Richmond Home Values Plummet Down 13% in Town-wide Property Reassessment (except for my house which is up 17%)

The Town of Richmond has completed its town-wide property reassessment.  Assessors from Avitar Associates canvassed the town and reassessed every building and parcel to update the tax bills.  The new assessments are available at http://data.avitarassociates.com/logon.aspx (login: Richmond, password: richmondtwn).

As many folks are aware, home values in the Town of Richmond are decreasing quite rapidly.  A sample of 40 properties from the Avitar database show home values were down an average of -13% from 2011 to 2012.*  This is terrible news if you're trying to sell your house anytime soon.  A lot of people base their home prices on assessed value (which are different than appraised values).  So if you're counting on your home as an assett this is bad news.

Some folks may think a lower assessed value is good news because their taxes will go down.  However, since almost everyone's properties lost value (except for mine which climbed up 17%) the tax base for the whole Town of Richmond has decreased.  Therefore the ever-rising town budget now needs to be distributed over a smaller tax base - which equals in a higher tax rate.  So while your property values are declining, your tax rate will increase and overall you're going to be paying the same dollar amount in taxes if not more.

Most folks probably won't fight this new assessment, but I will.  According to the new values my property appreciated 30% above everyone else’s.  This is quite odd since the Town of Richmond declared my property was no longer a buildable lot and I have spent the last couple of years in the courts fighting for my property rights.  Nothing has been built or improved since the last assessment and my view hasn’t gotten any better.  So how does this process of appealing a tax assessment work?

The first step is to talk to the Selectmen or Assessors regarding this preliminary assessment.  From 8:30 am to 4:00 pm on Wed 4/18/12 through Fri 4/20/12 town residents can call 603-798-3502 to set up an appointment.  They will then schedule a date to review your assessment.  This step is nowhere indicated in the RSAs, and is not part of the tax abatement process.  The outcome of this ‘discussion’ with the Town does not appear to be at all within the tax rules or even within the timeline set forth in the statutes and does not prevent one from seeking resolution through the proper tax abatement process outlined below.  This 'discussion' is nothing more than an attempt for the assessors to clarify how your property value was assessed.

The second step in fighting the tax assessment is to seek a tax abatement after the Town sends you the next tax bill in December 2012.  A tax abatement form can be found at the BTLA website (Board of Tax and Land Appeals).  This form must be filed by March 1^st of 2013 following your final December 2012 bill.  The Town then has until July 1^st to deny or approve your abatement – after which you can appeal it to the Superior Court or to the BTLA according to RSA 76:16.  According to the statutes, abatements can be granted for (1) disproportionate assessment or (2) poverty and inability to pay the tax.  This tax abatement procedure is open to everyone who thinks their property is not accurately valued. 

*Sample represents about 20% of homes in town and does not include tax exempt properties (Town of Richmond, YMCA, churches, etc..), lots without frontage (backlots in current use), or homes above $300k.

Town Meeting 2012 - Fay Martin Bridge Funded

Town Hall meeting 2012 took place on Saturday March 17th.  The main topic of discussion was the appropriation of funds for the Fay Martin bridge replacement.

Kyle Jarvis from the Keene Sentinel reports on Town Hall meeting 2012:

Article 39, pushed to the top of the order, asked voters to approve $879,000 to replace the Fay Martin Bridge over Tully Brook. The bridge leads to the St. Benedict Center, a Christian organization that settled a lawsuit against the town in which each side agreed to split the cost of replacing the bridge.

State aid is expected to cover 80 percent of the $879,000, with the town and the center splitting the remaining 20 percent.

Several residents questioned the figure, claiming other estimates were much lower.

Douglas Bersaw’s motion to lower the figure to $200,000 failed.

Selectmen Chairwoman Sandra Gillis said lower estimates did not factor in key components of the project, and explained that state estimates first provided in 2009 had spiked.

Gillis assured meeting-goers that the town will receive the state funds eventually, but said the time frame for doing so has been pushed back. That led to Selectman J.C. Boudreau’s amendment to allow the board to borrow the money in anticipation of state reimbursement.

Gillis also said the $879,000 figure is an estimate that selectmen hope to bring down. In the meantime, she said, they had to use the best available data to appropriate the money ahead of any state aid.

Still, some residents remained unconvinced.

“If that money never comes from the state, the town will be on the hook,” Bersaw said.

Gillis said she has confirmation from the N.H. Department of Transportation that the state agency has promised to “fast track” the project, and that funds would be available by 2015, although the town is under a court order to replace the bridge by next year.

One resident asked about possible outcomes of not passing the article, to which town attorney Joseph S. Hoppock replied that Richmond could be found in contempt.

Some residents argued for opting out of the state aid program if it meant paying considerably less for the bridge; Bersaw and others cited estimates from local contractors in the $175,000 range.

When all was said and done, voters passed Boudreau’s amended article, allowing the board to borrow the money, by a vote of 87-65.

First of all the $879,000 figure is completely insane.  No way will a pre-cast concrete bridge with a span of 10 feet cost that much.  The wording of article 39 says the "appropriate $879,000 for the purpose of replacing the Fay Marting Bridge over Tully Brook."  Of course, the Planning Board in all its insanity wanted SBC to pay for fixing and paving Fay Marting Road all the way from the bridge to the priory (about 3,000 feet).  In the end, the court found that the Town would be stuck paying most of this cost.  I think that $879,000 would be more than enough to build both the bridge and the road project.

I hate to break you the news, but the State Aid Bridge program will only pay for certain items, like the bridge and a little bit of the approaches.  You can't expect the State to pay for rebuilding half a mile of town road just because it has a bridge at the end of it.  Furthermore, the town will not get 80% of the road costs back.  As such, article 39 only applies to the bridge - no funds were voted for road upgrades.

