ALERT: Middleboro Assessors

It has been reported that Middleboro Assessors have a problem with the TAX BILLS. 

PLEASE REVIEW YOURS CAREFULLY TO ENSURE THERE ARE NO ERRORS. 

Just wondering.....

Oak Point goes for $55 million, largest property sale in Middleboro history
An Illinois company buys 870-unit, over-55 community
By Alice Elwell
enterprise correspondent

MIDDLEBORO —
The Oak Point over-55 residential complex was sold this week to an Illinois company for $55 million, the largest real-estate sale in Middleboro history, the town assessor said.

Hometown America, a privately held company based in Illinois, purchased the 1,000-acre, 870-unit Oak Point complex. Hometown owns and operates more than 100 manufactured housing communities across the country.

Company Vice President William Glascott said on Wednesday that Oak Point is the fifth community Hometown owns in Massachusetts. The others are Leisurewoods in Taunton; Leisurewoods in Rockland; Oakhill in Attleboro; Miller’s Woods and River Bend, both in Athol.

Asked about the new ownership’s role at Oak Point, Glascott said, “Certainly there are changes with any management transition. Our goal is to limit disruption, maintain level services and possibly improve.”

Glascott said the company will build out to 1,165 units but has no plans for additional expansion. He said he plans to meet with local officials and introduce his company.

Oak Point is an over-55 community of freestanding manufactured homes clustered in small neighborhoods. There is a club house, fitness center and ballroom. Owners buy their units, lease the property and pay a monthly maintenance fee.

“I am hopeful (Hometown America) will be as good as Gary and Don have been. They’re a hard team to beat,” Oak Point resident Regina Moriarty said about the previous owners.

“We’ve been very happy here and we’d like to stay,” she said. “I look forward to it being the same way it always has been.”

Gary Darman, the former principal partner of Oak Point, said he is leaving Middleboro after developing Oak Point for the last 30 years.

At 67, Darman said he’s not ready to slow down and will focus his time on retail development.

He is the developer behind Colony Place in Plymouth – destined to possibly be the largest open air plaza in the state. He said he is planning a cluster of auto dealerships at the plaza and has several new tenants lined up. Darman also has eight to 10 more plazas in the works, but nothing slated for Middleboro.

Darman said he and Oak Point partner Don Smith have mixed emotions leaving Middleboro.

“There will be a period of adjustment for me, for Don, for everybody involved, including the residents,” he said.

Town Assessor-Appraiser Barbara Erickson praised the previous owner.

“I think he did a nice job at Oak Point and I would like to see him come back to Middleboro with a retail project. We still have a lot of undeveloped commercial property,” Erickson said.

Joseph F. Freitas Jr., former member of the Planning Board, was an Oak Point supporter from the outset.

“I hope the new owners are as conscientious as Gary Darman,” he said this week.
Lincoln D. Andrews is a former selectman and planning board member who saw the project through most of its permitting.

“The new owner has a high standard to meet in terms of the integrity and support that Gary Darman has given the town,” said Oak Point, under Darman’s management, had a longstanding history of donating to the community. The new owner indicated that might continue.

“We want to be involved with the community, and we will evaluate everything when the time comes,” Glascott said.


If Oak Point sold for $55 million, doesn't the appraised value utilized by the Assessors represent fair market value?

Just wondering....

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=184784

Valuation: 817,400 [land]

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101122

Valuation: 363,400 [land]

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101123

Valuation: 171,600

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=196

Valuation: 347,700

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=184180

Valuation: 63,400 [land]

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101120

Valuation: 408,400

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=101424

Valuation: 4,141,800

http://data.visionappraisal.com/MiddleboroMA/findpid.asp?iTable=pid&pid=184785

Valuation: 21,055,100 [codes not included within legend provided]

It was soooo embarrassing....

who would say anything? Yet .... it's my tax dollars.

It was your tax dollars too.

And it was a public hearing.

In a previous attempt to bring a "Motion to Dismiss," Middleborough Town Counsel Dan Murray was sharply rebuked and told to 'resolve the matter and not return.'

