Topstone abatement inspires look at board of assessors

By PATRICK ADRIAN
Special to The Eagle Times
CLAREMONT — Mayor Charlene Lovett said this week that, following the controversial abatement decision involving the Topstone mill building in August, city policy committee members are exploring alternative models to improve the city’s tax assessment and abatement process.

At Wednesday’s city council meeting, Lovett said that policy committee members have met twice since the informative, and often heated Topstone abatement discussion on Sept. 19. One of those meetings was official, though the other was an informal discussion because the committee lacked a quorum to hold its meeting.

Lovett said that four of New Hampshire’s 13 cities — Lebanon, Keene, Berlin and Concord — use a board of assessors to review assessment appeals, as opposed to Claremont’s model, which gives authority over assessments and abatements to the city manager and city assessor. At their last meeting policy-committee members divided up tasks to research each city’s model, and they intend to craft a proposal for the city council to consider. The members will share findings at the next committee meeting on Thursday, Oct. 18.

Councilor Nick Koloski said on Thursday that a board of assessors will not solve all grievances about the process, though it would include more people in the decision-making.

“Adding a board of assessors may give the property owner somewhere to be heard before denial [and] allow a few more folks to review the application,” Koloski said. “It’s not going to change the world. That board of assessors will play an important role but will also be subject to folks not being happy with their decision.”

If a municipality rejects an appeal, the owner may then request a hearing by either the state’s Superior Court or Bureau of Tax and Land Appeals, a supervisory agency for local abatement agreements. 

“The Topstone was the catalyst to the discussion [on Sept. 19], but it became quite apparent that we needed to improve the process,” Lovett said.

In August the city settled an abatement with owners of the Topstone, by lowering the building’s assessment from $670,000 to $175,000 and forgiving the owners of $222,000 in taxes owed over several years.

Interim City Assessor Joe Lessard explained on Sept. 19 that the Topstone had been over-valued. In 2014’s citywide revaluation, Topstone’s assessment increased from $490,000 to $670,000. However, the company that conducted the revaluation did not have the information then about the brownfield on the property. As for the $220,000, City Manager Ryan McNutt said that after retroactively applying the reassessment to previous tax years, the owners no longer owe that money.

Resident and former state Rep. Joe Osgood announced on Wednesday that he is seeking a state agency review of the city’s handling of the Topstone abatement. Among Osgood’s criticisms of the abatement was the city manager’s failure to inform the city council about the decision. Osgood requested a formal letter from the city council confirming that council members were not informed by the city manager about the Topstone decision. Osgood said he plans to submit the letter, along with other documents, to the Bureau of Tax and Land Appeals.

According to Claremont legal counselor Shawn Tanguay, the city council has no role in abatements and is not privy to those decisions.

State law (RSA 76-19a) authorizes a municipality’s “governing body” to grant abatements. Tanguay said on Sept. 19 that the statute defines a governing body as either a select board or an assessor. In a town government the select board is generally considered a town’s governing body. In city government the council is a “legislative governing body,” but it is not authorized to execute all the city’s operations. 

While Osgood disagrees with Tanguay’s interpretation, he said on Wednesday that he intends to support the bureau’s conclusion when rendered.