Okay. I'm calling to order the board of assessors meeting of Thursday, October 23rd at the Lakeville Public Library. The um first agenda item is to see if anyone else is recording other than Lake Cam. Anyone else recording? No one's indicated they are, so we'll
assume they aren't. Uh, we do not have anyone here from the public, so we can skip the public comment portion. Uh, I've distributed or we've had a folder that has some uh invoices to sign. Um, we also need to approve the next agenda
item is the September minutes for our meeting uh of September 4th. Uh, everyone's had a chance to review them. I can see the signatures are there, but we need to formally vote it. I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the September 4th meeting. So move with a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. I.
>> Motion carries unanimously. We also have some um motor vehicle reports for September and some statutory exemptions to uh sign off on as well, which will make their way around the table here. The next is agenda item number seven,
>> FY26 budget information from vision. Do we have any of that here or is it in the I don't know if uh Linda included it in the folder. I didn't see it when I looked at it earlier. I think it's really uh well pricing information for
the upcoming budget. >> Right. So the question I guess is even if it's not in there, she can we can make sure she puts it in. >> She said oh there is >> So you saw that right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So I don't know if you want to
comment on it or >> Yeah, I do. Um before I go, I'd be uh remiss cuz um we know but the folks probably watching if anyone does decide to watch this meeting, uh Haral Shide with RRG is
acting as our interim town assessor. Um welcome back. He's done this before for us on a permanent basis, but this time it's just interim. Um so we uh the town has signed a contract through the end of the year to have uh RRG handle the interim services for us. So welcome back
Harald. Happy to have you. A pleasure. Uh >> and uh now you can pick up where you where I cut off on the uh stuff. My only comment here uh under
the uh proposal is that um in the past we have um subscribe to vision's GIS module uh they have a price of roughly 15 to 16
$1,561. Um I'm not sure that that uh is uh uh a feature that we really want to subscribe to in the future because of um our use of access GIS. We have the ability to uh take our property record
cards produced out of vision uh spool those as a PDF a series of PDF files and attach them directly to our GIS. Um the um >> so right right now when you go on the assessor's website and you print out a
property you can get two different >> right >> uh cards right one is a vision >> one is a vision card >> and what's the other one >> and the other is the the actual real card if you came into the office and asked for a property record uh you get
the fullblown sheet. So, is there any reason why we need division if we have another option? This is for >> Yeah, that was going to be my question. I mean, I think people are used to it and I think maybe it >> totally up to you, but >> but there's no there's no necessity other than people are used to it and it
may be I don't know a little easier because people are used to it to read it. Is the information the same? is >> it's it's um uh truncated uh by far doesn't have all of the information that the full property record card has.
>> So there's no downside. They're not it's not like we're not going to provide people that they have, >> right? >> I don't know that we have to answer the question today, but um it might be something. >> What is the cost of the we're discussing $100?
>> $1,500. That's vision all of vision or that's a particular part of what vision >> that's a part of the um uh annual >> and is that the part we're talking about having that >> um >> would you still have access to the to the summary card property records card
without that? Uh yeah. So what we would do annually uh or even more often is um through a special application uh spool off PDFs of all the full property
record cards, send those to Cardographic Associates, and then they would link those to our GIS. >> And what does that cost versus just paying >> nothing? >> Okay. >> Yeah. It's not a It's sounds like it's not it's it's it's not a big ticket item, but it's basically we're paying for
something that's duplicate to what we already have. >> I think there's a small cost for the program that actually uh creates those PDFs. It's but that's a one-time expense. >> So, if you go to the town hall and you pull or ask ask the clerk to pull a
property cat, that's what you see, not on vision on the other one. >> Uh we make that available. Okay. >> So, we really have two versions of the the same >> of the same information. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, it sounds like what we
probably should do is again to your point, we don't need to make the decision now, but let's just um I'm sure financially it makes more sense. We'll find out what the cost of that one-time program is. Um, and then we'll just vet through through the town offices if
there's any pressing reason why anyone else would need to make sure we have that um that function of vision available. Um, and if it comes down to just convenience or optically that's what they used to look >> do they have the two different versions
of a property >> all over the board. Some have nothing at all. Just the straight GIS with no linkage to the assessment record. >> Okay. >> So, okay. >> So, we'll get the price on the what the that onetime module is and then we'll
also just run it around to make sure there's no one's going to have a big issue with us if we don't sign on to for that portion of the contract. So, our full annual cost um and this has gone up dramatically in the last several years is about $26,000
uh between the camera subscription and the cloud hosting which is >> okay >> just making uh mounting the camera system on on the cloud so that we have uh >> and if memory serves me correct we've
we've talked about this before uh a I I I believe there are other options, but there's not a lot of other options. And if we were to can I look at this change to another vendor? Um are the costs substantially different? Is it something
we should we should get it a cost on? And then I believe don't Isn't there a lot of uh there's an upfront cost to >> there was a huge upfront cost >> importing it over from the old system to the new system, right? The migration.