Hmmm.

I didn't attend law school and make no pretense, yet wouldn't you think either an attorney representing the Town or the Middleborough Assessor, Barbara Erikson would be familiar with the laws, policies and practices surrounding an issue?

Attorney Murray's reason for the "Motion to Dismiss" ? The applicant had failed to sign the form [among other things], yet all other requisite information was present.

Thirty lashes with that wet noodle!

The judge was NOT pleased!


An ATB (Appellate Tax Board) Hearing was held Monday, October 17.

It was actually a "Motion to Dismiss" brought by the Town of Middleborough's Attorney, Dan Murray.



Attorney Murray presented arguments including an affidavit prepared by/for the Town Assessor, Barbara Erikson, that indicated applicant had made a comment to a staff member more than a year prior to the Affidavit about the 'form' - which is meaningless gossip.

Who remembers a conversation/passing comment from a year earlier? Frankly, how silly!


(This is the FORM to which Ms. Erikson refers on pages 5 and 6.)

I arrived at the ATB after fighting traffic exactly at 10 AM and couldn't find my case on the schedules posted in front of the court rooms.

So had to go to the office.

The clerk checked, confirmed I was on the schedule, but she made me aware that Atty. Murray had already phoned and said he was running late. (It is incumbent on legal counsel to assure a timely arrival.)

I sat in the courtroom and listened to a Mildford Bar/Restaurant case with the property owner's attorney and the Milford town attorney, Milford Assessor, surrounded by attorneys probably because ComCast was on the schedule.

Attorney Murray finally showed up ~ 1/2 hour late.

I had stepped outside the room to sip water I had brought with me so I wouldn't cough in the dry courtroom and realized when I returned that Attorney Murray was standing and approaching the table in front of the judges.

So, now, a little disorganized, as I re-entered, the clerk who knew I had been there was coming to get me.

I took my seat behind the table and Attorney Murray began his presentation.

Attorney Murray explained to the court that the applicant had filed for an abatement in December, the notice was sent in January to complete the form.

(Now, I'm fuming because Attorney Murray doesn't indicate that there's more than a calendar year in between.)

One of the judges asked 'what form?'

Attorney Murray explained that it was attached to the affidavit [copy on the Assessors' web site, above].

The 2 judges fumble through the papers, find the form and their verbal assault begins.

The judge asks where the form came from, he's never seen this before.

Attorney Murray speculates that the Assessor, Barbara Erikson created the form.

Attorney Murray quotes Ch. 59, Section 61A [below], claims applicant failed to provide information requested.

Now the tone gets more hostile!

The judge tells Attorney Murray what Ch. 59, Section 61A means - frankly, I was so shocked, I can't relate what it means.

But it's not what Attorney Murray thought it meant and not a valid reason to deny/dismiss this case.

Not content to stop digging the hole, Attorney Murray then raises the issue that on the application for abatement with the Town and on the ATB application, the homeowner failed to provide 'an opinion of value.'

Now it's get more heated.

The judge, mighty testy! tells Attorney Murray that the homeowner's opinion is meaningless and he's never had anyone come before him and use that as an argument.

Then the judge, looking at Attorney Murray, tone really harsh, announced "I don't even want to hear from the homeowner! Case dismissed!"

Attorney Murray picked up his stuff mighty quickly and scooted right out.

I'm dallying, trying to figure out how I avoid Attorney Murray for what was really embarrassing - it was embarrassing to me because it was pretty rude though apparently justified by conspicuous legal incompetence recognized by those who have attended law school. It was embarrassing to be connected to a Town that fails to recognize such incompetence.

I turned in my seat to file some papers that I had placed on the table into my bag (which included a lengthy chronology) and the well dressed attorney in an expensive suit behind me, stood and said rather loudly "Well done!"

All I could do was laugh and comment about 'silent women.'

I NEVER SAID A WORD! What an astounding legal argument!

The judge was so aggravated, he announced that 'I need a break after that!'

So I meandered to the ladies room and he passed me, walking in a fashion that proclaimed his mood. As he passed, he commented 'sorry to make you come all this way for that.'

