Moultonborough Latest Tax Assessments

[tummyman]

For those with lakefront property in Moultonborough, the latest preliminary assessments spell bad news for most, with increases in land and total property values way out of line with market realities. Land increases in the range of 25-30% from last years full evaluation are not uncommon. Increases in total assessments of over $200,000 are also not uncommon. If you own lakefront in Moultonborough, pay close attention to the recent mailing from town and be prepared to file for abatements after you receive your December bills. Remember, your tax rate per thousand is going up by at least $1.25 for the new statewide education tax and another $,15 or so for the cost of the new nursing home being built in Ossipee. Many wil see tax bills going up over $1000 per year....and that is before the hit of these new taxes on top of the prior rates. There is also time to call for an appointment to go over your assessment and voice your concerns. After all, this market has not seen such incredible increases in real estate prices in the last 12 months. Pay attention.......... and don't be humble and just accept the values without contesting them !!!

[Lakegeezer]

Where is the information available that shows the asking and selling price for home transactions April 1 09 to March 31 10? That is the only way to justify lake front price increases. If the data justifies the increase, so be it. If not, time to file for abatements. Our assessment went up 5% and so far, I don't understand why.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Where is the information available that shows the asking and selling price for home transactions April 1 09 to March 31 10? That is the only way to justify lake front price increases. If the data justifies the increase, so be it. If not, time to file for abatements. Our assessment went up 5% and so far, I don't understand why.

Actually the Town has quite an extensive web explanation of the assessing process and how to answer questions you raise, along with detailed information on how to file for an abatement. They also encourage any taxpayer that has questions to visit their office.

Click HERE to check the site out.

[Lakegeezer]

I am familiar with the assessment and abatement process. I filed and won an abatement earlier this year. That is why I wonder why the 5% total increase on a freshly, personally and reasonably assessed property. I've found the houses sold in M'boro during the recent assessment year. Not a lot to go on. These are what properties sold for - now looking for what they were listed for.


56 PINE NEEDLE LANE 01/08/2010 $800,600 Ranch
31 MATZ LANE 11/23/2009 $1,350,000 Ranch
100 WYMAN TRAIL 10/19/2009 $700,000 Ranch
70 KONA BAY ROAD 09/25/2009 $1,375,000 Raised Ranch
44 BLACK CAT ISLAND ROAD 08/18/2009 $625,266 Raised Ranch
19 FULLER ROAD 04/28/2009 $648,000 Modern/Contemp
251 EAGLE SHORE ROAD 04/02/2009 $1,600,000 Modern/Contemp

The change in my neighborhood land assessment averages about +9% while assessment for houses on the land decreased by 4-35% So it appears they are shifting the value from house to land. There was not enough sales to analyze the shift. It appears to be voodoo magic, slight of hand, etc.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Sorry you folks didn't attend the Moultonborough Summer Informational Town Meeting last Thursday. The Vision Appraisal section was a real blast. The Vision Appraisal person admitted that he was new to the Moultonborough account and then proceeded to make some absurd comments to prove his point. He got blasted pretty thoroughly by numerous resident and non-resident taxpyers, each with specific examples of ridiculous new assessments. Be sure to read next weeks Meredith News.

The net result was that there have been more appoinyments set up than there usually are to contest the proposed assessments. It appears that if Vision doesn't make some drastic changes the town will be deluged with abatement cases.

[fatlazyless]

Looking around for sales price info that's relevant to you?

Yesterday's Saturday, July 24, Laconia Daily Sun had a weekly real estate column in the back pages written by a local realtor that was about 14 paragraphs long and all about waterfront sales. It included a number of residential home price histories including the address, assessed price, original asking price, and sold price.

Looking at the latest Roche Realty sales flier, available at Meredith McDonald's, it has a number of 'for sale' waterfront homes and promos their town assessed values, and their less-than-assessed current asking prices, and includes their addresses.

[LIforrelaxin]

Hummm find this all very interesting, got my new assessment in the mail, and my value went down... and actually pulled everything right into alignment and where I thought it should be.

