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

on Thursday, July 16th.

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

Can I get a motion to waive the reading of the public minutes from the Board of Assessors meeting held on Thursday, May 7th, and accept them and place them on file?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Accept them and place them on file.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Motion moves.

All right, so we're gonna start off with any department update.

None.

That was easy.

Um the old business.

Also none.

Thank you.

And then we're gonna move on to new business.

Now, in the interest of time here, because we have quite a few denials.

Um approvals one by one, and then we're gonna do a uh consent motion to uh accept the denials, unless there's someone here from the public who represents any of the uh properties are gonna be denied.

So okay.

All right, so the first one that we're gonna be taking a look at is 64 Coburn Woods.

Uh Bob, or you want to hang on, Jessica?

Tell us about this one.

I didn't just this was uh data correction change.

So um Kevin and I went out and did an inspection of the property to confirm the details, and we fixed a number of items.

Um flooring condition, bedroom count, bathroom count, condition of the kitchen and baths, one attic room that had been finished.

Uh these were new owners, so there had been some work done before they purchased it.

Okay.

Um and so after making the corrections, the total value went down from 540 to 515.

So we're recommending the approval of the abatement to the um 515-5 based on data corrections.

All right, can I get a motion to accept the uh recommendation for the abatement on 64 Coburn Woods?

Moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

All right, 60 timber lines.

This one is also data correction.

Uh we inspected this one as well.

Um property owner took us through in much detail.

Um some deferred maintenance issues that hadn't been fixed over the years.

Um we fixed some additional uh flooring, bathroom count, bathroom condition, kitchen condition, finished and unfinished basement square footage, um, status of the garage and the pool, and this all reduced the value from 6638 to 6281.

And so we're recommending approval of the abatement to the 628-1 based on data corrections.

Okay, any discussion on this?

No.

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Ayes have it.

Next one, three Teresa Way.

These are Bob's.

Why did that just come off gleefully?

Because these are market bases for data.

So um so we have two actually.

Uh three Theresa Way and five Teresa Way.

This is a very small condominium development.

Um it was originally a single family home on an oversized lot.

Developer picked it up.

Um renovated the original single family home and added four structures, so it's five unit condominium.

Um the four structures that were added are were basically identical when they were built.

Um is this off a one Lemon A?

And is that a big barn structure?

No, no, no, no, no.

Sorry.

This is West Hollis Street, one not too far from the transfer station and the it's a big um assisted living place across the state.

Oh, okay, okay.

All right.

Yeah, and so the setback deep.

Well, the original house sits kind of up on the road, and the drive goes in and four units two and two.

Yeah, and it that ends in there, yeah.

Um so the the uh new large units um were assessed in the 840s, and I think there was one higher because it had a basement finish, uh, 875-5.

But this the original sales ranged from 695 to 7170, and then there was a recent sale in 2025 for 720.

Uh that certainly doesn't support a value in the um mid to high 800s.

Um where it was two uh abatement requests and four units uh rather than do an appraisal on each, I just recalibrated the project uh based on uh the grid that's the second page of that uh package and uh set the factors in the project so that the four newer units uh have a more reasonable assessment.

The two that filed for 2025 were recommending an abatement.

The two that didn't file, if you don't file, you don't get an abatement, um, but all four of those values are adjusted for 26 and going forward.

The um in adjusting the factors, the um original one-story uh older renovated unit uh went would have gone down in value, but we added a factor to that one to bring it back to where it was because that one was reasonable.

Uh it it shouldn't have been reduced, and then we'll look at this again during the next reval.

It's been flagged.

Um we're recommending an abatement on three uh Teresa Way from 840 100 to 699 800.

It's a value reduction of 140,300 with an abatement refund of 2,361 and 25 cents uh plus whatever interest is calculated.

Okay, and you want to do three five also because we can do it in one motion.

Yeah, sure.

So um all the same rationale, uh, but five is a little bit different, and it and I did find a typo on the second page of the abatement recommendation under the conclusion.