All I could say was 'thank you.'

Just astonishing!

I'm sure I missed the finer interpretations of the law simply because of my shock.


This is the 2nd time I have prevailed in court against the Town's Attorney and it has nothing to do with my expertise in the law.

The last time, I remained mostly silent, but I did quote the statute which is very clearly written.


It was the same statute that I had read to the Middleborough Assessor, Barbara Erikson on the telephone, to which she emphatically stated that I was wrong.




The Massachusetts General Law:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleIX/Chapter59/Section61A

Section 61A. A person applying for an abatement of a tax on real estate or personal property shall, upon request, exhibit to the assessors the property to which the application for abatement relates and if required by said assessors, shall exhibit and identify such property, and further, shall, upon request, furnish under oath such written information as may be reasonably required by the board of assessors to determine the actual fair cash valuation of the property to which the application for abatement relates including, but not limited to, income and rents received, and the expenses of maintaining such property. Failure of the applicant to comply with the provisions of this section within thirty days after such request shall bar him from any statutory appeal under this chapter unless the applicant was unable to comply with such request for reasons beyond his control or unless he attempted to comply in good faith.

Are You Getting Screwed on Your Property Taxes?

Unfair Property Taxes from WGBY on Vimeo.

Are you being over-assessed on your property taxes?

WGBY's Connecting Point interviews Patricia Quintilian, author of “Are You Getting Screwed on Your Property Taxes?”

How many people are paying too much? Quintilian says, "I would venture a guess.. that close to 7 out of 10 homes are over-assessed."

Watch the video above to hear her explanation why.

Connecting Point airs weeknights at 7:30 PM on WGBY.

Assessor Does It Again!

A friend from another part of the state asked me if I knew how inappropriate this system was for my town and then proceeded to explain more than I cared to know.

It's pretty interesting to ask for information after buying a system.

Only in Middleboro!

Good Afternoon,

Has anyone used ESRI for GIS? We recently went with them for software and support and we were under the impression they have multiple towns as clients, some of which have Vision for their CAMA system. Well let me tell you I would never recommend them for assessing needs. They do not have a CLUE what our needs are nor do they spend a lot of time finding out. I’ve sent someone for training twice, the first time taking the class they recommended for her to take (she previously had training & worked in GeoMedia) and when they did not cover anything having to do with mapping for Assessors offered to do a one on one with her at their office. It started off by taking an hour to connect so they could use our database and then had to keep calling different people in to find out answers or how to do something and both of these training sessions were AFTER they were sent a detailed list of our needs.

I’m just curious if anyone else has used them and if so what your experience has been. Thank you for all your help past, present and future.


Barbara Erickson, M.A.A.
Assessor/Appraiser for the
Middleborough Board of Assessors
Ph 508-946-2410
Fax 508-946-4430
bercksn@middleborough.com

Wonder if Middleboro will notice?

This case seems to have potential in Middleboro if the Board of Assessors chose to act.

From Kopelman and Paige, P.C. :

Assessment cases involving mobile home parks are rare, and there is little precedent for municipal officials to follow. Now, in the case CJD Real Estate Limited Partnership v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Chelmsford, et al., (Appellate Tax Board Nos. F298316 & F304236) the Appellate Tax Board (“ATB”) has rejected a mobile home park’s claim that its property was worth $3,880,500, and valued it at $10,000,000 and $9,938,300 for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 respectively. The subject property consisted of approximately 37.75 acres, improved with roads, 254 site pads, and other infrastructure necessary for the operation of a manufactured home community. The park owner, CJD, claimed that it was entitled to the benefit of the exemption from taxation enjoyed by the individual mobile home owners. At trial, the Town presented facts and law that clearly demonstrated CJD’s position on its supposed entitlement to an exemption was meritless.

The Town’s case proved the value of the Appellant’s property by using the income approach to valuation. This was consistent with CJD’s witnesses’ testimony that CJD derives income from the rental of site pads on which manufactured homes are parked. The ATB concluded that the use of the income approach to valuation was proper in assessing the park, and consistent with the manner in which mobile home park owners themselves value such properties for investment purposes.

