Moultonborough Taxes

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Okay here is my complaint. Although my tax for waterfront property, owned since 1882 is now 45% higher than last year, I don’t like it but it is what it is. My second bill is 117% higher than last year’s, but that’s not it. My complaint is that they want this amount a full month before their normal billing cycle. People have to budget things! That’s what really riles me!

One last thing mr. assessor I know the land value goes up but please don’t tell me my building has appreciated in value. It’s a 141 year old lake cottage, uninsulated, not heated, and only occupied 4 months out of the year. If it wasn’t owned by a group of descendants of the original builder it would have gone the way a lot of lake cottages have gone. Torn down and a McMansion put up.

Same here. The cottage was built by my great-granddad in 1892. A 2 BR fishing cottage as you see on "Golden Pond". When the education mess started rearranging tax evaluations in the '90s, taxes tripled! We never made any major improvements and we were on a dirt road shared by a dozen cottages that the town will not take responsibility for. During the recession in the late 90s. It was the last straw; the family sold the heirloom. The family bought a condo off Lake Winnisquam, although 3 streets from the lake we had beach rights. Today, because of taxes we are yet again forced from our retirement dreams. It is never-ending!

By the way, the guy who bought the cottage built a McMansion, ran afoul with wetlands, and put it on the market. Eventually, he sold it at auction. Payback!

[tis]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Same here. The cottage was built by my great-granddad in 1892. A 2 BR fishing cottage as you see on "Golden Pond". When the education mess started rearranging tax evaluations in the '90s, taxes tripled! We never made any major improvements and we were on a dirt road shared by a dozen cottages that the town will not take responsibility for. During the recession in the late 90s. It was the last straw; the family sold the heirloom. The family bought a condo off Lake Winnisquam, although 3 streets from the lake we had beach rights. Today, because of taxes we are yet again forced from our retirement dreams. It is never-ending!

By the way, the guy who bought the cottage built a McMansion, ran afoul with wetlands, and put it on the market. Eventually, he sold it at auction. Payback!

You made my point.

[Biggd]

Here in Meredith, still waiting for my bill, my assessment went up 33%.
Hopefully my bill doesn't go up that much.

[John Mercier]

The ''education mess'' did not exist. It is only in the mind's of a few that aren't educated on the subject. At the time that the State Ed tax was added, around $20 million was being transferred from around 60 communities in the State to other locations... not a sizeable transfer... so Governor Lynch was willing to get rid of it in 2011 - even when it was more, but not much more than the original $20M

The assessing method is to use what it would currently sell for.
Our buildings went up in value because the cost of replacing them with a like structure has skyrocketed..
In 2016, we sold #1 2x4x8 common studs for a little over $3, by 2018 that had increased to the point that the same stud would go for three times that amount.
I had to change several window and door options out when framing costs skyrocketed after the softwood tariff imposed against Canada. In 2019, Covid hit... thousands/tens of thousands of summer homes became the primary residence for refugees from the big cities to our south and a building boom went from hypersonic to lightspeed. It caused lead times to move from weeks to months and created a complete shortage in pressure treated lumber. None could be found anywhere for any amount of money. We sold the year's supply before June.
We now have material somewhat moving down... some shortages and delays... as most builders could tell you... but we have no labor pool - so the cost of the labor to build is much higher and moving higher every day.

Regardless of how old a building is... the assessor is probably only going to depreciate it by 50% at best. And if kept in good shape... a lot less than that... because an existing building is still better than one that may not exist for another two to three years waiting for the labor and having to meet the new code. The demand for existing in any shape is now phenomenal, and anything near the lake that might be occupied and renovated has doubled to tripled in the last year or so... even on the smaller lakes.

It is doubtful that assessments will go down as more Boomers retire to the area. The demand for existing homes and renovations I suspect will continue throughout this decade, and the shortage of labor should worsen to the point that new builds will slow even further..

[ITD]

So where did the money for the buy down of the tax rate come from last year? Someone told me it came from the capitol reserves, which needed to be replenished this year.


I looked at the town annual report for last year, and of course, there was a nice graph in there of the tax rate. Totally useless and meaningless by itself, no wonder people confuse the relevance of this number. Almost by design.

A much more useful graph would be the total town expenditures year to year along with total school expenditures year to year.

