A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the discussion of a new exemption process, highlighting the challenges and potential unintended consequences of its implementation. Members of the board expressed concerns about the typical methods of entering exemptions, fearing that these might not be utilized effectively in practice. The need for a standardized approach was emphasized, with references to the Massachusetts Assessors Association’s efforts to establish consistent procedures. However, variations among towns were noted, with each community employing unique application processes.

The board considered the possibility of obtaining a waiver to use the overlay in a one-time manner, although there was uncertainty about who would grant such a waiver. Concerns were raised about relying heavily on the overlay, with the potential need to increase it each year. This led to discussions about defining free cash, with reminders about previous actions involving the release of funds from last year’s free cash.

The topic of Clause 18 was mentioned, with recognition that there were no established criteria for this exemption, particularly for individuals who were 100% disabled and under 65. The board acknowledged the need to address this gap and discussed the potential of creating a new exemption for disabled individuals to be presented at the next Spring Town Meeting. However, the lack of criteria for Clause 18 posed a challenge, limiting immediate assistance for residents. There was consensus on the importance of establishing criteria for consistent application of exemptions.

Technological upgrades were another focal point of the meeting, with discussions surrounding the integration of mapping and data collection capabilities into existing software. The board considered a new service costing $11,340, offset by the removal of an existing service costing $6,400, resulting in a net difference of approximately $5,000. The integration with the Vision software was seen as advantageous, with potential benefits including real-time updates to Geographic Information System (GIS) data, eliminating the need for manual data input after field inspections.

The conversation highlighted the lack of a GIS specialist in town, which could hinder effective implementation of GIS solutions. Past issues with an underutilized mapping service, Near Map, were mentioned, and alternative services like Eagle View were discussed. The importance of a clear organizational structure to prevent redundancy and facilitate better use of GIS data was stressed.

Staffing challenges also surfaced, with the board acknowledging the necessity for increased hours for assessors due to an unmanageable workload. There were days when a high volume of residents arrived at the office simultaneously, causing frustrations about accessibility. The importance of scheduling appointments for complex queries was emphasized to alleviate pressure on assessors during peak times. The board explored ways to manage public access while ensuring efficient completion of assessments.

The meeting also addressed the ongoing relationship with Vision Appraisal and concerns about their performance regarding contract deadlines. Delays in meeting the September 30 deadline for interim adjustments were noted, prompting discussions about contract enforcement and the need for better management of future contracts to avoid similar situations.

Additionally, discussions revolved around the submission of sales data and the upcoming classification hearing, anticipated for mid-November. There was consideration of possible dates for the hearing, with the need to avoid conflicts with Veterans Day and the town meeting on November 18th. The board emphasized the importance of understanding current projects for future meetings and acknowledged the necessity of timely completion of reports and documentation.

The board’s efforts to maintain accurate property assessments included reviewing property record cards concerning economic and functional obsolescence. Notifications were sent to homeowners regarding the removal of discounts lacking proper explanation, with inspections ongoing to verify property conditions. The removal of outdated or unwarranted discounts was reported, amounting to $8,231.15 from properties assessed at $573,200, and $12,142 from properties valued at $845,600, for six properties that did not respond to inquiries.