Um it has I had copied the file and it has the 699 and 800, but the recommendation on this one is actually um 729 200.

This is the one that's got the finished basement, and I believe an extra bath, so it's worth a little more than uh three Teresa.

Okay.

Uh so this one is uh reduction from 875 to 729 200, which is a reduction of 146,300, and a refund before interest of 2462 and 23 cents.

Okay, all right.

So can I have a motion to accept the abatement recommendations for both three Teresa Way and Five Teresa Way as moved second?

Any discussion?

No, all right.

All those opposed eyes have stipulated okay.

So now we're into the denials.

Um I'm gonna read for the record the addresses here for the denials just so that we have it in, and then we can do a um is there anyone here that wants to speak on any of the details?

No, okay.

So I'm gonna read the addresses and then we're gonna have a motion to uh accept the recommendations of denying these abatement requests.

Uh so the first one is 188 Bartemas Trail, and we have 35 Walden Pond Drive, 84 Wald and Pond Drive, 22 New Dunstable Road, 20 Lake Street 15 Raymond Street.

I'm gonna um pass two abstain from 15 Raymond.

All right, and I tell you let's have a motion right now uh to accept the denial recommendations on the addresses that I just read off with the exception of 15 Raymond Street.

I have a motion to accept.

Moved to second all those in favor of denying those addresses?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

The ayes have it.

Um let's take a look at um have a motion to accept the denial for the abatement on 15 Raymond Street.

So moved.

I'll second that.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

And the ayes have it.

Uh now pick up where we left off on 23 Raymond.

I'd like to abstain on that one.

Stay on that one.

Okay, I knew you would.

Um, so do I have a motion to accept the denial recommendation on 23 Raymond Street as written?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Abstain.

The ayes have it for denial.

Isn't that up in that move?

Okay, I'm good.

Okay, you're good on that way.

All right.

So I'm gonna uh read off the uh the remaining addresses and we'll do a blanket uh motion for these 10 Blanchard Street, 73 Avon Drive, 77 Avon Drive, 78 Avon Drive, 9 Warner Street, 20 Academy Drive, 7 Sorel Court Unit 6, Kelly, 2 Lancaster Drive, 4 Lancaster Drive, 7 Fountain Lane 41 Berkeley.

I just have a question on 41 Berkeley, if I may.

Go, please do.

Um I I I realize that the tax rate issue isn't um before us really.

Um what is the argument?

I think Bob's got the history on that one.

Um there was an individual or group that put together uh uh basically an argument against paying the school portion of the tax because of the swept issue, you know the the all the the arguments we've had since the late 90s about how to fund uh uh education.

So it's a school portion of the taxes.

Right, but they're arguing they shouldn't have to pay because it's unconstitutional.

Um this actually, the group that did this sent mailings or advertising out across the whole state, and all of us have been receiving um these requests.

Uh they frame it as you know, we have to file locally before we can take the next step.

Um I've actually had some of these that have said I don't have a problem with my value, which is the tax rate.

Well, RSA 7616 abatement statute contemplates uh unfair burden uh due to an overassessment.

There's nothing in there that allows you to uh make an adjustment based on the tax rate uh you know or the components thereof.

Um so these are an automatic denial as far as I'm concerned.

And obviously, for them to get to where they need to do to be to be heard, they have to go through the administrative process, and so this is their first step.

Yeah, well that's that's their uh theory is that they need to go through the administrative process.

Well, it's it's true.

The court will kick it out if they don't interestingly.

Um, we as a group, the assessors were talking about this at some of their meetings, and you know, some of us did a little bit of research where challenging the tax rate has been brought up as an issue before the BTLA and Superior Court and never been successful.

I don't know if it's case law on it or not, but I there might be in in uh one of the BTLA cases.

Um so I don't I don't know where they're going with this, but we felt that um we didn't need to go that deep because we're just saying you know, we don't all we look at it.