I always advocate advocate for Axis GIS, the GIS that we use because Cardographic Associates also handles all of our map updates. Um, and they're really the best at that uh at that job. Um,
as opposed to using vision. So well access GIS is offered to us by cardioraphic associates not vision right uh drives our GIS system um
but Cographic Associates also handles our annual map updates uh so we're dealing with one vendor that both maintains our parcel maps and rolls that into the GIS Yes. Um
that we then we in the greater world can access. >> So are we talking about eliminating all of this? >> No, just the >> just that 1,500. Okay. >> So in the scope of everything, it's really not a lot of money. >> Not a lot of money. But
>> but if it's a duplicate, we don't need it. Why? >> Right. >> Why use it? >> Right. Well, like I said, we'll just vet it through other departments and see if anybody has a strong reason why not to. um we have time to make that decision. Okay,
next up, review our annual ASR study. So this is the time of the year when we're heading down the path towards tax rate setting. And um it's also uh as part of that uh process
time that we take to um look at our current assessments relative to the market, see if there's a need to adjust values uh and um and so uh in the leadup to uh that then
I have prepared uh our annual ASR study. Um starting to do uh um something a little different. Um I work we work in a lot of small
communities. Um >> and um small communities means uh relatively few sales. uh we're making some very important decisions
about values where values travel based on um a fairly limited data set. This first page here, single family frequency values and sales, um shows you first under all properties, um we have about
we have 4,21 residential single family dwellings having values uh in these various uh uh value ranges. Um, historically we've >> so we had just to just to clarify,
>> we had a house sell for over $4 million in 2024. >> It's been a lot of land or is that >> uh Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. >> And do these eliminate the um non-arms length transaction sales and
all that? These are just >> so under 2024 sales these are >> and these are res >> single family home sales valid sales >> valid sales >> 105 >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Uh
what I've introduced to the process now is um what I call a 10-year market trend study. The ultimate purpose of that is to develop uh time trend factors that can be played
back against sale prices from um earlier uh dates >> uh to give a sense for what the prop a property would sell for uh on the assessment date 125. >> Gotcha.
And uh I'll walk through that uh um how I derive those uh time adjustments in a minute here. But it ends up uh providing me with a much richer data set essentially uh 1100 nearly 1100 sales of
single families across uh pretty much all of the u um value range uh uh strata. So, um, to get to these time adjustment factors, and you'll see those in the chart here
in a minute, there's a process for developing those time adjustment factors. The standard approach is to look at um the assessment to sale ratios
uh comparing our current values against sale prices over the 10-year period >> and plotting the median assessment to sale ratio for each um sale period. In this case, I've I've u divided the data
set into uh sales quarters. So for example, um calendar 2015-1 represents the first quarter of 2015 and the sales that transpired then uh at
that time. looking at that u that median assessment to sale ratio which hovers around 1.70 uh about 1.7 I plot those for all of the thousand some sales
uh transpiring over that 10-year period and the little jagged line shows you uh where those medians fall. Um and from that then um draw a
a trend line, an ASR trend line that passes through the highs and lows of those ASRs. It's from that trend line that I'm able then to develop time adjustment factors. Um, I have a question. >> Sure. So, if I'm reading this properly,
it looks like from 2015 through 2020, the assessed value was substantially higher than the sale. Yes. >> And then something changed at that point and now since then it's been >> So we're looking at
>> um comparing sale prices that transpired sometime in the last 10 years with our current assessed value. So as you know we've increased valuations over the past 10 years. Uh so that if you look at the
most recent year for example uh there's a very close uh correspondence of assessed value to sale price. It's why we get down to around 1.0 um last year. Um back in 2015 that same
property might have sold for 70% less. So you got low sale price but higher value. uh that assessment to sale ratio then is going to yield um um >> that assessment value would be the value in 2015. No, not today.
