The board’s discussion on the solar project centered on a proposal for a new installation on a landfill site, spearheaded by someone named Nicholas Moore. The assessors scrutinized the valuation figures provided, which they deemed to be rough estimates rather than precise calculations. The projected cost of the solar project was approximately $2, which appeared to lack the detail necessary for thorough analysis. The board emphasized the need for comprehensive data, including revenue projections and system specifications, to accurately assess the project’s potential impact on the town’s resources.

As the board deliberated the solar proposal, there was a focus on ensuring that any new agreements align with existing payment structures related to solar projects in the area. They noted that “payments in lieu of taxes” (PILOT) agreements had evolved, necessitating that future contracts reflect current standards rather than adhering to outdated fixed payment models. The assessors highlighted the importance of establishing a consistent basis for comparison, given that existing solar projects had been developed on private land, whereas this proposal involved public property. This distinction underscored the need for lease agreements to appropriately account for the land’s value when used for solar purposes, which differs from its valuation as conventional real estate.

In addition to the solar project, the board tackled the intricate issue of tax exemptions for charitable organizations, focusing heavily on the 3ABC applications. A significant part of the discussion revolved around the requirement for organizations to submit their most recent annual report to the Division of Public Charities, known as form PC. The absence of a clear legal guideline regarding the acceptable timeframe for these submissions led to a debate about the implications for organizations that fail to provide timely documentation.

The assessors confronted a particular challenge with the Plum Islands Tax Pro Association, which had not filed its form PC since 2021. This case prompted broader discourse on what constitutes a sufficient response from the assessors in the face of missing documentation. Questions arose about whether the assessors should offer a grace period before reinstating taxes on noncompliant organizations, which could be perceived as punitive. The conversation included a review of the legal framework governing these exemptions, with references made to Chapter 59 and the ambiguity surrounding the term “most recent.”

They acknowledged the potential need for local policies to provide guidance on consistently managing these situations. The discussion remained unresolved, leaving room for further exploration and potential policy development regarding the treatment of 3ABC applications in the future.

Other agenda items included a review of motor vehicle and boat excise packets, where the board noted challenges with processing, particularly due to a high volume of late applicants for 2022 excise returns. The peculiar situation of many applicants being from lease companies led to questions about why individuals would take three years to seek refunds.

The board also addressed a tax exemption application that was incomplete, having received an “easy 9990” form instead of the necessary “form PC.” This raised concerns about the documents’ validity and the need for communication with the applicant to clarify missing information. The board considered granting an extension to the applicant but underscored the urgency due to the fiscal year’s timeline and impending tax season, which would affect decisions for fiscal 2026.