The land value could probably come down a little and the but then to be truthful the structure value would need to come up... so all in all it is a wash.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Looking around for sales price info that's relevant to you?

Yesterday's Saturday, July 24, Laconia Daily Sun had a weekly real estate column in the back pages written by a local realtor that was about 14 paragraphs long and all about waterfront sales. It included a number of residential home price histories including the address, assessed price, original asking price, and sold price.

Roy Sanborn from Roche Realty posts regular columns like the one you described right here in our own blogs. Here's his latest: http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/blog.php?b=87

Don't forget our blogs!

[twoplustwo]

Like, 12% down. Great for taxes, not so much for refinancing. I don't know if it's a mistake or if they only adjusted downward those of us who's only lakefront interest is the town beach.

[dpg]

What I don't get is how they can price a lot WAY more than it realistically can sell for? I have a tiny Suissevale lot I'd sell at the dtop of a dime for what my tax bill says. How can that be? it is what it is...

[WINNOCTURN]

Originally Posted by dpg

What I don't get is how they can price a lot WAY more than it realistically can sell for? I have a tiny Suissevale lot I'd sell at the dtop of a dime for what my tax bill says. How can that be? it is what it is...

Is it my imagination, some time ago there was a question as to how Moultonboro was calculating the assessments that allowed some type of a "FUDGE" factor in conjunction with the actual values that increased the taxed values?

I not sure if it was here on the forum or in one of the Town E-mail up-dates?

[MAXUM]

Far as I'm concerned "fair market value" is a subjective term, anyone can speculate what a piece of property is worth but it really comes down to what somebody else is willing to pay for it.

I've been watching very closely the real estate market with the hopes I might be able to find something affordable on the water I can pick up and have noticed that most I have made inquiries on were being offered well below assessed value and still not moving.

[tummyman]

Lots of outright anger by many lakefront owners based on not getting answers from the town as to why their assessments went up so much. Now they are "looking" into things. Board of Selectmen may hold a "workshop" on Thursday, August 26th. This may be your last chance to express your true feelings before the assessments are finalized by the Board. There is no confirmation from the town that this meeting will actually be for the assessments, but the Town Administrator is at least pointing that way. So, stay tuned to this blog and elsewhere for information. NOTE>>>>>it will be very important for the lakefront owners to get out and PACK this meeting on Aug. 26th IF it is as planned to cover assessments. Pay close attention here and elsewhere for confirmation of the agenda. We need to get a huge outpouring!!

[TomC]

is a Thursday night. so i''ll be at home at my permanent residence, where I have to work in order to pay my escalating tax bill..

i suspect there are others who cannot attend a weeknight meeting.

[Water Camper]

Go to nneren.com, the statewide MLS. To the left look for "Search Sold Listings" below the map and click on that. Choose the town you want and any other information that you can search by. The asking price is not given, only what it sold for. Hope that helps!
Sue

[woodynh]

Guess I should consider myself lucky. I own some property off the water and it's assesment is definately significanty lower. My main residence is on the water and I am almost positive the value went down on that also a fair amount but would have to look at last years tax bill to know how much.

Maybe it helped that my wife was home when the assesor came and was able to explain her version of how our home compared to others with lower tax rates in the area.

[townsde]

The increase / adjustment in property taxes is just the result. The real cause is that the town continues to increase its budget and spending and therefore must get the additional money from us. I would like to see spending reduced and efficiency steps added such that we would not have to continue to spend more and more each year.

[Argie's Wife]

You can look up any property tax assessment in Moultonborough online HERE

1. Click on the link, above.
2. Select New Hampshire
3. Select Moultonborough
4. Enter the property address - and you can even just type in the name of a street and get results.

Hope this helps...

[Yosemite Sam]

There is a good article in this weeks "The Meredith News" that talks about how Waterfront owners are fuming over assessment hikes.