>> No, we're talking today's assessed values relative to >> what is the relevance of that? What is that telling us? Well, it's the it's the uh it it's comparing um our current value which last year
would have represented fair market value as of the last assessment date. We're comparing with the sale price uh the sale prices that transpired over the past 10 years.
And um what you'll find is that our values today are significantly higher than sale prices that uh transpired back um at an earlier uh point in time. So if
you >> How does that affect the current assessment though? >> Well, we're getting to that. Yeah. Um this same chart then allows for uh
a plotting of the market trend. If you look at uh the average single family home value um back in uh January of 2015, our average single family home uh had a value of
336,100. 10 years later, we're talking 638,600, almost double. um shouldn't surprise us. So I mean it's all based on stats, right? Yes. So
um what I want to do is actually if I direct your attention to this page here shows the market ASR trend. charts. If you look at
if you look at the uh column third from the right uh ta factor uh that's a time adjustment factor. Um what these factors uh tell you is if you went back to a sale that took for
example took place in the first quarter of 2015 you took that sale price multiplied it times a factor of 1.90 >> you get today's >> you would get to today's um an estimate of today's uh u value or
another sale price. >> So let me ask a question. So I I think maybe to the point of we're going back and looking at 10 years. How are we using this? You're you're going to you're creating a larger sample size. So
because we have so few sales to work off of, how can we increase that number to feel like we're getting a more accurate number? So you're adjusting what happened over the past 10 years. So we can say here's a nice big sample size so we can feel confident that the assessed
values we're coming up with are so >> so take a uh practical issue around waterfront properties. Historically we made decisions about where to take those values based on fairly limited sales
data. Now with 10 years worth of data, I can look at those time adjusted sale prices for homes, waterfront homes, and have a richer data set. >> Okay, that makes sense. That's why we're going back cuz I guess
>> yeah, for myself and maybe anybody watching like, what the heck does something that sold 10 years ago have to do with today? What we're doing is we're saying we can statistically come up with realistically what what would have happened to that even though it sold 10 years ago today. So now as opposed to saying we're making our assessments off
of three sales, we can say well we're making it off of 300 but significantly you know more than three sales. So it's >> exactly >> it's a little more. >> So then the question comes to this time adjustment factor. How reliable are
those numbers? Well, there's an analysis that type on few sheets. Uh in front of that, you'll see something called sales resales analysis. >> And is this a listing of all the sales in the last 10 years?
>> No. What these are >> are properties that have sold twice in the 10year period. >> Okay. >> And there's a slew of them. Boy, properties change hands here in Lakeville. um more regularly than we
think. So, these are actually I've got almost four pages worth of of sales um of properties that have sold uh twice in the last 10 year period. So, take the first one, 27 uh Penitentiara
Drive, um sold January of 2015 for 4.89, 89 sold again 2 years later for 520. Um so what this analysis does then is it compares
that second sale price with a time adjusted first sale price. So if I take the 489,000 and apply a time adjustment factor um
I get an estimate of um 596600. Well in this case uh >> might be a little high >> off off about 12%. >> But as you you go down the list you'll see there's actually a fairly tight correspondence.
Um, in fact, if you at the on the very last page, you'll see an average variation. Uh, that's about 6%. >> But that doesn't factor in the time difference from one sale to the next,
right? FBA does. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Cuz that'd be a huge factor, right? If something sold one year apart, the price differential is probably going to be a lot less than if it's sold 9 years apart. This factor is that in >> Yes. Yeah. >> Wow. It's pretty impressive.