Taxes are for the little people

Courtesy of OakPointCommunity.org

Middleborough Taxpayers:

There are few things more glaringly unfair in this country than the fact that some people and some businesses get taxed at a rate less than most of the rest of us pay. Our government gives bailouts to big business. I've written recently about the tax assessments of a number of specific, high value commercial properties which have sold recently.


Apparently, some taxpayers don't need a TIF to insure a reduction in taxes. Let.s call it a TIP, To Insure Prosperity.


154 Campanelli Drive sold in 2006 for 19.1 million. It appears it was assessed for $19 million for FY 08 and 09. This year it was assessed for 14.9 million. Did they get an abatement in FY 09? Were we told a "public pension fund" bought it?



MIDDLEBORO, MA Net Lease Capital

Advisors, Inc. has completed another

property acquisition on behalf

of its joint venture program

with a major domestic public pension

fund advised by AEW Capital

Management, L.P. The joint venture,

which focuses on acquiring

net leased industrial, office, and

retail properties on an all-cash basis,

closed the $19.1 million purchase

of a 275,000 s/f warehouse

property located in a masterplanned

industrial park. Net Lease Capital and AEW view this property as a mid-to-long-term

investment.


This year they paid about $186,995 in taxes. If they were assessed closer to their fair market value, what they paid for it, they would have paid about $239,700. They get a tax "TIP" of about $52,700.00!


They asked for and got a tax abatement this year and likely last year. Their assessment was just lowered to $12.4 million. It was just a little TWEAK to the depreciation, from 25% to 40%, for a building built in 2000. That's an additional $31,000! A total of $83,000 tax "TIP".


OH! Just so happens this property WAS GETTING A TIF! They had their TIF revolked this year and so, applied for a tax abatement from the assessors. The assessors gave them an additional $31,000 abatement because they lost their TIF.



151 Campanelli Drive sold in November of 2007 for about 9 million. It's assessed for $6,063,500. This year they paid about $76,100 in taxes. If they were assessed closer to their fair market value, the price they paid for it, they would have paid about $112,950. They get a tax "TIP" of about $36,853.00.



Number 17 Cowan Drive (the FedEx property) sold in January, 2007 for about 7.9 million dollars. It's assessed for $4,113,600. This year they paid about $51,626 in taxes. If they were assessed closer to their fair market value, the price they paid for it, they would have paid about $99,145. They get a tax "TIP" of about $47,519.


A portfolio of seven Federal Express Ground distribution facilities -- including one in Massachusetts -- was sold for $52.3 million. The 546,120-square-foot portfolio includes buildings in Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Maine. One of the seven is a 73,137-square-foot facility in Middleborough, Mass. Most of the facilities were recently built.


Number 19 Cowan Drive , vacant commercial land, sold in September, 2008 for about 1.4 million dollars. It's assessed for $927,400. This year they paid about $11,640 in taxes. If they were assessed closer to their fair market value, the price they paid for it, they would have paid about $17,600. They get a tax "TIP" of about $5,931.00. Oh! Last year, Fiscal 2009, this property was assessed for 159,900. How can a 1.4 million property be assessed for 159,900 in the year it sold?


New England Tel. & Tel. simply asked the assessors for a tax abatement and it was granted. No questions asked. No documentation provided. No data verified. For some, it's "Ask and you shall receive." I advised another town to DENY this same taxpayer's appeal on a similar property. My value (per square foot) was double that of the Middleborough assessors.


These are just a few properties that I selected. Are we to believe everything else is correct? These "under-valuations", these TIPS, go on and on, from year to year. With only these few properties, the total TIP is about $175,000 per year. How much more is going on? Is this good decision making by the Board of Assessors?


I also question whether we have been calculating the real TIF exemptions properly or not. What do you think?