Well the local abatement processes to address inequities due to an overassessment, you know, that your your value is driving a tax burden that's not reasonable.

Um and it completely ignores the tax rate side of it.

So I I I reviewed the statute and the rules, you know, to that point, and I uh sorry, I I certainly agree.

I just wanted to, I was curious as to what the argument was.

No, I appreciate it.

It's like we say if you if your taxes are too high, you got off on the wrong floor.

Guys downstairs.

Um okay, so let's pick it up.

You said Jay, that was all right.

Bob, you have any questions?

Okay, so uh 41 Berkeley to continue on six Southgate Drive.

Um that was current use.

Um, administrative abatement, right?

Okay, so for those addresses that I just uh just read off.

So moved, second.

You read six Southgate, but I don't believe that's a denial.

Yeah, that is a different that's a current use assessment matter, so you might want to strike from your motion.

Yeah, can we do that?

Uh we're gonna strike from the motion six Southgate Drive because that is a uh current use recommendation application as opposed to an abbey denial.

He heard so you can have a motion to accept the denials as stated by the board uh by the uh assessing department.

So moved, second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Those opposed, eyes have it.

And now we're at the current use application.

Um speak to that.

So um this uh it's a trust, but this individual filed the current use application uh timely uh April 9th of 2026.

Uh on review, we found that the uh map that was submitted uh didn't comply with the current use rules.

I sent the letter requesting an updated map with samples of what would be acceptable.

Uh that was sent out on May 21st.

I did receive back uh map that was more acceptable, and I believe that's in your package.

Is it the multicolored one?

Well, there are two of them.

So I have two maps in here.

So the multicolored one is the map in support of the current use and the categories.

Uh the other one was was uh map just showing the parcels involved and that they're contiguous parcels under common ownership.

So um I reviewed the package and determined that it's complete, timely, and recommending that the um uh board approve it and sign the current use application um where it looks for your signatures of approval or denial, and then that gets recorded at the uh registry of deeds.

Okay, so can I have a motion to accept the current use uh recommendation on the board from the uh assessing office Bob Gagne for six Southgate Drive.

So moved.

Second.

All of those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Posed.

The ayes have it.

All right, now we have uh from Jessica administrative abatement uh for uncollected taxes on manufactured housing.

Want to speak to that, Jessica?

Okay, uh well, we we can both speak to it.

So uh we've had I believe two of these previously within the last year, I think, where um if a uh mobile home is taken over by the park and is back taxes owed, and they're gonna demo that unit that they're not responsible for paying the taxes, and the taxes should be abated.

We were a little concerned with this one because it's a uh post-HUD uh construction date.

Um constructed in 1990 something.

1995.

So it's a it's a double wide modular um circa 1994.

Um you know, typically you see these have some value, unlike the older ones pre-HUD that you you know you can't get financing, they're worn out there poorly built.

Uh turns out this one was poor very poorly maintained.

Um it's it's structurally not sound, it's got roof leaks, and uh the intent now that the uh park has taken ownership is to they don't they don't repair that's not their business.

They they remove and replace with a better higher value unit.

Uh that uh as they say in their in their letter, someone who's more credit worthy and is gonna pay the park rent, they're gonna pay the taxes, and it's benefits both um park and us.

Um Jessica and I did drive out to take a look at this uh unit.

It's is in not very good condition.

Uh we requested an interior inspection, and um the manager uh indicated he would not be comfortable with allowing us in.

Uh he feels it's unsafe and didn't want to be responsible for us uh being injured on the property.

So uh and we we we accept that explanation.

Um need to put us and them at risk.

Um we're recommending approval.

It's uh for 2024 and 2025 uncollectible taxes.

Uh first below 26 won't be abated.

Uh rather we're going to set the value of this parcel at zero before the final tax bill, and and that'll be a wash.

It'll recalc to zero taxes owed and zero interest as well.

Um, but but it's you can't you can't abate taxes until there's a final bill.