>> So, and how >> I get it in theory. I don't know how you did it though, Noral, but I I don't know how the math works, but I I I completely get the concept. You're basically saying, here's what we're here's what we're we're doing this 10-year trending analysis over. So, now let's test it against. We'll take anything that sold
more than once and we'll apply a factor that's basically saying, listen, if it happened in two or three years, um, you know, we we need to take into account that it only would would have gone up so much in 2 or 3 years >> versus the one that sold 9 years apart, obviously there's going to be a bigger
variance there. and your formula adds that all up and says, "Listen, we're within 6% I guess of >> on average or >> our our trending analysis actually matched out pretty close to what the actuals were on anything that
sold more than once. So, you're able to test to make sure that another way to verify that our assessment is fair." Well, uh, we're we're getting to the the ultimate page here.
>> Bottom line, guys. >> I don't know how you got there, but it actually makes sense to me. So, um, so, um, let me just take you to this page. This is a sample um, one page of many pages that that
detail the thousand some sales that transpired. uh and you can see um uh the application of that time adjustment factor. So if you if you um
go right to the the the first sale uh for Madal Lane um property sold uh January 2015 for 341 uh based on the time adjustment factor
um we estimate that that home would sell for $6479 today. Um those time adjustment factors as you see they they decline over time which you would expect as we get closer to the
present day. Um the the uh time adjustment factor diminishes. Uh but that's just an example of how those time adjustment factors are played back against those uh 10ear sales. Um
so now we get to the nug of the exercise uh here and that is um looking at our assessment to sale ratios. Um so if I look at just calendar 24
uh sales uh they point to an assessment level of 888 or 88%. You'll recall in the past we've always tried to target our assessments at about 95%. So we've
we've got to raise values uh unfortunately uh to to respond to. >> But just to be clear again for people that are listening just because the values get raised does not mean automatically the tax >> bottom line tax dollars paid gets raised. It will get raised because it
costs two and a half etc etc. But we could change everybody's values double. It's still proportional. There's still a budget from the town. >> It all gets >> But at the same time, we want to be accurate. >> If we didn't have a 2 and 12% tax
increase and we went from 088 to 0.95 and literally every single house, which just doesn't happen, got increased value from an assessment standpoint by 7%. and there was no additional tax rate from an override from the two and a half or anything, your taxes would stay
absolutely the same in theory. Yes. >> The problem isn't that we're going to go up. It's the fact that the town collects more taxes. So, >> we'll stick >> We want to be as accurate as we can. We want to hit that target of 95%.
>> To be and we want to be fair. We want to make sure that the values are being >> Well, we also have to, right? to the state. >> State% assessment level won't pass. What is it 90? >> It's 10%. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Um if you're aiming at 90 we had a lot of questions. >> Well, we probably are aiming at 90. >> No, we're 88 95. >> No, we've been we've been Yeah, we've been doing 95. I just think that >> keep in mind these these were a couple
of years ago. So there was no doubt they just cut off a house sold for $4 million. So um there are a number of stratifications here. Um these help
guide me when I go to uh update the land and building rate tables that in effect raise values. So overall, I'll be looking to raise those rates both on the land and building side
um such that if we get to a 95% assessment level, but um this analysis provides me with um information that
reveals uh systemic make under or overvaluation of certain types of properties. And so, uh, I want to point you to, uh, the first page here under economic neighborhood. Um, it's through
assigned economic neighborhoods that we deal with location. We factor location into the value of property. Our waterfront properties fall into the 345 to 360 >> and and so we have seven sales here
pointing to.72. >> So that's the worst outlier. >> Uh it's a >> they're undervalued by almost 30%. Correct. >> Well, yeah, something to that effect. Yeah. >> 23 if we want to get to 95.