A "little guy" property, 123 East Grove Street , bought recently for $760,000. It's assessed at $741,400. No "TIP" for you. 84 South Main Street bought recently for $1,425,000 is assessed at $1,276,000. No "TIP" for you. 395 Plymouth Street recently sold for $975,000. It.s assessed at $930,700. No "TIP" for you. The "little guys" usually don't have lawyers. And,..hey're "little guys."


Regarding residential properties; I reviewed the data for properties of those taxpayers at the town's website. About thirty percent of the properties I looked at had what I suspect to be errors of data, errors of fact. Measurements were apparently wrong when comparing the sketch to the photo. Story heights (full story, three quarter story, half story) were inconsistent. Depreciation appears to be subtly random. The errors could be considered "minor", but if I can see them, why can't the assessors who work with this data daily? Why aren't they fixed? Errors in factual data result in errors in taxation! Some values were too high. Some values were too low. The result is: Some taxes were too high. Some taxes were too low. If you can't get the facts right, how can you assure the taxpayer your methodology is correct?

As your assessor I promise:

To expand awareness within the department of valuation issues and taxpayer expectations.
To initiate programs to more accurately describe and assess property.
To first correct, and then minimize, "mistakes" in the office, utilizing the existing staff.
To make the best decisions possible based upon the most accurate data available.
To assess fairly.
I have made no misrepresentations or falsehoods. I have questions. I stand behind my assertions that the assessment data is riddled with errors and fraught with poor judgment.

I can make it better. I'll look after all taxpayers. I ask for your vote for Assessor in this year's election. Let us strive for FULL and FAIR assessments for every taxpayer, big as well as small. Please tell your friends and relatives in Middleborough to vote for me. I need every vote possible.


Charles Shea, Candidate for Assessor.

e-mail: sheachuck@yahoo.com

Middleboro wins case, tax cut on Soule Farm

The real estate tax issue of the Soule Homestead property in Plympton rears its ugly head repeatedly and still seems to have failed to reach a satisfactory resolution.

.

An examination of the classification of municipal land owned by other towns might provide greater insight were town officials to investigate.

.
Middleboro isn't inventing the wheel with this one.
.

Brockton Enterprise

Middleboro wins case, tax cut on Soule Farm
By Eileen Reece
Enterprise correspondent
Posted May 19, 2009 @ 11:26 PM
MIDDLEBORO —
The town has won an appeal before the Plympton Board of Assessors that reduces its tax payment on 25 acres of the Soule Farm that is in Plympton.

Barbara Erickson, Middleboro’s assessor-appraiser, said the Plympton Board of Assessors agreed to reduce the assessed value from $407,400 to $301,900. The reduction will mean a savings of $1,335.63 for fiscal year 2009.

Erickson said the value was reduced based on information she provided following a review of its sales analysis, land charts and Department of Environmental Protection wetland maps.

Middleboro Assessors: Revisited #2

Prior to Middleboro's April Election, I circulated the following received anonymously. Before you disregard the amounts reported as trivial, does it represent preferential treatment when others have had great difficulty getting conspicuous errors corrected? :

The Assessor’s information at the Vision Appraisal website was updated March 24, 2008.

The prior update was in the month of January and had all the Fiscal 2008 values that went out on the January tax bills.

Sometime between January and March 24 two properties owned by Diane Maddigan changed value, downward.

Ms. Maddigan’s property at 380 Marion Rd. decreased $1,100 in value, from $402,700 to $401,600. This only saves only about $11.00 in tax dollars. This was due to the removal of a dilapidated barn that was removed after July 1, 2007. This “removal” may be totally innocent, IF it only effects FUTURE assessments. If Ms. Maddigan actually got an “abatement of her FY ’08 taxes”, it is questionable. I saw the barn come down after July 1, 2007. When did someone go to the property? Did they inspect the interior of the house also? Is the enclosed porch really only an enclosed porch or is it living area?

Ms. Maddigan’s other property 129 Spruce St. also decreased in value, from $392,900 to $391, 600. There is a difference of $1,300. That’s only about $13.13 in tax dollars. This was a result of the removal of a shed, an above ground swimming pool, and a data correction to the house. When did someone go to the property? Did they inspect the interior of the house also? Is it totally correct now? Why was the photo of the house removed? Can I have my photo removed? Isn’t Ms. Maddigan running a business from the house now? Didn’t she get a variance? Will she pay the commercial tax rate?