Here it is: The Meredith News...Front page and page A6

[The Real BigGuy]

I have also heard that Tuftonboro will increase waterfront assessments by an average of 24% while reducing inland assessments by an average of 14%.

To be honest, I am hardly surprised as this seems to go along with the trend in NH to shift responsibility for financing state and local projects to out-of-staters (primarily the owners of waterfront property). Better to tax those who have no vote than those who do!

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by townsde

The increase / adjustment in property taxes is just the result. The real cause is that the town continues to increase its budget and spending and therefore must get the additional money from us. I would like to see spending reduced and efficiency steps added such that we would not have to continue to spend more and more each year.

Please keep in mind that the issue is the assessements, NOT the tax rate. Vision Appraisal has the ability to screw up the former while the BOS handles the latter. Does anyone know why Vision no longer does Wolfeboro or Tuftonboro?

[townsde]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Please keep in mind that the issue is the assessements, NOT the tax rate. Vision Appraisal has the ability to screw up the former while the BOS handles the latter. Does anyone know why Vision no longer does Wolfeboro or Tuftonboro?

No, I really think the issue is the SPENDING. If we did not have the amount of spending then we would not have to worry about taxes going up.

Local Government, State, and Federal all have to rein in the spending and control their budgets. At the current rate of spending who knows how we will ever finance it.

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Please keep in mind that the issue is the assessements, NOT the tax rate. Vision Appraisal has the ability to screw up the former while the BOS handles the latter. Does anyone know why Vision no longer does Wolfeboro or Tuftonboro?

The two go hand in hand. The local tax rate comes directly from the assessments and the budget.

[woodynh]

I am guessing these opinions about spending too much are coming from people that don't actually live in the town. I have absolutely no complaints about the way Moultonboro spends their money. They are much more conservative then other towns around us. That is not to say people don't try to get things voted because they see other towns wasting money but it rarely happens.

I don't see us trying to build or vote in huge school budgets or try to get new schools built. The town has to have tax money for services for full time residents. Go look at the schools and equipment in them. Very, very modest at best.

Please if you have a second home I can understand you want the lowest rate possible because you don't use the services but some of us are full times residents and do need a modest amount of services. Remember why you bought your second home in Moultonboro for the low tax rate and it has stayed low for many years.

If you have a problem with the assesments that is one issue but I don't see why anybody should be complaining about how much money Moultonboro spends.

Also remember Moultonboro is one of the few if not only town to spend money on taking care of Milfoil so waterfront property owners values don't decrease and the lake can be more enjoyable when you are up here using it in the summer. That is tax dollars at work for us lakefront owners.

[VitaBene]

Woody- thank you, I agree.

[tummyman]

Woody,
I have not had a problem with Moultonborough on the expenditure side of the equation. For the most part, they do a pretty good job. Are there opportunities for some savings...Yes, but there are always things that can be done better in large organizations. I think the BOS recently did the correct thing concerning the Lion's Club property by stopping expenditures until some future committee does its work. We could be looking at all replacement positions and seeing if there is some way to absolutely get away with not replacing the person. It is an attrition game vs. a layoff game. Could the schools have done more by not replacing I believe the Asst. Principal position, probably. And this whole donor town thing is a real sham...and Betsy should be pounding the tables in Concord. On the grand scheme however, I'm relatively OK with how voters have managed the budgets. That said, the current assessments are where I am extremely upset. I am looking at the BOS to step up and make some changes in the assessment process rather than bringing out the rubber stamp. While I cannot vote for them, they are MY representative as well at the table. But I bet the whole team is dressed in their best defensive clothes.........

[tummyman]

Note:....If you have any concerns about your recent increase in lakefront assessment, the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen will be having a meeting on Thursday, August 26th at 4PM at Town Hall, where the entire process will be explained and Vision will be present. This maybe you last opportunity to express concerns. We need a HUGE turnout. Bring your entire family...... Remember, Thursday, August 26th..4PM !!

