The meeting opened with a discussion about the reorganization that places the lead assessor under the finance director. This change prompted apprehension among board members, as they worried about the implications it might have on the efficiency and focus of the Assessor’s office. Concerns were raised about the potential for communication breakdowns, with one member recalling a previous reorganization that resulted in financial losses amounting to $1.3 million. This historical context underscored the gravity of the current situation, as board members expressed a desire to prevent similar issues from occurring.

Further concerns were voiced regarding the introduction of an additional filtering layer in the new structure, which might hinder the department’s ability to address issues promptly. One board member emphasized the need for direct access to information. The dialogue highlighted a broader concern about ensuring that the organizational changes do not detract from the office’s primary responsibilities, such as managing property assessments and ensuring fair taxation.

In addition to organizational matters, the meeting addressed the notification process for property assessments. Joshua Burlo, a representative from Vision, was set to visit homes for assessments, with postcards having been sent to approximately 108 residents as an initial step. The board discussed the necessity of notifying residents before rather than after the visits, citing previous issues with Vision Appraisal’s understanding of notification protocols. There was a consensus that prior notification was more effective and aligned with standard practices in other towns.

The board considered publishing the assessment schedule on the town website to enhance transparency and keep residents informed about when their properties would be assessed. This approach aimed to mitigate confusion, especially since visits could be captured on doorbell cameras, potentially leading to misunderstandings about the assessor’s presence on private property.

The complexities of property assessments were further illustrated by discussions on software compatibility issues. The board addressed problems with identification number discrepancies between Vision and Munis software, which had led to duplications. Efforts to resolve these discrepancies were ongoing, with the finance department expected to liaise with Munis to find a solution. The need for seamless integration between software systems was emphasized to ensure accurate and efficient property assessments.

The meeting also touched upon financial matters, including the approval of a $175,000 overlay for the year 2026. There was mention of an anomaly related to a figure from 2024, prompting further investigation.

A notable point of contention arose over the process for assisting taxpayers with deferral applications. The board debated whether lien holders should be contacted before applicants invest time and effort into the process. Concerns were raised about setting unrealistic expectations for taxpayers, as a lien holder’s rejection could render the entire process moot. The dialogue emphasized the need to balance supporting applicants with managing expectations realistically.

The meeting concluded with discussions on document clarity and the importance of precise language to avoid misunderstandings. Members agreed to further refine the proposal for contacting lien holders first, tabling the motion for additional consideration. The board acknowledged the importance of clear and transparent communication in all aspects of its operations, from organizational changes to the handling of property assessments and taxpayer assistance.