Crowd: Maxwell Didn’t do its Job

Board Pulls Invoice, Schedules Special Meeting

(Hamilton – April 14, 2011) The Hamilton Town Council decided to reconvene its regular meeting Thursday evening after hosting a public comment session on revaluations that drew more than 140 people.

The board voted unanimously, after listening to the questions and concerns of the audience for more than two hours, to pull the invoice of Maxwell Appraisal Services from the stack of bills to be paid.

Board members also arranged a special meeting for Monday night at 7 p.m. at town hall.

Supervisor Robert Kuiper was not in attendance; Deputy Supervisor Peter Darby conducted the meeting.

Several members of the counsel expressed the desire to review Maxwell’s contract to make certain the company complied with the terms of the agreement. Those audience questions also raised more questions from council members who want those questions answered before proceeding with payment.

According to town officials, Maxwell was the low-bidder for the revaluation process recently conducted for the town of Hamilton, but there seemed to be some confusion whether Maxwell’s contract called for an update or full revaluation; the former relies on information from state Office of Real Property Services databases while the latter requires actually visiting properties.

Property owners spilled out of both doorways at the Montgomery Street courthouse, packed to double capacity.

The meeting started with an overview of the assessment process by town attorney Steve Jones. He said the state Constitution gives the Legislature the power to supervise assessments; it is not something delegated down to the town board but to an assessor who is charged with determining fair assessments.

“The town board doesn’t have the power to just reject revaluations,” Jones said. “It can be rejected by the assessor.”

According to Jones, the assessor is appointed to a six-year term and can be dismissed only for just cause. The term length is to avoid political influence in the execution of the job duties.

He said as aggravating as the process may seem, every landowner should do whatever they need to do to protect their interests in their individual properties and collect the evidence to support their claims that their properties were overvalued.

“Meet with Mr. Maxwell,” Jones said. “Meet with the assessor and discuss the proposed assessment. Then there is the Board of Assessment Review – these are your neighbors – who will review your evidence. So get together, share information, and bring all of that information with you to support your position.”

Those unhappy with their assessments then may file a small claims assessment review with the county, Jones said. He said a $30 fee is attached to that process.

“You have to do everything in your power to protect your investment,” Jones said.

Darby created a handout for the meeting, but said only 75 copies were made to accommodate the capacity of the building.

“Whoever didn’t get a handout on the assessment process can get one at the town office,” Darby said.

Darby also talked about the impact of exemptions on assessment.

“Not everyone eligible for the agriculture exemption has applied for it,” Darby said. “The same thing with STAR – a lot of people are eligible and have not signed up. Those two things can make a big impact on assessments.”

Concilman David Holcomb said it was clear to him that Maxwell did not visit every property, and he will do all he can to see it gets done properly.

“Five-and-a-half years ago, my phone never rang once,” Holcomb said. “Nobody had a problem.”

Resident Charles Naef said assessment is performed on a base of comparables, and the base doesn’t match up.

Kerry Dart brought forth a petition of 124 signatures representing 5,300 acres to put the town on notice that those property owners felt the revaluations were excessive and inappropriate.

“Maxwell has show gross incompetence here,” Dart said. “If properties are being sold, yes, look at that. If they are not, ask, ‘What is it being used for?’ It should be assessed accordingly. Farmers won’t be able to survive. They will have to use one- to two months’ milk checks to pay their taxes.”

Councilwoman Carolyn Todd was booed while trying to explain how the state calculates equalization rate and how a below-100-percent equalization rate decreases state aid to the town in 50 ways.

“The assessor is trying to bring these properties up to fair market value,” Todd said.

Ben Barrett, who lives on Payne Street, said there are three or four vacant houses owned by out-of-staters in proximity to his home.

“One has sold five times since 2003,” Barrett said. “The market is flat or declining. It is NOT going up. Houses are not selling for their asking prices. In fact, the ones I’ve seen are selling for 15 percent below asking price consistently.”

Holcomb expressed frustration that taxpayers were put in the position of having to take the time and make the effort to fight their assessments, which he said appear to be excessive.