>> So seven sales though. um to increase values uh by 30% on the basis of seven sales. Um we can certainly do it. We've done it in the past. But now if we look at that
same >> over the 10 years >> over the 10 years we've got 59 sales and we're at 87. So what that suggests to me is that um
that yes, we might want to bump values a little bit more. Uh but there's no need to go crazy to go crazy on that. So the folks on the waterfront can thank you for your statistical analysis in
using the the 10year time frame because if not we would be looking at a big variance that we have to >> just to play devil's advocate. I agree with everything you said, but what happens in the event that something for whatever reason changes in a 10-year
period? And I guess I'll be specific, waterfront property becomes more valuable in the last 5 years versus the full 10 years. So there is that possibility. Yes. And I'm glad that
a reality, right? Um so the the strategy that I would suggest is that um we um implement um rate changes that are greater than the
the 7% that we're contemplating overall. Um and raising um our rates so such that waterfront values will come up a bit more. I don't think we have to go uh full boore here, but um
I think the evidence suggests that >> so basically what we do is we incrementally get ahead of this because that same >> it's catching up to >> well catching up because my point is it if we're looking at a 10-year window and to your point which I agree with 5 years it's really escalated right for fast
forward 5 years if it continues to do that and we don't keep pace and and and provide that correction proactively then eventually we will be in a position where we're going to have to really go crazy and raise it, you know, 30% the certification year force that uh so it's
it's a matter of incrementally getting to where we need to be. >> So if we're looking uh at um an overall 7% lift in our rates, uh I would suggest uh something on the order
of maybe 12%. So, a bit more than uh than the lift for. >> And again, this isn't just a blanket across the board. We're adding 12% to XYZ property. It's each property is still looked at individually.
It's still based upon the neighborhood, the quality, the square footage. >> Yes. >> We don't simply factor properties up. uh the to your point the the individual uh properties and the data um underlying
our assessment records um when we apply the new rates we'll generally see a lift u greater than 7% but but with some variability within that class.
Uh any other outliers? Um, I got a question for you. If you took, >> if you did this, I know you did the 10ear statistical analysis on the neighborhood code for waterfront and you did a 2024.
Did you do individual year 23 and individual year 22 and see what that trend is? Is it was it 75% and 23 and then it was >> like how when did it jump? In other words, is there one or two sales that
are really causing this to >> um in deciding whether we go to 7% or 12, I think there's I don't think there there would be a little bit more investigation to to your point to see okay that's now
look not just at 24 sales but uh even the last 5 years uh to see if there's a progression in in that that shift. >> And then what happens if you I know when you do median versus average, it helps you get get the outliers out of the way.
But let's just say there was you took one sale that we thought was a little bit excessive. How does that change the numbers? And if it doesn't, then you say, well, it's not because of that one. >> Well, that's why we use medians >> cuz people, right? But people just and I understand the argument. They say why
why should you know a thousand people pay more because one person happen to sell their house for >> crazy amount so to speak. They think it's a crazy amount but >> yeah that's why we try to look as at as many data points as possible to exclude
the uh impact of those outliers on both extremes. >> Mhm. Um there there are a couple of other uh outliers. Um
for example, under style, uh you'll see on this next page, cottages. We only had two sales of cottages, but they're coming in at 81%. Um, >> honestly, Harold, I mean, because you're going to go down, I'm guessing, next and
say under year built 1940 to 60, 61 to 80. And if you tie that in with cottages, I mean, some of these are because I mean, I'm guessing some of these can also probably underwater. It's it's these small >> older cottages that people never had any
interest in buying. And now because there's so little product >> that people are paying, you know, $500,000 for a 600 ft cottage that was built in 1950. So I'm guessing a lot of these outliers are all tying back to the
same the same thing. So in the past if I just looked at one year and I came to my cottages I have two two sales at u a 81 um
I would be real leerary on uh um acting uh to increase the rate of cottages on the basis of two sales now with a 10-year year sales mix. I have nine still not a whole lot, but they're
confirming over those nine sales. Um that um >> it's even worse. >> Well, and again, the value was the value was low on those cottages. So, you know, you have a cottage, it's valued at 200, somebody's willing to pay 400. I mean,
proportionally, it's a huge amount. Dollars and cents. It's not quite the same as someone offering 950 on a 750 house, but >> so same approach here. >> Um I think there's an additional lift in the cottage rate uh base cottage rate
that that needs to be implemented, but I don't think we go go uh to the full extent uh this year. but something uh in the way of uh an additional uh bump in in in that rate.