Um but they they understand that they understand that that tax bill is gonna be sitting there, uh, but that we're gonna abate 24 and 25.

Um we also voice concern that well, what if you do repair it and keep it online?

And they sent an email saying they would accept rebuilding the taxes that were um waiving in that if they did that.

They assured us that it's coming down.

Um but just to assure you uh that they don't decide to you know renovate it and sell it, uh in which case they should pay the taxes on the proceeds.

Um that's not their plan, so can I sure question back was it was it contemplated that we could bring a personal action against the owner for the back taxes?

So if we abate it, we can't do that.

Now I understand this person obviously has been foreclosed upon, so perhaps, but I was just wondering if that was part of the discussion.

Um it was not.

Uh we're and and I think you've participated in uh at least the first one we did where um city can't refuse a demo permit due to back taxes in these cases.

I believe it's a statute and case law on that.

I'm not suggesting anything regarding the demo or the park.

I'm suggesting that this Ms.

Um Ms.

Laurie Gibbons is personally responsible for those.

So even if we can't do the tax lien process, we could still sue her.

Okay.

We can find her.

But if the if if the um if they're abated, you know, then there's no reason to do it.

I'm well I'm not at this point opining as to the value of that.

I'm just saying there is another, we don't just have to go, oh well, look at that.

You know, if somebody if a park takes it over the end of it, like this.

My two cents.

Um the park rent they owed is certainly less than what the taxes were, I believe, or on a par, and they couldn't pay those to hang on to something that has an assessed value of 171,000.

Doesn't mean that's the market value.

Um so if the owner wasn't willing to pay park rent to keep it, I don't think blood from a stone, I think is what we are at this point.

But you've got it written down here is the reason for the abatement is uncollectible.

And then and then Celia is asking, well, is it truly uncollectible?

We haven't even tried on a personal basis going after this person personally.

Yeah, well, they're they're certainly uncollectible through the tax lien and deeding process.

Correct.

But not as a right.

Obviously, if the assets destroyed, we're not you know getting titled to anything.

So um I mean think about that that the matter we looked at regarding the cell tower.

I mean, they they moved out, but they were still responsible for that and the tax.

Well, I've got a follow up on that.

I I mean we just say that it's not we got rid of that one a month or two ago because it's been a year and a half.

And no follow-up on the letters you guys sent us.

So if I could ask, uh, does uh failure to grant the abatement request impact the ability of the park to put a new unit on that parcel?

Going back a few months, but I remember the last time that we tried going around this, I have it here.

They they got their lawyer to send us all the um I think we included it here, the court.

I think that guy used RSA same letter for every time he sends us a letter.

I think it was stopping their stopped, they couldn't move forward because I think would you grant time for me to at least become more educated about that?

Last time we did this, we went through several meetings.

We we tabled it, we waited, we got letters back and forth.

Yeah, and then um did you send those to legal?

I don't recall saying.

But the thing is, Jesse, this might be a different matter, the way Celia's looking at it now.

Maybe one that we haven't looked at yet.

Right.

I'm not suggesting because if if the tax follows the unit, which is I'll refer to as the unit, and they're removing the unit, then a new unit wouldn't be followed right, it'd be given, would it be given a new um do it with the new account number?

Yeah, be a new accountant number.

So by not abating it, I think if I can I think I'm understanding your question by not abating currently, it does not stop the demo process.

Right, because of that state law that we have to re-revalue the sending.

Their attorney always throws up against us.

Yeah.

Could we defer?

I think the argument was if there's outstanding taxes, they won't issue a permit to demo it.

Right, but we're we're I okay, but I thought that our assumption is was that we're not going to stop the demo permit.

It's not up to us.

Yeah, it's not up to us.

I don't think building departments will issue a demo permit if they if they go to tax and there's an outstanding balance.

Yeah.

Well, I mean, it this could be a very good, you know, as I bring folks together, you know, I brought you and tax collectors together.

It sounds like we need tax collectors and clarification and building, you know, to have a quick meeting, maybe 30 minutes to review things.

