The most discussion revolved around the recent property inspections and the concerns about how these inspections were conducted. A member of the board highlighted that inspections had been performed without prior notice to property owners, leading to worries about the transparency of the process. This lack of notification prompted a debate about the best practices for future inspections, particularly for residential properties. One suggestion was to conduct inspections during evening hours when residents are more likely to be home, as opposed to the daytime when many are at work. The conversation noted that commercial properties might still necessitate daytime inspections due to business hours.

The board reviewed an inspection report detailing approximately two dozen recent inspections, focusing mainly on external features such as three-season porches and other additions. Concerns were raised regarding discrepancies between the values listed on building permits and the assessment increases recorded during inspections. For example, a property with a building permit valued at $100,000 was only assessed with an increase of $42,000. This discrepancy led to questions about the accuracy and consistency of the assessment process.

A specific property on River Road was discussed in detail. The assessment of this property revealed confusion due to the mobile home being listed twice, leading to misunderstandings about its value. The board emphasized the necessity of evaluating the actual condition of properties and maintaining consistency in how assessments are calculated relative to the actual improvements made.

Further complicating the issue, the discussion turned to the valuation process for mobile homes. The board reviewed a case where a mobile home was assessed at $47,000 despite a building permit indicating a renovation cost of $100,000. It was noted that the assessment process considers factors beyond square footage, such as the number of bathrooms and the overall condition of the property. However, the limited scope of some inspections, which did not include interior evaluations, raised additional concerns about the accuracy of these assessments.

The board also scrutinized the process of assigning values to building permits. It was revealed that building inspectors might assign lower values on permits to save costs, which complicates the assessment process.

In a broader discussion about grading new construction, participants debated the classification of new homes as “average” despite significant differences in quality and finishes. The need for a more nuanced approach to grading properties was emphasized, with suggestions for board members to participate in inspections to gain a better understanding of the assessment process and ensure consistency in valuations.

The meeting also addressed the town’s communication practices regarding building permits and inspections. There was uncertainty about whether the town receives notifications when permits are closed. It was suggested that assessors conduct site visits to properties with completed renovations to better understand the situation. This led to a proposal for systematic property inspections by board members.

Additionally, the board discussed the impact of incomplete data on property assessments. Examples were cited where properties were assessed based on partial information, leading to potential inaccuracies in valuations. The importance of clear communication with homeowners about the assessment process and the need for complete and accurate data was highlighted.

The meeting also touched upon administrative matters, such as the planned upgrade of the board’s computer software. This upgrade, still pending select board approval, was discussed in the context of improving the efficiency and accuracy of property assessments.

Towards the end of the meeting, the board reviewed property listings and recent sales, discussing the perceived values and implications for future assessments. Specific properties, such as 192 North Street and River Road, were examined in detail, with members questioning the cost-effectiveness of the valuations based on square footage and renovation costs.