[woodynh]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Woody,
I have not had a problem with Moultonborough on the expenditure side of the equation. For the most part, they do a pretty good job. Are there opportunities for some savings...Yes, but there are always things that can be done better in large organizations. I think the BOS recently did the correct thing concerning the Lion's Club property by stopping expenditures until some future committee does its work. We could be looking at all replacement positions and seeing if there is some way to absolutely get away with not replacing the person. It is an attrition game vs. a layoff game. Could the schools have done more by not replacing I believe the Asst. Principal position, probably. And this whole donor town thing is a real sham...and Betsy should be pounding the tables in Concord. On the grand scheme however, I'm relatively OK with how voters have managed the budgets. That said, the current assessments are where I am extremely upset. I am looking at the BOS to step up and make some changes in the assessment process rather than bringing out the rubber stamp. While I cannot vote for them, they are MY representative as well at the table. But I bet the whole team is dressed in their best defensive clothes.........

I don't disagree with you or your original post. If the company that Moultonboro used is that bad and the values that far off for a lot of people then everyone should be upset. The whole donor town subject is another topic that is a hot button for me.

I actually applaud you that you are making people aware of the situation and giving accurate information and trying to make the situation right.

I just saw a couple of posts in here about Moultonboro spending too much and did not agree with those statements.

On the positive side this whole debate made the front page of the Meredith newspaper so I don't think it is going away without a fight.

[Yankee]

Let me see if I got this correct:

People with the means come up here, and create a market which, because of the resulting tax increases, forces the local and other middle class folk to sell their property. They in effect raise the tax base. Thus making less affluent people persona non grata to the area.

Then when the same thing starts to happen to them they rant incredulously about it on a public forum. Thus making it acrimoniously laughable.

[Sunbeam lodge]

[QUOTE=Yankee;136610]Let me see if I got this correct:

People with the means come up here, and create a market which, because of the resulting tax increases, forces the local and other middle class folk to sell their property. They in effect raise the tax base. Thus making less affluent people persona non grata to the area.

I'm not sure I would agree with that. If people with means come up here it probably is a second home and they are only her 6 months.
They have no children in schools which make up the largest portion of the tax base, they have to pay to install wells for water, maintain a septic system and pay to dump there trash. In Meredith 30% is paid by taxpayers for these servicesand 70% by users. In 14 years I have paid $190,000 in taxes for the equivalent of 7 years living here. I started off with about $4300 a year in taxes and now pay about $16000 although I still live in the same house I built in 1993. I have not asked for or has the town provided anything different since I moved here.
I agree with the rest of your statement.

[VitaBene]

[QUOTE=Sunbeam lodge;136622]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Let me see if I got this correct:

People with the means come up here, and create a market which, because of the resulting tax increases, forces the local and other middle class folk to sell their property. They in effect raise the tax base. Thus making less affluent people persona non grata to the area.

I'm not sure I would agree with that. If people with means come up here it probably is a second home and they are only her 6 months.
They have no children in schools which make up the largest portion of the tax base, they have to pay to install wells for water, maintain a septic system and pay to dump there trash. In Meredith 30% is paid by taxpayers for these servicesand 70% by users. In 14 years I have paid $190,000 in taxes for the equivalent of 7 years living here. I started off with about $4300 a year in taxes and now pay about $16000 although I still live in the same house I built in 1993. I have not asked for or has the town provided anything different since I moved here.
I agree with the rest of your statement.

SL,

You must also have a heck of a nice house based on your taxes and avatar... Forum fest at your place next year?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Let me see if I got this correct:

People with the means come up here, and create a market which, because of the resulting tax increases, forces the local and other middle class folk to sell their property. They in effect raise the tax base. Thus making less affluent people persona non grata to the area.

Then when the same thing starts to happen to them they rant incredulously about it on a public forum. Thus making it acrimoniously laughable.

What "market" necessitates an increase in spending and thus taxes ? Mebbe I don't "get it" but if the house market were tending towards increased house prices and thus increased evaluations then the tax rate should go down accordingly ... were spending to remain the same. The problem, if I may paraphase Glenn Frey, is the lure of easy money ... in this case OPM. The only disparity create is really btw lakefront and non-lakefront. Those out-of-state people of means don't get to vote on the spending.