Wouldn’t we all like for our properties to be inspected in February or March and have the values decreased and save twenty-five tax dollars? Did she actually get abatements? Was this special treatment by the Assessors? If she wasn’t running for assessor would she get the same treatment?

I believe there is an appearance of impropriety.

Middleboro Assessors: Revisited #1

During the recent Town Election, one of the candidates commented that if everyone did their own job to the best of their ability, we'd be in a much better place as a town.

.

Since abatement requests remain confidential, there is no way to monitor the dissatisfaction created among homeowners, except anecdotally.

.

For a variety of reasons, that dissatisfaction has been expressed to me on numerous occasions regarding errors on field cards that some have had difficulty correcting. The town representative arrives with the completed field card, NEVER measures, NEVER fully inspects and errors remain intact. And we ALL know about friends and neighbors who have finished basements, added bathrooms and much else, and that valuation is not reflected in the Assessors' records because NO ONE is doing a thorough inspection.

.

Friends in other towns report that periodic inspections are conducted on portions of the Town each year and their homes are actually MEASURED WITH A TAPE MEASURE. Not so Middleboro.

.

Since my ATB hearing in January 2008, prior to learning the outcome, I filed for an abatement.

.

Although the Middleboro Board of Assessors had 3 months to make a decision and could have awaited the ATB ruling, they instead opted to deny my request promptly.

.

Alas, the ATB ruling was in MY FAVOR, and against the Middleboro Assessors.

.

My unskilled reading of MGL (Massachusetts General Law), case law and ATB information indicates that the Assessors have to respect that valuation for 2 subsequent years (unless they can substantiate an increase).

.

In my conversations with ATB, who I might add have been wonderfully helpful in simplifying the law and procedures, I discovered other cases that Middleboro wasted time and effort challenging and lost. Ooops! They're Public Record!

.

The Middleboro Assessor is paid +$80,000 to know the job, the laws, the procedures. When I questioned the assessment in view of the ATB decision, she informed me that my understanding was incorrect. Note to self: call ATB and inform of their misunderstanding of statute!

.

At the recent Town Elections, the few Middleboro Voters who opted to participate, selected a candidate who indicated at Candidates' Night that her sole experience was that 'I am a Townie, Married to a Townie, my children married Townies. And I want to learn about the board.' Great on the job training! Thanks voters!

.

And when I file with ATB YET AGAIN AND WIN and you absorb the cost of 2 town employees spending most of the day travelling to Boston, unbeknownst to you because you're not paying attention, please don't whine about the cost of town government.

Middleboro Assessors: How Much Worse?

Middleboro Property Valuations

Middleboro Asessors: How Much Worse?

My name arose during a December 2007 BOS Meeting amidst uninformed speculation. No one has since questioned the issue, so allow an explanation. (link below)

.

When I was denied an abatement by the Middleboro Assessors, I filed with the Appellate Tax Board (ATB).

.

TOWN COUNSEL notified me of his representation in the matter by Certified, Return Receipt Requested mail.

.

The initial hearing was to be conducted in December and I requested a postponement.

.

Since TOWN COUNSEL'S notification indicated his participation, I contacted his office to request that postponement, as was indicated in the ATB instructions.

.

That POSTPONEMENT required a brief conversation with TOWN COUNSEL to determine an acceptable date.

.

Hence, the mention of my name on TOWN COUNSEL'S invoice.

.

I handled ALL notification from that point forward that included FAX notification.

.

But the issue goes further.

.

The Middleboro Board of Assessors is an elected board, of which the Town Assessor participates.

.

The Town Assessor and TOWN COUNSEL travelled to Boston, wasted most of a day, and I prevailed and reduced my real estate tax assessment by an amount less than the cost of the wasted day with two TOWN EMPLOYEES.

.

From a personal perspective, the matter is worse than the wasted time.

.