Since county and state numbers are included in the report, more graphs showing how much Moultonboro money is collected for each of those categories year to year would be very helpful.

About a 10 year look back would give a great picture of how we got here.

[John Mercier]

The capital reserves come from taxation during the previous years.

If you add the 2021 to the 2022 rate and divide by two for the average, it is a little higher than the rate for 2023. Other variables could easily account for that difference.

[tummyman]

See my prior analysis. However, the "refund" of $2.7M last year came from money originally budgeted (conservatively) to accomplish the 18 month change in the fiscal year that was ultimately not spent ($2.0 million) plus $750,000 that should have gone back to taxpayers in the prior year but was held by the Board of Selectmen who had hoped to set up a Capital Reserve account for a down payment deposit on a potential Community Center, to show public support. This was Warrant Article #8 in the FY22 Town Meeting that was not passed, so this taxpayer money was then available to return as a reduction in the tax rate.

Money used to offset the tax rate.....December 2021 = $2.0 Million
December 2022 = $2.7 Million
December 2023 = $ 0

There are lots of theories out there as to how this "Unassigned Fund Balance" should be used. I subscribe to the theory that all excess funds should go back to the taxpayers and not held in a kitty. Taxpayers fronted the money for the budget and if the town does a good job in under-running the costs or if there were delays in hiring, or if revenues come in stronger than anticipated, etc .etc., then the money gets returned the next year and all new fiscal year expenses stand on their own at Town Meeting....kind of like pay as you go. Others think this money should be held in a kitty to offset certain expenses at Town Meeting instead of charging the tax rate and that certain items may be easier to get through Town Meeting if the funds are coming from this account instead of taxation.
In reality, both theories end up at the same place as long as you do it consistently. But I think when people see any expense is coming from Taxation that it brings closer attention than from some kitty.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by tummyman

See my prior analysis. However, the "refund" of $2.7M last year came from money originally budgeted (conservatively) to accomplish the 18 month change in the fiscal year that was ultimately not spent ($2.0 million) plus $750,000 that should have gone back to taxpayers in the prior year but was held by the Board of Selectmen who had hoped to set up a Capital Reserve account for a down payment deposit on a potential Community Center, to show public support. This was Warrant Article #8 in the FY22 Town Meeting that was not passed, so this taxpayer money was then available to return as a reduction in the tax rate.

Money used to offset the tax rate.....December 2021 = $2.0 Million
December 2022 = $2.7 Million
December 2023 = $ 0

There are lots of theories out there as to how this "Unassigned Fund Balance" should be used. I subscribe to the theory that all excess funds should go back to the taxpayers and not held in a kitty. Taxpayers fronted the money for the budget and if the town does a good job in under-running the costs or if there were delays in hiring, or if revenues come in stronger than anticipated, etc .etc., then the money gets returned the next year and all new fiscal year expenses stand on their own at Town Meeting....kind of like pay as you go. Others think this money should be held in a kitty to offset certain expenses at Town Meeting instead of charging the tax rate and that certain items may be easier to get through Town Meeting if the funds are coming from this account instead of taxation.
In reality, both theories end up at the same place as long as you do it consistently. But I think when people see any expense is coming from Taxation that it brings closer attention than from some kitty.

Thanks Tummyman. I agree with you. It would be interesting to see how much spending increased last year and this year combined. Returning the money as it was done last year, hides the increase in spending for last year, and maybe some of the increase in spending for the year before. With that return done, I suspect we are feeling the impact of 2 years additional spending this year.

[tummyman]

Watch the School Board Meeting of Nov 14th...just last week...where discussion was held about a list of some $23 MILLION dollars of deferred maintenance projects that just got surfaced a few months ago. There is still no agreement on what projects will be undertaken, when, and at what cost. And the School Board has not provided any financing plan. But rest assured it will cost you many dollars in higher taxes...many !!! These projects are at least 33% over what was asked for as a Community Center project last year. And this is not the only "new" program being proposed. Feeling good now...???? Your bank account is going to be hit again and soon ! Folks better start paying attention to what is going on in the Schools as well as the town side. Remember, schools have a separate Town Meeting....early in MARCH... that last year I understand approved a $17 million dollar budget...much bigger than the town budget.... in less that 9 minutes with zero questions. Still feeling good...???