Um, because I think we might, you know, just you know, we've we've had some really good conversations looking at our procedures here, and this one might be.

I know y'all have dealt with it a while, and I sense the frustration about having to put it on hold even longer, but uh I I think it would be good for for the sort of the different subject matter experts to come together on this one.

That would be my and the other reason too is this this matter keeps coming up.

So let's get a uh process down in place first.

Is there any downside to deferring to August so we could answer those questions?

Well, I only insofar as uh if uh if they're waiting to pull a demo permit and this delays them, uh we didn't ask.

We weren't anticipating.

Yeah, you said they want to demo it as soon as possible.

Well they might be able to, you know.

I mean, I yeah, I thought that's what you said.

It didn't he reference some statute in the his letter that says that uh you can't use the uh this process to prevent a uh building permit.

The wasn't that what you just mentioned?

Well, yeah, but it you know, so so if the they go to pull a demo permit in the in the building department and they log into the system and see if there's outsetting the taxes, they're not gonna issue the demo permit.

How do we get around that?

Well, my suggestion of the meeting, and I'll have my staff reach out two days after this meeting to set up a meeting and we can all discuss it so that it won't come as a surprise when they pull it up.

We will have, you know, I I presume within a week or two we'll be able to uh come to a resolution on this.

And then you can just have us you you just draft the abatement request and get us to sign off on it and let us know that there's one in the office we need to come up, come and sign on if we table this today.

We'd still have to.

Yeah, you'd have you'd have to come back to a public meeting to make the decision, but if the if the issue is they don't want to hold up a demo, I mean we're holding it up by a week or two.

It's I don't think you know whatever.

I mean, they also could just pay the taxes.

That's true.

Right.

I mean, they could come in with a check for four thousand six hundred and eighty-seven dollars and seventy cents, the park, and this would be a non-issue.

They could have the demo permit, you know, without you know, so the park has a choice, they would prefer not to pay.

Right, and then they'll get the abatement granted to them and they get the money back.

Uh they they could argue that, but I don't think so.

No, I mean I don't think so.

I mean, they're getting well, whatever.

There's value to the park with the removal of that.

So I'm I'm not I appreciate that they're pursuing this, but I just wanted to put it on the table that there's also a solution, it's their checkbook.

Right.

Do we have any as a remedy for it?

Do we have any collection history on on this?

No, I don't believe we have.

This is something that's new for the city that we're gonna explore.

It's an avenue that to my knowledge in the past over a decade, 13 years, we've not done.

But I think it's a really great time to you know at least have a conversation around it.

If we decide not to do it at this juncture, you know, it's not worth it.

Yeah, okay.

But the conversation will have been had.

So the just so we understand this, what we're trying to do here is we're gonna um make this see if we can make this collectible on a personal level to this Leon Gibbons, but allow Rogers to go ahead with the bill with the uh demolition permit and get done with the possible.

I think they're gonna explore it.

Right, right.

Yeah, I mean to me it's that's decisive because um it's clearly in the best interest of the city to allow for it to this unit to be demoed in a new unit put in of higher value that's gonna pay taxes, right?

That's long term, but if we can if that can happen and we can preserve our ability to collect against the individual, uh that's the best case scenario if that's possible.

So I think knowing the answer to that to me is decisive.

Could I ask Celia a question?

Yeah.

Do you think we could ask this board to um vote on it being okay to issue a demo permit?

So what the agree.

I think we can ask them it would have no effect whatsoever.

Okay, I don't think I think it would be like them voting on the color of the flag.

Yeah.

I don't think we have the authority, so whether or not what they can uh uh building permit can be issued is separate from the abatement, which is what I'm understanding.

I'm taking that right as a um here.

And you know, again, I I cannot stress enough that the park has another option.

Um it's a check.

Our next meeting is August 6th, correct?

Yes.

All right, that's only like a few weeks away.

Yeah.

So we need like let's do it.

