To the editor:
Regarding your editorial on March 6, “Time for change,” I am not in the habit of writing letters to the editor. However, in this instance I believe that it is necessary as the facts, as you portray them, are misleading.
A little history is in order: When I became an assessor in 1983, the Board of Assessors was an elected board as it is today. What has changed from then to now is the addition of a full-time hired assessor. I led the transformation of the Marblehead Board of Assessors that same year from a group of three paid ($2500) working assessors essentially revaluating the town every 10 years to what it is in place today. We have a full-time professional assessor in charge of valuation supported by a Board comprised of three individuals duly elected by the townspeople of Marblehead.
What appears to be the crux of the editorial centers around the State of the Town address held on January 24. At this meeting, residents sought information regarding the recent assessments and property tax increases. Neither the Town Assessor nor the Board spoke at this meeting. Thus residents left the meeting frustrated by the lack of information they received, and the Current’s editorial suggests it was due to a lack of transparency by the Board of Assessors. The Board has always been represented at the State of the Town meeting by the full-time assessor. Apparently, she made the decision not to speak.
The Board and the full-time assessor are two definitive bodies and to lump them into one is inaccurate.
The Board is comprised of elected officials and the full-time assessor applied for, interviewed for, and was awarded the position of Town Assessor.
Some residents appear to have a perception that the Board has taken a hands-off approach to the reaction to the new property values. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the tax bills were sent, I have driven through neighborhoods checking 2023 valuations versus the 2022 arms-length sales, as it is these arms-length sales that form the basis for the 2023 assessments. My fellow Board members have done the same. If anyone has asked me about the valuation increase from 2022 to 2023, and several have, I have told them that I have numerous concerns. However, I believe that the abatement process needs to be completed in its entirety before any specific comments are made. My fellow Board members and I are aiming for application decisions by April 15, before tax bills are due May 1. When all abatements are finished, I will candidly tell people (my opinion of) what went right or wrong with the process, but not until the process is completed.
The Current’s editorial discusses the passage of Article 38 as if the passage of the Article would prevent a reoccurring incident similar to this at some point in the future. It would not. All assessing offices in the state of Massachusetts operate under the auspices of Chapter 59 from the Department of Revenue.
Therefore, the passage of Article 38 would not change the way assessing is performed. So, what would change with the passage of Article 38? If Article 38 were to pass, the Board members would be appointed by the Select Board. Right now residents of Marblehead are able to elect their Board members. The question is, do you want your Board members to be appointed or elected? There are vast differences between the two. I believe the latter, elected, is what keeps us a more responsive community. To blame the elected Board of Assessors for not addressing residents’ concerns at the State of the Town Address is unwarranted when the town has a full-time assessor who made the decision not to speak that evening.
I assure you that the Board is aware of and shares every taxpayer’s concerns.
Regards,
John Kelley
Chair, Board of Assessors