[phoenix]

i think this is partly caused by the yearly update. in a tight market too few homes sell to get a real statistical evaluation of comps. In prior times houses were reassessed say every 5 years which gave enough comps to get fairness. If not enough houses sell them they should leave assessements constant until they have reliable data to defend. I know in my area nothing has sold( three have tried for a couple of years) and yet assessements went up

[Irrigation Guy]

They went to yearly reassessments to avoid sticker shock when prices go up for several years in a row.

[VitaBene]

Maybe I am missing something but it seems that most towns would like to increase their revenues by at least the cost of living increase each year (which seems reasonable to me). The burden should be spread across waterfront and non waterfront houses equally based on value, regardless of weather the owners live here full time or not.

My family and I live in Mboro full-time and do appreciate the taxes that are paid by all. We have great schools and public safety departments. We do reap the benefits that others sow and need to be cognizant of that. So even if you are not a waterfront property owner, please support equality in taxation, it is truly the American way!

[tummyman]

I don't think anyone is arguing that inequality in tax payments is the goal. We are all interested in equality and fairness. The single tax rate per thousand valuation accomplishes the equality argument. However, the gross, unsupportable, and apparently disproportional increases in a down economy with few lakefront sales in Moultonborough has some property owners very upset. Roughly 1/3rd of the town (non-lakefront) went down 10% in valuations and 2/3rd (Lakefront) went up about 6% in the aggregate, for a net change in values of up 1%. Within the 2/3rds lakefront are increases of more than 25% in a bad real estate market right after the town did a full blown "fair market value" evaluation last year. Why is last years data so far off if Vision did their jobs 12 months ago? Up to now, the BOS has not taken any leadership in the process....they are just listening and fielding comments and concerns. Time is running out for them to get engaged....and it will probably cost the town lots of money defending abatements, possible petition suits, etc. etc. It is also quite interesting that not all towns with lakefront use Vision Appraisal. It may be the time for Moultonborough to re-look at this contract and possibly hire a new organization. Fresh eyes sometimes are a good thing. With a full time in-house assessor, it makes me wonder why we need an outside firm at all. For the $70,000 + we are paying Vision, we could hire another person in-house to help with the field work and not outsource. But up to now, our in-house team has not been very visible. Remember, the meeting on August 26th at 4PM in Town Hall may be the last real chance to voice YOUR concerns. If you do not make an effort to attend, then be happy with your increased lakefront assessment, pay more in taxes, and move on. It is really up to you in the final analysis.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

What "market" necessitates an increase in spending and thus taxes ? Mebbe I don't "get it" but if the house market were tending towards increased house prices and thus increased evaluations then the tax rate should go down accordingly ... were spending to remain the same. The problem, if I may paraphase Glenn Frey, is the lure of easy money ... in this case OPM. The only disparity create is really btw lakefront and non-lakefront. Those out-of-state people of means don't get to vote on the spending.

While I may agree with you (and Mr. frey!) regarding valuations, tax rates, and " easy money", I dissagree with your presumption that spending would stay the same. Population growth neccesitates increases and/or creation of infrastructure (Police, Fire, Highway and other municipal departments, Nursing homes, Health Care facilities, etc..). I'm not even going to touch the additional $$ that the state demands. The reality is that the cost of such is not linear with the additional income generated by population growth alone.

Please explain the lakefront to non-lakefront disparity? The same home on an acre of non-lakefront land is worth much less than the same home/acre of land on the lake. Perhaps your issue is that the tax rates are not proportional? I would say that it is analogous to Local, state, and federal governments having different income tax rates based upon how much $$ is earned year, as they have had for decades. FWIW I don't wholly agree with this property or income tax redistribution of wealth either, but I will leave that for another discussion.