And we might not and we might even know sooner than that.

So a week before that.

We can uh let our contact know that they tabled it because we go had a question about how to maintain it as collectible personally.

Um and we will have that issue ironed out before the August 6th meeting.

Uh so it's a delay of two or three weeks.

Yeah.

Right.

I get so that'd be great.

And and they also could just pay it.

Yeah, they won't do that.

Okay, well, it is an option.

I I guess I just keep wanting to say there is anything.

I mean, time is money, and so if they want to not wait, they can always write a check.

Three weeks, they're gonna hold on to their money.

Sure.

Um not they get to make that choice.

Yep.

Uh can I get a motion to table the uh the recommended recommendation by for an abatement by the uh city of Nashua for 22 Leanne Street?

So moved.

Second.

All those in favor, aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, the ayes have it.

We will table that for until the next meeting, and you'll figure that out for us.

Celia.

Okay.

All right.

Discussion.

All right, let me see.

I think that is it for the then public comments.

Well, I know that.

We're gonna move into the uh public comment uh section.

The speakers, I must ask you to give your name and address, and uh I watching a video.

The mayor said all you need to do is give this city or town that you live in.

Um your comments are limited to five minutes.

I'll start the timer.

Uh and this is your chance to give comments.

It not's it's not necessarily a back and forth conversation with the board of staff, but that's up to our discretion where we may decide to ask you questions or provide our own comments.

Uh, and that is entirely at our discretion.

So I think we have someone that would like to have you.

Why don't you come on up?

And I'm going to when you state your name, I'm gonna start the clock.

My name is Peter Jacobson, and I live at 3 Bartamus Trail, Apartment 206 in Nashua.

Um came here today to just provide some clarification.

I submitted a uh tax credit under or abatement request under the uh disabled vets.

So I'm a 100% PT, and when I moved into Nashua, I saw that was.

Uh permanent and totally disabled.

Okay.

Um so I had submitted the uh request.

The clarification letter I submitted was because I submitted the package after the April 15th filing deadline, and um I was reading in RSA 72 subsection 35 of uh submission guidelines that if you do submit past the deadline, there is a potential of leniency based on um accident mistake or misfortune.

Um overall I know it is my fault for submitting late, but uh during this January to April time period, I was supporting my dad who's in Colorado.

He had uh blood cancer, so I was flying out to see him during the uh bone marrow transplant and then kind of coordinating the treatment and insurance and all of that.

So between um that effort and then uh early April, I myself got uh sick with uh disease that landed me in the hospital for two weeks.

So there's just uh some life events that were occurring during this time.

So uh just want to provide clarification as to the uh mistake misfortune aspect of my application.

I totally own submitting late, but just kind of uh requesting leniency during this one time for kind of this year.

How long have you been in that in Barnabas Trail?

Uh I bought the property of July of 25.

25.

So this would have been the first time you called it yes, I used to live in mass and their filing deadline was different.

Yeah, um again, no no excuse.

Uh I should have done the due diligence to prep the package, but just higher priority items.

Yeah.

Okay, anything else?

No, that's it.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Any other public comments?

Um board comments.

All right.

Yep.

Now we're gonna go into non-public.

That's usually when I get uh can I have a motion to go into non-public session for two reasons.

First, to discuss matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputation of any person other than a member of this board, unless such a person requests an open meeting.

This exemption shall extend to include any application for assistance or tax abatement or waiver of a fee, fine, or other levy if based on inability to pay or uh or poverty of the applicant pursuant to RSA 91-A, uh chapter 3, section 2C, second under 91A3 section 2L for the consideration of legal advice provided by legal counsel, either in writing or orally to one or more members of the public body, even where legal counsel is not present.

Do I have a um motion to go into non-public session?

So moved.

Second.

Roll call.

Mr.

Early.

Yes.

Mr.

McCara.

Yes.

Mr.

Dobbins, yes.

Okay, the board entered non-public session at 9 35 a.m.