Um so those are a single families and uh do we have something similar for commercial property or >> Yeah. So commercial is always a bit of a
challenge. Oops. >> Yeah, there's not a lot of >> not a lot of sales, but and developing some sort of a um 10-year study on commercial uh wouldn't yield anything that would be
useful. So looking at the 24 sales um we're at lo and behold 89 um on the on the four sales that took place. So 0 89
single families were at 0.88 88. It's uh suggestive, I guess, of of a a modest lift in commercial values as as well. I don't have any questions. This was very very informative, but also very
helpful. >> And these were sales in 2024? Yes. Okay. Just one. Yeah, here again I'd look at several years uh when making the actual uh decisions, but uh the 24 sales are the the sales that
will appear on the report that I submit to the do. >> Well, I don't have any additional questions, not to you guys. So what I need from the board is a consensus around uh lift
first lifting values and uh um the goal of getting our assessments to about a 95% assessment level. >> Well, I would refer to it as correcting values >> and and remind everybody watching that
it's a state mandate. It's not >> we have a choice. >> Right. So >> yeah, do you need a motion? >> If the speed limit's 65, we don't have an option. We got to make sure we're we're going speed limit. So um I would
entertain a motion, just for the record, to instruct RRG to uh >> target >> target, that's a good word, >> target a 95 for valuation. Um and um
based on the analysis that Haral has presented to us. >> So moved. >> We have a second. >> Seconded. >> Any discussion? All in favor? >> I I motion carries unanimously. Do we have any additional business to
come before us today? Harald, uh just um a comment. Um I came into the office. I'm trying to piece together or not piece together clear off the desk. Uh there were stacks of
>> uh yes, I know at least one individual if not two in the town hall that we're eagerly awaiting you to >> well go through whatever's on that desk. So, as I told Norman, um, when I see piles like that, I'm afraid of the
alligators, the the the guys that are going to come out and bite you. Uh, so I hope there aren't too many of those. But, uh, well, hoping to get a handle on >> I'm hoping and guessing there shouldn't be too many of those cuz anything that has gone on that comes into that office,
um, that that Linder Odor gets involved in, they were they made sure we we knew so we could reach out and get back to people and not let anything get too. >> Yeah. Um, second note, uh, chapter
applications, uh, I've learned were not sent out. So, we're going to try and get uh on top of that and get those out. Uh folks have until December 1st to file. So, we have >> Can we give them an extension or >> We can. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> that's the
>> I think that's Yeah, >> let's see what comes in and what what >> I have a question on um somebody had asked me about the Eagles Club. They were request requesting to get they said some issue with their nonprofit status. Does
anybody have that? There was some confusion about they were asked to fill out an abatement, but that's not what they were supposed to fill out. >> No, but I think we we can go back and check, but we did I believe we approved that. I I >> That was the Long Pond Association. >> Well, Long Pond. >> There was there was two that was one
thing that >> Oh, that's what I'm thinking of. Yeah. But the actual Eagles Club, there was some question about um something to do with their nonprofit status and some confusion about an abatement, which I don't think is what they needed to to file. So, if someone could look,
>> they have an annual form that uh they're required to file. Um >> so, what was the question? >> What the status of it was, what they needed to fill out. There was some confusion. I would suggest if somebody has a question from any property owner um
they would probably just call the office to make sure >> and they did and that's what they were confused about what they were they were given something about an abatement but that's not what they were expecting to get. >> I would pass that individual's name and contact information on to Linda so she
can she can get a hold of them and and herald >> Do you know where their property is located just on County Street? Yeah, you get the actual address, but >> okay, I'll check. >> Norm will know the exact address if you tell them the Eagles Club. >> Everybody in town knows
>> Well, everybody does, but Norm knows everyone's address likes you, John. Come on, Miyagi. Get >> As long as he stays on that side of the table. Anything else at all? >> Um,
no. Um, I need to ask Andrew about the uh uh tax rate. >> Well, you're going to have an opportunity to talk to Andrew shortly cuz we're going to go see him after this. >> Yeah. Um, I never heard anything back on the specifics to to calculate a tax
impact on uh the the various capital projects. >> Well, I'll ask him. >> We'll have a chance in about 10 minutes. So, >> motion to adjourn. >> Do we have a second? All in favor? I >> I >> I >> motion carries. We are adjourned at
11:48. Thank you.