be an arms length transaction. Mr.
Brown then made the same statement. Jeff Gurrier asked why only Pawtuckaway was included in the update. Bob Seymour brought up RSA 75:8 and indicated the Selectmen had not acted accordingly. Ms. Seaverns stated that the RSA in question was made up of two sections, each one is considered separately. Gene Reed spoke in support of the Board’s interpretation of RSA 75:8. Peter Gylfphe asked if there would be any consideration for Nottingham Lake property owners since the dam was gone. Ms. Seaverns explained that your assessment is based on what is on the property as April 1st and the lake was intact on that date. Gene Reed stated he thought the Board had consistently applied that April 1st date in the past. Paul Romano asked how many lakes were involved in the New London case. Bob Fleeson stated that if the 2005 reassessment was flawed why continue to compound the problem. Ms. Seaverns stated that the 2005 reassessment was not flawed. In fact, it had been
challenged at BTLA and BTLA found that was it was valid. June Proko asked about lot size. Ms. Seaverns explained that lot valuation is not a straight mathematical progression as one would expect. Ms. Proko feels that the $ 270,000 is a frontage value. Ms. Seaverns stated there are a number of factors that go into the $270,000 figure. Mary Markham asked why the changes in values were made so late. John Decker asked what constitutes the $ 270,000 figure and what adjustments were made to reach that figure. He also had site-specific questions in regard to his property. Ms. Seaverns stated these types of questions were best addressed individually rather than at a meeting. Dan Hajjar asked if the State had mandated this update. The answer was that the State had not mandated this update. Both Ms. Seaverns & Mr. Brown spoke to the disportionality issue. Greg Larkin stated this update was not needed. Clayton Button asked if the Board was considering holding the values in abeyance.
Mr. Bock replied that that is why the Board was having the workshop meeting to decide what they could/would do about the values. Mr. Bock further stated that they would decide today what they do. Skip Seaverns asked the Board what options exist for the Board since they know the disportionality exists. Jack Caldon spoke to the lack of notification, which he sees as a major flaw in the process. Mr. Netishen then spoke to the review process that had taken place. He stated there was no filming of property from the lake and there were 3 individuals on the boat. He then referenced the DRA guidelines for equalized ratios. The ideal range is between 90-110%. For 2006, the ratio for the whole Town was 97.9% and the waterfront was at 79.8%. Therese Thompson asked if both land & building values had been updated. Ms. Seaverns stated only land values had been updated. Bob Gifford asked if trending had been used in the sales analysis. Ms. Seaverns explained that the sales between April 1,
2005 and October 1, 2005 were trended. Paul Romano asked why the whole Town had not been reassessed. Ms Seaverns explained that the whole Town did not need to be reassessed since only one strata group was low. Peter Gylfphe stated that since the valuation of the Town has gone up, the tax rate should go down and the waterfront owners will be paying more. Barry Dunphy suggested that the Board drop the rest of the properties in Town down to the 80% and leave the waterfront properties alone. Tony Scianna asked if there were site-specific criteria that were used statewide since these adjustments are driving up his assessment. Bev Caldon spoke about the timeframe of the process and no opportunity for hearings was not fair to those taxpayers affected. Mr. Brown stated that in hindsight, there should have been the opportunity for informal hearings. Bill Garnett asked about the rest of the Town and what options were available for them if the update was not used. Mr. Bock spoke to the
remainder of the property owners in Town who were paying a disproportionate share of taxes. This is the reason the update was done. Mr. Bock recessed the meeting for a short break at 9:49 AM. The Board reconvened at 9:57 AM. The Board read the information provided in regard to the New London BTLA case as well as letters from James & Pamela Kelly and Dan Hajjar. Mr. Bock asked Ms. Bonser for her thoughts on the subject. Ms. Bonser stated that the Selectmen have the responsibility to the Town to maintain proportionality throughout the Town and that is why the update was done. Mr. Netishen was the next Board member to speak. He proposed that the Board postpone implementation of the new values & hold informal hearings for the property owners affected. He does not want to delay the tax rate setting. He wants to do this in the spirit of cooperation to allow taxpayers to discuss the new assessments. Much discussion about submitting a revised MS-1, which would postpone the tax rate
setting and the availability of Avitar to conduct hearings followed. The Board discussed at length what would be a fair process and if it was possible to have informal hearings at this point. All Board members agreed that the disportionality existed, that is why the update was done and that the update was done correctly. Since there were many unanswered questions as to what the Board could do, the Board recessed the meeting at 10:58 AM to try and get some answers.
The Board reconvened at 11:35 AM. Mr. Bock explained that DRA had said the Town could file an extension for the MS-1 for 30 days. Avitar will hold informal hearings on October 11, 12 and 15, 2007 for taxpayers to discuss their assessment. Appointments for the hearings will be made by calling the Selectmen’s Office on Tuesday October 9 and Wednesday October 10, 2007. Mr. Netishen asked that PLIA use their e-mail list to make people aware of the hearings. Ms. Seaverns said the information would be posted on the Town website as well as the Town Cable Channel 22.
Motion: Bonser, second Netishen to file for an extension of 30 days for the refiling of the MS-1 and to hold informal hearings on October 11, 12 and 15, 2007 to allow property owners to discuss the new assessed values.
Vote: 3-0 in favor.
Having no further business,
11:46 AM Motion: Bonser, second Netishen to adjourn.
Vote: 3-0 in favor.
Respectfully Submitted,
Approved as written
Heidi Seaverns 10/29/07
| |