The Four (4) Comparable Properties presented by the Town Assessor were curious.

.

One was withdrawn by the Assessor herself.

.

Another, the judge pointed out she had failed to correct the value for a garage.

.

Three (3) of the properties were in different zoning districts. One (1) had an in-law apartment for which the Assessor had failed to correct the value. Two of the properties are in the General USE District which allows businesses. And there were numerous other errors the judge pointed out and I challenged.

.

TOWN COUNSEL introduced a previous ATB action that I had filed, but failed to note that for several years, I had paid real estate taxes based on a valuation for non-existent living space, non-existent basement space, non-existent features including a fireplace, and a shed that was grossly larger than reality. Several tries with the Assessors failed to correct their errors UNTIL I filed with ATB.

.

The issue of Town Counsel has previously been discussed. Town Counsel has determined his own use of time.

.

Since this was clearly wasted time and the Assessors had 5-6 other cases with ATB, how much more time was wasted? I have requested that outside counsel review the Town Charter, pertinent statutes and provide a ruling about who determines the use of Town Counsel's time.

.

I am aware of other property owners in Middleboro who are having difficulty correcting ERRORS.

.

What's the problem?

.

12/17/07 Selectmen's Meeting: Speculation and Incompetence

During the correspondence portion of the December 17th, 2007, Selectmen's Meeting, Selectman Patrick Rogers, who is now approving 'warrants' (the town's bills) after Selectman Bond's abrupt refusal to continue to do so, discussed that there was a charge on Town Counsel, Dan Murray's bill for:

.
J. Powell

As a taxpayer, why I support Charles Shea

It isn't often that the office of Assessor is a contested race.

This year is an exception that has forced some to consider the office and its responsibilities.

As a taxpayer, you are presented with an opportunity to elect an experienced Assessor to the Board of Assessors who is willing to offer professional expertise to serve the Town.

The choice seems simple.

The following statement was offered by Mr. Charles Barry Shea:

My name is Charles Shea and I’m a candidate for Assessor of Middleborough.

My wife and I bought a piece of land in 2000 and built our house with the help of Al Gamache the following year.

Ted Eayrs, on candidates' night, asked me if I wanted to “micro-manage” the office. No. I don’t.

Neither do I want to advantage myself due to my position, nor do I want to bend rules to save myself a few tax dollars. I want to be part of a multi-member team with the goal of “full and fair” valuation for all taxpayers in the community.

I do want to bring some of my varied, out of town, experience to the department. I’ve worked with their appraisal software since 1982 in numerous towns. I’m helping install it this year in Rochester. I’ve been the Assessor’s contractor in Rochester since 1988. I’ve valued Tony Sol’s pig farm. I’ve appraised Semass’s land. I did revaluations in New Braintree and Oakham. I know “rural”. I appraised the Swansea Mall, The Chatham Bars Inn and P’Town’s commercial real estate. I reviewed the Prudential and Hancock Towers. I know resorts and I know high values. I reviewed the entire town of Mashpee in 1982. I believe Middleborough can benefit from my experience.

I’m a proponent of “quarterly tax billing”. It’s financially sound and fiscally responsible. I’m also a proponent of a July 1 assessment date for new construction. The “growth”, the new tax dollars as a result of this new construction, becomes part of the levy limit base a year earlier. Both of these aspects increase revenue dollars. They require no new personnel and no additional effort.

I’m a proponent for Elderly Exemptions. These folks have paid full taxes for years. Many are now on low, fixed incomes. Their kids are long out of school. I have supported increasing the state recommended exemption amounts. I have supported expanding the thresholds for income and assets, allowing more elderly to qualify and giving them a bigger break. The younger families in town understand and approve.

I maintain an excellent relationship with Army Master Sergeant Joe Colantoni, a veteran’s agent with whom I, as a Deputy Assessor, work. He knows how I feel about our veterans.

I look forward to serving the Town of Middleborough as their elected assessor. I assure each and every taxpayer of my efforts on their behalf to increase the efficiency and enhance the effectiveness of the department.

Charles B. Shea