The meeting began with a resident, referred to as Mr. H, expressing significant distress over a 35% increase in his property tax bill, equating to an additional $2,300. Mr. H questioned the legitimacy of this assessment, noting that he was now being taxed for a second-floor area used as bedrooms for 44 years, which had never been taxed before. He expressed confusion over the sudden reinspection and the apparent oversight in the tax records. Mr. H explained, “I’ve been in the house 44 years and we’re just getting taxed on something that was built 44 years ago.”

The conversation centered on the possibility of filing for an abatement, as January marked the designated month for such filings. Mr. H expressed frustration, questioning whether changes to his property over the years had been properly documented and reflected in the tax records. The assessors acknowledged the oversight and discussed options for correcting it. Mr. H highlighted inaccuracies in his property card, such as the description of his roof style and the classification of a carpentry shop above his garage, which were not fully finished spaces. He stated, “I have no problem paying taxes but when all of a sudden you get a $2,300 increase, it’s Earth shattering.”

The board emphasized the importance of verifying property details and correcting inaccuracies, reassuring Mr. H that they would assist him in the abatement process.

Another resident shared their experience with property tax assessments, recounting inaccuracies from the early 1980s related to their property features. They noted the presence of a pool and questioned statements made on social media about tax calculations, seeking clarity from the board. The assessors clarified that property taxes are calculated by multiplying the property value by a rate of $15.37 per $1,000 of assessed value, not directly by square footage as suggested. This resident, too, was encouraged to apply for an abatement to address any overlooked details.

The meeting also touched upon procedural matters, including the tabling of previous meeting minutes due to the absence of a member. Discussions on bills payable included a mention of a $875 bill from CIA Technologies for mapping services and the status of a contract with G Internet services. The assessors reviewed a warrant commitment for real estate exemptions amounting to $492, confirming no signatures were required for these certificates. They considered whether to send out applications for veteran exemptions annually, viewing it as a courtesy despite not being legally mandated.

The board discussed scheduling a consultant visit and analyzed their budget, noting they were slightly under 50% of their budget expenditure halfway through the fiscal year. They identified no significant line item issues but observed no expenses had been incurred for postage thus far.