[John Mercier]

And here I though we were overpaying for our town and schools... wow.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Watch the School Board Meeting of Nov 14th...just last week...where discussion was held about a list of some $23 MILLION dollars of deferred maintenance projects that just got surfaced a few months ago. There is still no agreement on what projects will be undertaken, when, and at what cost. And the School Board has not provided any financing plan. But rest assured it will cost you many dollars in higher taxes...many !!! These projects are at least 33% over what was asked for as a Community Center project last year. And this is not the only "new" program being proposed. Feeling good now...???? Your bank account is going to be hit again and soon ! Folks better start paying attention to what is going on in the Schools as well as the town side. Remember, schools have a separate Town Meeting....early in MARCH... that last year I understand approved a $17 million dollar budget...much bigger than the town budget.... in less that 9 minutes with zero questions. Still feeling good...???

Here is the question, even if I attended the Town Meetings, would I be able to vote, as I am not a legal Resident of the town or the State for that Matter, only a land owner?

I think this is the rub for many of us....

For me it isn't really about the money, as much as it is about justifications behind the money.......

[ITD]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Here is the question, even if I attended the Town Meetings, would I be able to vote, as I am not a legal Resident of the town or the State for that Matter, only a land owner?

I think this is the rub for many of us....

For me it isn't really about the money, as much as it is about justifications behind the money.......

No, you can't vote. I've been in your boat for 23 years here, but now I can vote since I move up here full time and am a resident now. Like me before I became a resident, you chose to own here as a non-resident. It is what it is.

[tis]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Here is the question, even if I attended the Town Meetings, would I be able to vote, as I am not a legal Resident of the town or the State for that Matter, only a land owner?

I think this is the rub for many of us....

For me it isn't really about the money, as much as it is about justifications behind the money.......

But you can go to the deliberative session and I THINK they will allow you to speak even though you can't vote.

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by tis

But you can go to the deliberative session and I THINK they will allow you to speak even though you can't vote.

Generally they will allow non-residents speak, particularly if they are taxpayers in town. The procedures might be slightly different from town to town, but it would be worthwhile to check the town ordinances to see if it requires petitioning the Town Moderator/Board of Selectmen in order to speak at Town Meeting. Or check with the Moderator and/or Selectmen.

Speaking from personal experience, I owned property in Alexandria and before I resided there I attended Town Meetings. Prior to the start of the meeting I requested - in writing - for permission to speak during the meeting to ask questions about a number of warrant articles. They never denied my request. Could be because I was a taxpayer in town.

[ITD]

Moultonboro has been doing an information session in the summer for non-voters for a while usually in July.

[longislander]

The "business section" of the town meeting in Moultonborough does usually allow anyone who asks, to speak. See Paul, the moderator.

Not to get too technical, but for the sake of which day, the town does not have a deliberative session. It is not an SB2 town. Deliberative sessions (SB2 towns and SB2 school districts) occur about 30 days before voting (yes, on the Tuesday ballot). Moultonborough is a traditional town meeting where the business session voting on warrant articles occurs after the Tuesday ballot vote, for electing officials and zoning ordinances., and only other items allowed on the ballot by statute.

"Non-Voters may speak to an Article only with the consent of the Town’s registered voters. The Moderator will allow other speakers, such as non-resident Town Officials and consultants, or experts, who are at the Meeting to provide information about an Article."

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/Doc...-Procedurespdf

[tis]

Originally Posted by longislander

The "business section" of the town meeting in Moultonborough does usually allow anyone who asks, to speak. See Paul, the moderator.

Not to get too technical, but for the sake of which day, the town does not have a deliberative session. It is not an SB2 town. Deliberative sessions (SB2 towns and SB2 school districts) occur about 30 days before voting (yes, on the Tuesday ballot). Moultonborough is a traditional town meeting where the business session voting on warrant articles occurs after the Tuesday ballot vote, for electing officials and zoning ordinances., and only other items allowed on the ballot by statute.

You are right, I apologize, I forgot Moultonborough is not an SB2 town so doesn't have a deliberative session. But yes, whichever, as you said at the "business" discussion part of the meeting, people are usually allowed to speak. And if somebody is a taxpayer, I can't imagine a moderator not allowing them to speak.