Finally, St. Benedict Center has already given the Town funds to fix the bridge and the road.  The court order was specific regarding the amount SBC was to pay.  SBC has deposited $137,500 with the Town for road and bridge repairs.  The Selectmen think that by pumping up the price they can get more money from SBC - not so.  If the Town wants to spend $1 million on the bridge, they're stuck paying it.  And one last thing - the State Bridge Aid program is very specific in that the contract must go out to the lowest bidder - who must also be approved by NHDOT.

Oh, and also if the road and bridge work are not finished in 4 years, the Town has to return to SBC the $137,500.  So stop dragging your feet - engineering and permitting alone will take a year, construction will take another year.

Supreme Court Hears Bosonetto v. Town of Richmond

On February 16, 2012 The NH Supreme Court held oral arguments for the case of Bosonetto v. Town of Richmond.   Click below for full video of the arguments.

 Click to see video of Supreme Court hearing

Supreme Court rules allow each party 15 minutes to present their argument.  The justices are already familiar with the facts of the case from the written briefs filed months in advance.  The justices use these oral arguments as an opportunity to ask questions and clarifications.  Note that there is an empty seat due to the retirement of Justice Duggan earlier in the year.  As such there is currently only four justices.

The issues being appealed in the court are two fold:

1. Whether the Town of Richmond ZBA unfairly denied Mr. Bosonetto a rehearing under RSA 677:2, and
2. Whether the Town of Richmond violated Mr. Bosonetto’s constitutionally protected property rights when it decided that his already developed property was now undevelopable under RSA 674:41.

Attorney Kelly Dowd represented Mr. Bosonetto.  Most of the 15 minutes were spent discussing RSA 677:2.  The facts are that the ZBA met and deliberated on August 17^th, 2009 and voted to deny Mr. Bosonetto building permits for his property based on four findings.  That night a written decision was signed and Mr. Bosonetto was given written instructions that he had 30 days from that date to file an appeal.  Mr. Bosonetto filed an appeal within 30 days but the ZBA afterwards held that no meeting or decision had been made on the 17^th and that the written instructions given by the Town of Richmond were wrong.  The ZBA held that the final decision was made at a meeting on August 10^th, 2009.  Attorney Dowd argued that this was significantly unfair.  The justices ask several questions, including whether replacing a legally built single family dwelling with a new single family dwelling constituted a change of use.

Attorney David Tower represented the Town of Richmond.  From the beginning Justice Lynn questioned him on whether or not the ZBA held a meeting on the 17^th.  Attorney Tower danced around the issue for awhile, but was finally cornered when Justice Lynn flipped through the brief and found the ruling that the ZBA had indeed held a meeting, deliberated and voted on the 17^th.  Justice Hicks then started asking questions regarding the ZBA’s decision – specifically why/how is replacing a single family dwelling a violation of the master plan.  He also questioned why the ZBA had chosen to deny Mr. Bosonetto building permits unconditionally.

So now the Supreme Court has to write an opinion which will become case law.  This means that once the Supreme Court makes a decision it is a ‘precedent’ to be followed by the lower courts from then on.  Their decision, whichever way they decide, will go a long ways to establishing the procedure for appeals from ZBA decisions, whether the Town can knowingly give out false instructions, and the extent to which property rights are protected in New Hampshire.  Since the Bosonetto v. Town of Richmond decision will become precedent, the justices will take their time in crafting their arguments and language – which could take months.

Richmond Selectmen Sued for Improperly Awarding Contracts and Violation of RSA 91-a

The Town of Richmond is being sued by one of it's own residents for at least the eighth time in recent years.  The latest suit surrounds the Selectmen’s actions in awarding a contract for winter road maintenance to John Holman Contracting of Fitzwilliam.  The suit stems from the Selectmen awarding the contract to Holman even though there were two lower bids.  Also, the Selectmen awarded the contract behind closed doors and won't produce Richmond's Bid Policy to the public.  The Keene Sentinel reports:

RICHMOND — A local resident has sued the town’s board of selectmen, claiming it violated open meeting laws and awarded a contract improperly.

Douglas Bersaw filed the lawsuit in Cheshire County Superior Court last Monday, alleging misconduct during the board’s meeting on Oct. 31. According to Bersaw, the board accepted and opened bids for winter highway maintenance during the meeting before going into nonpublic session to “discuss the bids,” which Bersaw says is not a legal reason for doing so.

Bersaw also alleges board members improperly awarded the contract to Holman Contracting because Holman was not the low bidder. Bersaw’s suit references Curran Inc. v. Auclair Transportation, 1981, which he says established the precedent that if bids are accepted according to an official town policy, the contract must be awarded to the lowest qualified bidder.

“If the town doesn’t reserve the right to reject any and all bids (in its public posting of the request for bids), they have to accept the lowest qualified bid,” Bersaw said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

Bersaw’s filing claims that former Richmond Selectman Stan Pogorzelski submitted a freedom-of-information request to see a copy of the town’s bid policy, but was denied because town officials “could not find a copy.”

In the suit, Bersaw questions awarding the bid to “a firm whose principal is widely known to be a close associate of one of the selectmen.”

He also questions whether Mark Beal, the town’s road agent, should have been allowed to participate in the nonpublic session during the Oct. 31 meeting.

....

“(The board’s decision to award the contract to Holman) cost the taxpayers an extra $10,000,” he said. “A number of people suspect a close relationship between a selectman and the one who got the bid.”

The details of this latest episode with the Selectmen appeared in November's edition of The Richmond Eagle.  Former Selectmen Stan Pogorzelski wrote an in-depth investigative reporting piece in which many of the details were presented.