Like it or not, that is the way our constitutional republic form of government operates: The more money you make, the more expensive your property, the more (proportionally) you will be taxed.

The point I was attempting to make in my previous post was to convey the contiguousness of current Lakefront owners tax plight with previous lakefront property owners. Each in turn are the victim of no one but their own excesses. Back in the 70's and 80's when middleclass folk got priced off the lake the new owners were the very ones that shrugged their shoulders, said too bad for you as they bought the home/cottage that was in a family for generations. Now that the same is beginning to happen to them as an even wealthier section of society moves in, I see more than a little of "what comes around goes around".

[phoenix]

Local realtor that makes sense but now with so few houses selling you can distort values by a small number of sales both up and down. they could have alays said too few comps so prices stay the same for classes that don't have an adequate numner of sales. Changes like they producted only cause a lot of heartburn to all ( at least the ones who were increased)

[Heaven]

It is not just that shore front (or "view" front for that matter) properties are assessed more or have a higher value, but those types of properties also often have owners that expect more of some types of infrastructure. The expectation is that the roads are in better condition, responses for fire/police are available (even when "seasonal", there are a lot of false alarms for houses that are empty 6 months out of the year), and other similar services that may tend to balance out the "no students" or "seasonal" argument.

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Local realtor that makes sense but now with so few houses selling you can distort values by a small number of sales both up and down. they could have alays said too few comps so prices stay the same for classes that don't have an adequate numner of sales. Changes like they producted only cause a lot of heartburn to all ( at least the ones who were increased)

Being a former RE appraiser(which is different than an assessor) I can tell you, that not having any sales in an area adds difficulty to the job. You still have a job to do. One must use the information available, even one comparable sale, and adjust accordingly. Not knowing the area and what drives buyers on these areas would make the job of making adjustments more difficult.

In response to all the hubbub in regards to assessed values, you still have the option of a tax abatement. You can spend the money and hire a professional to work for you justifying a different value. To be worth that expense the professional must then be able to produce comparable sales and rational adjustments to those sales that justify a lower value. It's not unheard of by any means.

[tummyman]

Just a reminder.....the meeting tomorrow at Moultonborough Town Hall...4PM is very important, as it will be the focal point of Vision's and the Town's attempt to explain what has been going on in arriving at such high assessments. I expect that we may even hear of some new and interesting approaches that may muddy the waters even more. SO>>>IF YOU CAN, PLEASE BE THERE to lend support to all who are trying to get some reasonable answers and results. If you are a non-voter, this will be your best current chance to have your voice heard. And bring as many friends and neighbors as you can !!!!!!

[WINNOCTURN]

Any news from yesterdays Meeting??????

[tummyman]

First, the turnout was spectacular....so many people came that they had to move the meeting to the High School. People couldn't even get in the front door of town hall. The Selectmen were worried the crowd would exceed the legal limits for building occupancy. So people are engaged. As might be expected, the presentations were very superficial....no factual data..just some statistics. They did indicate that they had made some changes to their underlying data nd that the waterfront properties will only be going up about 3% vs. the 6% they originally proposed. Remember, this is for ALL waterfront and we have no idea what the 20-30% increases may be modified to..if anything at all. Vision has all the data and would not release anything to anyone. It is "classified". BS!! While I am not a member of the following blog, it has some good summaries of what took place yesterday.... follow this link and you will get much more.
http://moultonborospeaks.blogspot.com/ So now we wait, and wait..... Very depressing. The BOS never asked one single question or made any comment about the data, or lack thereof.

[Pineedles]

A friend attended the meeting at this is their take of what happened.