“Why should it go back on the taxpayer to prove their innocence?” Holcomb asked. “If I own 100 acres with a beaver pond and next door owns 100 acres of developable land, they shouldn’t be valued the same.”

Audience members chimed in that the state and town comparables were different, and that a recent purchase demonstrated that the assessment methodology was wrong. Another said Roach told him, ‘I can’t help you,’ ‘It’s not my fault,’ and ‘The town contracted with an outside agency.’

Many demanded to know why Roach or representatives from Maxwell were not in attendance to answer some of their questions.

Another man read from the town’s comprehensive plan and gave examples of how the revaluations will have “…unwanted and negative impact on the character of the town.” He said the end result goes against everything the comprehensive plan should protect, particularly agricultural production operations and open space.

“This action will force people into making poor land decisions,” he said, such as selling natural gas leases and logging agreements for low-ball offers. “And their neighbors will all be affected through [natural gas] compulsory integration.”

Mike Hotaling, who said he owns properties in Hubbardsville, Eaton, Nelson and Brookfield, said his property was increased 260 percent. Of the four towns, he reported a low of $520 per acre in Brookfield to the high of $1,823 per acre in Hubbardsville.

He said the properties are contiguous and a private appraiser quoted him a value of $648 per acre for the Hubbardsville parcel.

Todd said she is married to a professional appraiser and understands that the appraiser is there to perform a service for the landowner, whether it is to make the property as attractive for sale as possible or to play it down before putting it into trust for a beneficiary.

She said the revaluation process was begun in 2008 by halted by the town council early in 2009.

“Appreciation has hurt us,” Todd said. “If we had gone through with the reassessment in 2009, some of this rise could have happened then, and this would be a little less of a shock.”

The last revaluations were performed in 2005; the town of Hamilton does not participate in the state’s Coordinated Assessment Program.

Currently, the town’s equalization rate is 85 percent, which negatively affects its share of the county sales tax distribution, which is based on taxable assessed value of the municipality. According to Todd, the 100-percent proposed valuation will be $289 million, but she did not say whether that was total assessed value or taxable assessed value.

Todd said the board did not want to pursue the revaluation in 2009 when the economy had just crashed.

“If you don’t like the information used in the revaluation, if you don’t think it’s fair, don’t think it’s accurate, go through the process,” Todd said.

Councilman David Crumb said he thinks way too many mistakes were made everywhere he’s looked.

“Especially farmers,” Crumb said. “They were grossly overrated. We will do anything within our legal limits to stop it. To tell people [the revaluations] are outlandish is because we didn’t do them in 2009 is just wrong. It’s not whether or not we had done it, it needs to be done, we have to do it, but we just want it done right and fair.”

“I had to pay $50 to file the ag exemption,” Hotaling said. “I would like to challenge the whole damned thing. There is an Indian land claim here. People forget we don’t even own our properties because the county and state can’t do their jobs and settle a 100-year-old claim.”

“The whole process is wrong,” one man said. “It was done behind our backs and behind closed door. We needed to be a part of the process.”

Crumb said everything was conducted at public meetings for several months, which were lightly attended by the public, if at all.

“You’re not getting any information because the public isn’t at the meetings,” Crumb said.

Darby said he had gone over some of the findings with Assessor David Roach.

“He is confident the method was consistent,” Darby said. “The people who are angry are here; those who aren’t, aren’t.”

According to Darby, Roach will hold office hours Wednesday from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and Saturday, May 14, from 4 to 8 p.m. He said the tentative tax roll will be presented May 1, and no appointment is necessary to meet with roach.

The deadline to file a grievance is May 26.

“We have some reassessments that seem absurd,” Darby said. “We can’t go out and do them ourselves. We understand that people are human and mistakes can be made, but some seem so excessive, you have to question the accuracy of the process.”

Jones said the tax rolls are finalized July 1, and property owners have 30 days from then to file small claims actions; however, before a small claims action can be entered, landowners must go through the rest of the process.

According to Jones, a similar assessment situation last year in neighboring Brookfield resulted in most people successfully arguing their cases with the assessor or Board of Assessment Review.

“I did not have to represent the town in any small claims actions,” Jones said.