A “comedy of errors” is how a Maine State Revenues (MRS) official described Whitefield’s assessing efforts in recent years as town officials have aimed at levying property taxes fairly.
Selectmen, in their role as assessors, have been dealing with a “hodgepodge” of information that “couldn’t be defended because there was nothing to compare it with,” said Michael Rogers, supervisor of the agency’s municipal services.
About 80 citizens gathered in the school gym last Thursday to learn why their taxes had shot up and their building assessments recently doubled or, in some cases, tripled and quadrupled.
As the evening unfolded, a show of hands indicated the majority favored paying for a $150,000 professional revaluation that would be conducted next year on every property in town.
Rogers said his primary charge is to develop the annual state valuation and “to react to the concerns of citizens.” He said Whitefield is at 60 percent of state valuation. (In adopting the recent assessment the selectmen voted to go for 100 percent, a decision that fueled taxpayer outrage.)
Rogers also said the selectmen made “a reasonable attempt” to assess properties, but Whitefield has not had “a professional valuation or good baseline to base your assessment on to create equity. There are glaring inequities.” Across the town, many of the 1400 properties have been assessed too low and some too high. “There are people paying a disproportionate share of the tax burden,” he said.
It was a message he repeated often during the nearly four-hour forum where many questions were asked and answered.
Board of selectmen chairman Steve McCormick opened the meeting by identifying several errors that were made: land wasn’t included along with buildings; the $396,000 in carryover funds from last year’s school budget had been omitted “so that revenue source wasn’t factored in” when the tax commitment was made; there was “a problem with assessment of commercial properties;” and there were “issues with manufactured (doublewide) housing.”
Rogers had his own additions to make: human error, such as a wrong keystroke entering information into software tables, or problems with the software itself; and too much “tampering – not malicious,” he stressed, by members of the several select boards that have “gotten in there and moved things around” the past six years.
The new assessment, once corrections are made, will show residents how their property compares with that of their neighbors. Explaining the mass appraisal process that was used, Rogers said it is intended to protect the income source of the town. It attempts to assess properties “within the same or similar parameters, to create or restore equity; and there should be frequent updates to make adjustments,” he said. Neither mass appraisal nor real estate appraisal (which is used to get financing, for example) is “an exact science. It’s an opinion of value,” he said.
After the taxpayer revolt in October, the board asked to meet with MRS. Rogers said what particularly alarmed him was the fact that “land has inflated the last 10 years more than anything and that wasn’t touched at all” in the assessment. Land, assessed at 35 percent in Whitefield, is too low, Rogers said. The land tables in the computer software need to be updated to reflect the fact that a waterfront property is more valuable than one sitting on Rt. 126, he stated.
The only way to correct the problems was to void this year’s tax commitment, Rogers explained.
He also told the gathering last Thursday that assessments don’t raise taxes. “You do it at town meeting. You set the level of taxation you put on yourselves. The assessors’ role is to distribute the tax burden.”
McCormick explained that the board sent out new tax bills reverting to last year’s values, except homeowners who undertook new construction or made improvements will have those changes reflected on their assessment. The mil rate will increase from 12 to 17 mils.
The chairman said, “Going forward into next year, we’ll send out an assessment of what we feel the value of your property is. You’ll have three months to schedule an appointment” if there are questions or disagreement. He said board members would check all the values to make sure they’re right.
Mike Panosian had a similar concern. “I’m confident the facts on your papers are incorrect,” he told McCormick. “It’ll be back on our shoulders.”
Rogers said taxpayers can address their doubt that the assessment is accurate by voting for a professional revaluation, to be done in one year instead of “fiddling around for more than six years,” as the town has done. “(A revaluation) is a truly professional approach that other communities use,” he stated.
Offering another idea, he advised, “It would behoove the town to go to Trio (the software manufacturer) and find out if the schedules have been updated.” Errors in the computer pricing components are a common flaw, he added.
A citizen suggested that the board send to each taxpayer next year a record of his or her assessment ahead of the tax bill so that it could be previewed for accuracy. The process could make unnecessary an appointment with the assessor’s agent or an abatement request.
McCormick said taxpayers will receive that information, an impact notice, in the mail.
The topic of selectmen’s capacity to act as assessors arose. Assessing has long been a selectman’s “other job” in his public role and training is available, if individual members elect to take it or have the time when the instruction is scheduled. Asked why state authorities don’t get involved to require the training, Rogers replied, “There’s a certain amount of home rule in this state.”
Rogers provided information on how landowners can benefit from having their agricultural or woodland classified according to its current use (farming, tree growth), instead of its potential fair market value.