Big crowd, we had to move to the high school. It began at 4:30 there and I left at 6:30. The jist is that the town has "adjusted" a number of valuations down (150 or so) and people will be getting letters after the selectmen approve the move. Everyone wanted to know if THEIRS was going down or remaining the same. I'd like to know as well. Lots of complaints about the lack of data and increases in a bad economy being ridiculous. Average increases for lake people was 25-29% although some were even more. Severe criticism of Vision Appraisal. Town assessor claims the lake house sales support their actions but the "comps" and examples seemed very weak indeed and they did not have the data for the crowd as previously promised. Selectmen didn't say a word. It got a little bit heated. The question of quasi-redlining also brought up as your neighborhood is catagorized according to various factors such as your direct access to the main part of the lake. (A "view tax"). These neighborhood codes are supposedly on line but difficult to find under the town site. I would like to know why my small parcel is so close in valuation to lots 2, 3, or 4 times my size. No good explanation for how the lot itself is valued. The donor town issue is looming with a first payment of around 10 million due Jan. 2011 and that's before you add in the "special needs asssessments" which is a very big additional chunk of change. It could end up $10.00 per 1000. That's big. Did you know the lake people account for 70% of total tax income for the town? I'll be asking others what happened after I left and will let you know.

[fatlazyless]

"The selectmen sat with their backs to the audience and took no part in the discussion. Ditto for our state rep." (A quote from the link in the above post #43.)

That sounds like it would be an interesting photograph. What's that all about? Is there a photo someone cares to share?

[Argie's Wife]

A town's Board of Selectmen are in the position of making the financial and policy decisions for the town but aren't in the position of speaking for or against the actions of the town's appraiser. It would have been wrong for them to speak unless they were to overturn a decision or to make a new decision/action.

In other words, they were there as spectators first.

They should have been (and I hope they were) taking notes, listening to the concerned citizens, and asking advise from the town manager/administrator, legal counsel, the town tax collector and town assessor.

I can guarantee that once they were convened in a meeting, most likely in a non-public session, they discussed in depth the issues before them that that night and the response of the town's assessor/assessing department.

My trust goes to those who admit they don't have all the answers, especially in a charged situation like the one you've described. I immediately distrust those who have an answer for everything and know-it-all.

Yes, waiting is painful but far better to wait for them to get it right the first time vs. re-try after re-try to get it right like a bunch of fools.

[breathe easy]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

I can guarantee that once they were convened in a meeting, most likely in a non-public session, they discussed in depth the issues before them that that night and the response of the town's assessor/assessing department.

My trust goes to those who admit they don't have all the answers, especially in a charged situation like the one you've described. I immediately distrust those who have an answer for everything and know-it-all.

Yes, waiting is painful but far better to wait for them to get it right the first time vs. re-try after re-try to get it right like a bunch of fools.

Well they better not be discussing this in non-public session as there is absolutely no justification for this under RSA 91-A , the Right to Know law. The Moultonborough Selectmen were unprepared plain and simple and even though they didn't have the "facts" the chair made the statement that he doubted they would reject the Vision Appraisal numbers.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by breathe easy

Well they better not be discussing this in non-public session as there is absolutely no justification for this under RSA 91-A , the Right to Know law. The Moultonborough Selectmen were unprepared plain and simple and even though they didn't have the "facts" the chair made the statement that he doubted they would reject the Vision Appraisal numbers.

Oh, yes there could be - and this is speculation - but if they decide to discuss say, the assessors' handling of the issue or the town manager/administrator, etc., then it would fall under reputation.

Also, if they're discussing legal matters - such as getting out of a contract with Vision or whathaveyou - then yes, they could go into non-public for that... again this is all speculation on my part about what might be going on - but I do know how RSA 91 can be used appropriately to go into non-public.



NH RSA 91-A:

91-A:3 Nonpublic Sessions.

