Unless it's a try vote, it's not an issue.

I'll call the meeting of the National Board of Assessors to order at 9 03 a.m.

on Thursday uh February 5th.

Let the record show that present from the board are Robert Early, Jim McCara, and myself Charles Dobbins.

And I got a motion to waive the reading of the public minutes from the Board of Accessors meeting held on Thursday January eighth eighth uh and accept them and place them on file.

So move.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Can I get a motion to waive the reading?

No.

We didn't have problems.

Okay.

Okay, so the follow we're gonna start following the agenda.

The first thing we're gonna talk about is any department update.

Michelle.

None.

None.

All right.

I'll give you just a little one.

Uh we're up to I think nine abatements applications for 25.

Nine?

Yeah.

Did you overwhelming?

Not really.

No.

Right.

Okay, sure.

But uh okay.

That's a pretty small amount, even considering that.

So I guess Massachusetts is February 1st, right?

Uh I don't know.

Yeah, so the clients were not certified in there, so I don't remember that.

Okay.

Plenty of work here.

All right, that's great.

Uh now new business.

Let's move on over to new business.

Uh we have the solar exemptions.

Yeah, the these are the seller exemptions recommended to be approved to today.

The the account numbers and addresses are listed.

I can have a motion to accept the solar exemptions uh by the board as provided by uh the assessor's office.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

I have it.

Now we have a uh additional uh tax warrant.

Yeah, so what happened is that um we weren't notified until a after that someone had pat passed in 2024, so it should have been removed for 2025.

It was not so they therefore we're looking to recoup the 750 that they were granted and shouldn't have been granted.

Okay.

Do I have a motion to accept the uh change of the new additional tax warrant uh for 25 Indiana Drive.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

And then settlements.

We have an abatement recommendation of BTLA recommendation for 11 Hawthorne Village Road.

Yep.

And uh I did provide you um a recommendation and a re reasoning.

Um this was denied at the local level.

Um if you recall, there was a number there were a number of um units in Sky Meadow, uh section sky two that it file for an abatement.

And at the time we've we determined that the larger units, uh, pretty much all those that applied warrant had an abatement warranted, and that any of the units this size are smaller were fine.

Uh this tax.

So you you denied this particular local abatement.

Uh the taxpayer um appealed to the BTLA as a part of the process of doing the BTLA mediation.

They order us to uh meet and discuss settlement before they'll schedule a hearing.

Uh the taxpayer uh contracted with an appraiser to do an appropriate an appraisal on a unit.

Provided us with that appraisal.

Um I reviewed it and find it to be um credible, uh well supported uh appraisal.

Uh the mark the the value was 715.

And my estimate value was 726.

I would point out that in the appraisal, it's noted that there's some issues that would need to be cured with the subject unit if it were marketed, namely that it's got uh I believe vaulted ceilings where the drywall seams are splitting from the walls, and that would need to be repaired.

Um the taxpayer who's here today reached out to some contractors to get an estimate on those repairs.

Wasn't able uh to get a written estimate back.

Um, by the time we have to present here, did get a ballpark verbal estimate that it would probably cost around 10,000 to fix that.

Uh so those items combined and considering what it would cost the city to go to the board for a hearing uh if this didn't settle.

Um I felt that the 715 that the taxpayer um is holding to based on that appraisal is reasonable.

Um the result of the abatement is on a summary sheet that you should have in your packet.

It's a refund for 2024 of 760 and two cents plus status during interest, and uh for 2025 uh refund of 804.47 plus interest.

So we're settling for the 726 or the 715 715.

The uh taxpayer happens to be here today.

I think he's here to kind of watch the proceedings.

But if uh if he wants to address the board, he certainly can do that.

Would you like to, Mr.

Bush?

This is D Gregorio.

Oh, D.

The unit was gathered under a trust, so that's why that's the name of the uh case.

Would you like to address us, Mr.

D Gregorio?

Sorry.

Do you want to speak to the board?

No, not yes.

Okay, all right.

Sure.

Uh seems reasonable.

Yeah.

All right, let's uh ready for no questions?

No questions.

No.

Okay.

Uh I have a motion to accept the changes to 11 Hawthorne Village as proposed by Bob Gagney.

Um to have a assessed value of 715,000 for tax use 2024 and 2025.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Passes.

Good luck.

Uh the next uh proposed settlement agreement is for um a DTAS unit at 37 Jessica Drive.

Uh this had been uh denied at the local level due to a lack of market data provided by the taxpayer, keeping in mind that the taxpayer has the burden of proof.

Um again, um local denial appeal to the Board of Tax Land Appeals who ordered the parties to meet and attempt to mediate and settle the issue.

Um I met with the taxpayer.

Uh she brought in information about I believe two, possibly three other units in the development that are identical footprints in style and size that were assessed significantly lower than this unit, um, which is normally not a reason to abate, right?

It's like we can't make yours wrong to match others that might be wrong.

But in this case, when I did some research, out of 35 units in the development, 33 had an adjustment for being adjacent to the highway.

And when I look back on the subject, and at one other unit didn't didn't have the adjustment, um, there were comments that it had an adjustment at one point and it had been removed without a without any reason or comment.

Uh additionally, uh the project base rate was set based on units that had the adjustment that had sold.

So to assess this unit based on that base rate with the with the adjustment and and taking the adjustment off is not fair.

Um so um my uh recommendation is to re and put that adjustment back on.

I believe it's a minus five percent.

Uh and we also uh discovered in the meeting that there was some um data issues with the flooring type, and we corrected that as well.

So it in making those two changes, it reduces the assessment uh from the original 2024 assessment of 434,900 down to 40500.