I. (a) Bodies or agencies shall not meet in nonpublic session, except for one of the purposes set out in paragraph II. No session at which evidence, information or testimony in any form is received shall be closed to the public, except as provided in paragraph II. No body or agency may enter nonpublic session, except pursuant to a motion properly made and seconded.
(b) Any motion to enter nonpublic session shall state on its face the specific exemption under paragraph II which is relied upon as foundation for the nonpublic session. The vote on any such motion shall be by roll call, and shall require the affirmative vote of the majority of members present.
(c) All discussions held and decisions made during nonpublic session shall be confined to the matters set out in the motion.
II. Only the following matters shall be considered or acted upon in nonpublic session:
(a) The dismissal, promotion or compensation of any public employee or the disciplining of such employee, or the investigation of any charges against him, unless the employee affected (1) has a right to a meeting and (2) requests that the meeting be open, in which case the request shall be granted.
(b) The hiring of any person as a public employee.
(c) Matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person, other than a member of the body or agency itself, unless such person requests an open meeting.
(d) Consideration of the acquisition, sale or lease of real or personal property which, if discussed in public, would likely benefit a party or parties whose interests are adverse to those of the general community.
(e) Consideration or negotiation of pending claims or litigation which has been threatened in writing or filed against the body or agency or any subdivision thereof, or against any member thereof because of his membership in such body or agency, until the claim or litigation has been fully adjudicated or otherwise settled.
(f) Consideration of applications by the adult parole board under RSA 651-A.
(g) Consideration of security-related issues bearing on the immediate safety of security personnel or inmates at the county correctional facilities by county correctional superintendents or their designees.
(h) Consideration of applications by the business finance authority under RSA 162-A:7-10 and 162-A:13, where consideration of an application in public session would cause harm to the applicant or would inhibit full discussion of the application.
(i) Consideration of matters relating to the preparation for and the carrying out of emergency functions, including training to carry out such functions, developed by local or state safety officials that are directly intended to thwart a deliberate act that is intended to result in widespread or severe damage to property or widespread injury or loss of life.
III. Minutes of proceedings in nonpublic session shall be kept and the record of all actions shall be promptly made available for public inspection, except as provided in this section. Minutes and decisions reached in nonpublic session shall be publicly disclosed within 72 hours of the meeting, unless, by recorded vote of 2/3 of the members present, it is determined that divulgence of the information likely would affect adversely the reputation of any person other than a member of the body or agency itself, or render the proposed action ineffective, or pertain to terrorism, more specifically, to matters relating to the preparation for and the carrying out of all emergency functions, developed by local or state safety officials that are directly intended to thwart a deliberate act that is intended to result in widespread or severe damage to property or widespread injury or loss of life. This shall include training to carry out such functions. In the event of such circumstances, information may be withheld until, in the opinion of a majority of members, the aforesaid circumstances no longer apply.

[breathe easy]

Baloney.
The contract with Vision Appraisal is paid for with pubic money and is not exempt from the RTK law. Deliberations about whether to accept the VA product must be held in public session and it will on Thursday at 4pm.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by breathe easy

Baloney.
The contract with Vision Appraisal is paid for with pubic money and is not exempt from the RTK law. Deliberations about whether to accept the VA product must be held in public session and it will on Thursday at 4pm.

Ah, but legal matters ARE covered and so is reputation. It would be more prudent for them to discuss legal matters in non-public to protect the town (legal fees are also paid for by the tax payer - why show their hand and make information discoverable to Vision or any other company or party if they plan on breaking or discontinuing a contract? Why invite trouble?) It most certainly would be covered under non-public. Ditto if a matter concerned an employee...

Remember: whatever decisions are made have to be disclosed in public and in the meeting minutes. That is also per RSA 91. Discussion and decisions are TWO totally different things.... check and see if your selectmen have a non-public session, workshop, or any other type of meeting before the meeting on Thursday. I'd wager they have a non-public session on the agenda at least for Thursday night, following the last public input of the meeting....

Just because something is paid for with public money (taxes) it doesn't automatically make it all public information. If you don't believe me, walk into your town hall tomorrow and ask for a list of what the employees have for health insurance, including who in their family is covered by their policy. Good luck with that one... seriously. It's not all public info like you may think.

BTW - on 7/29 the BOS went into non-public under RSA 91-A:3 II (d) and sealed the minutes. This same item has been on other meeting agendas since but the need to go into non public or even address this issue was put off for a future meeting (see BOS minutes from 7/29 if you don't believe me...)