Uh the re refund for 2024 is 462 and 69 cents plus interest, and for 2025, it's 4895 plus interest.

I would also comment that um where that adjustment applies to the whole development, it shouldn't have the adjustment.

The base rate for the development should reflect that it's adjacent to the highway.

You know, why why adjust them all?

If it were two or three that had the adjustment, I can see that.

But if it's all 35 units, take the adjustment off, set the values based on the sales from the development, and everybody's good.

Uh so this is flagged for additional review next revaluation, uh, which we don't know what year it's going to be yet.

Uh we hope it's 27, but we don't know it's not set yet.

Um but this will be in the folder, you know, to look to look at uh before the next revaluation or during the next revaluation, and that would be my recommendation.

Take the individual adjustments off and then set the value for all 35 units based on whatever units sold within that 12 months prior to the remote uh period.

On the property card, can you easily see where it where you have that factor put in?

Um the factor prints and depending on where the comment about that, and most all of these had an old comment from I believe the 90s maybe uh that they were adjusted for this factor.

It appears in the comments, unless we've added comments in front of it that push that comment feel so big that it doesn't print anymore.

But I think you should do you have if you have a copy of that card in there.

Yeah, yeah, where do you see it on here?

Yeah, my issue is which line.

So it just it does say um property factors.

It said both uh in in the comments on on the second page.

Well spots at the top, yeah.

The second from the bottom line says Bogart Garrison Eco equals market adjustment.

And and that adjustment had been removed, and and and that adjustment would have been um be on the incredible right.

I see right here.

So the comment is there, and if the adjustment was showing, it would show up under economic adjustment, or if they had done a function, but they're just under you should have the corrected card there too, which shows it as economic other, and it's a five percent.

Is that five percent standard or is it particular to this development?

It's particular to this development.

A few of the units have a 10% adjustment.

Wow.

Um, which is another kind of troubling thing.

Um now, some of the units are like closer to the highway.

I believe this is exit five between exits four and five uh north.

Um so some of them are at that edge, but it's really unclear whether that's why those have 10 or not, because there are a couple further in that have the 10 as well.

I think there's a sound wall there now.

Yes, there is if it's between five.

Yeah, and and I think that sound wall is uh was installed uh after these adjustments were initially put on.

So the highway was there when the homes were built, right?

It's exactly what I was gonna say.

Yeah, yeah.

You know, it should already it what about if it's your next to a railroad track?

Is there a factor for that?

Um I I believe there's some neighborhoods that do have that.

Where but only if the property abuts the railroad track, and only if it's active.

Well, look for the once every two weeks that it changes track.

I mean, let me tell you, that's a pain in the neck what it does because I'm always behind it.

Um but I remember that you know these people came in looking for an abatement because of planes kept flying over their house.

Yeah, you live next to the living a quarter mile from the end of the runway in Manchester.

Uh my neighborhood's like that.

Yeah, yeah.

This was here, you know.

I mean, it wasn't as active.

We've been there 43 years, so it wasn't as active in 1983.

It really it really got busy in the 90s, 2000.

Yeah, um, but it's always been there.

Um other issues, the burden, like you said, is on the on the burden is on the homeowner to justify it.

I mean, look at that that code.

How is she supposed to pick up on this code that right?

And that's why you know her follow-up at mediation was you know, this saying, you know, in there are so this unit happens to be a more traditional colonial style or garrison if you look at it.

Yeah, um, a number of the units in there are more contemporary, you know, they're not a rectangle box, there's like two footprints and set back and cathedral ceilings.

So there's either contemporary or garrison.

Most of them are not this style.

And even the ones that are this style aren't all the same anymore.

Because I looked at them all.

Some of them have had the garage turned into living area.

Some of them have had uh a second story added to that garage.

Yeah.

Um so they're not all the same anymore, but the the two or three that were the same within a few square feet of of living area, you know, 10 or 12 square feet.

Um, she brought them in and said this can't be right.

And that's when I kind of looked deeper into it and saw that those had an adjustment and this one didn't.

More troubling was I don't think there's any comment in here as to why that adjustment was removed.

Actually, there is.

This is well it refers to a functional adjustment, which is not what this was.

This was an echo adjustment.

Yeah, he might have just called it that though.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think this is one of the ones that herring that came up and we inspected.

And um we were more concerned with um an adjustment because it's fair condition and listed some some deficiencies.

So when when he reported his remove the funk, I wasn't that concerned.

Right.

Um, but it was ac economic, you know, outside influence.

Funk would be within the property and economic would be outside the property.

Anyway, it's back on on this one.

We recommend approval and uh we'll we'll make make more sense uh next revaluation if I'm still here.

Okay.

All right, so let's have a motion to accept the proposed uh change in a and assessed value for 37 Jessica Drive as proposed by uh the uh city of National Board um Bob Gagnon will say I have a second first uh second, but you you gave a second yeah well hold you second.

Did you make a motion?

Yeah, I'll make that motion.

No, Jay made the motion, I'll second it.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Passes.

I'm on a very tight shift.

Oh right.

Uh now we're no more new business.

And uh no no uh no public comments and board comments.

Nope.

Do we need to go in public uh non-public session?

No, no.

So we're gonna skip over that.

Uh let me see.

Um we need to seal the motion, seal them.

No?

No, no.

Wow.

I know.

I know.

I guess we're right down to adjournment.

Yeah.

Because we got up to a late start.

We would have wrapped this up earlier.

Can I get a motion to adjourn?

So move.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

The meeting is adjourned at 9.19.

Okay.

Thank you very much.