Westport’s Revaluation Working Group met for the first time today to oversee the town’s 2003 aborted property assessment.
The 10-member committee, made up of town department heads, elected officials, and members of the public, decided to meet weekly on Thursdays as it aims to prepare an interim report for First Selectwoman Diane G. Farrell by June 15.
Farrell appointed the group following her decision to seek a one-year delay in the town’s property revaluation because of a backlog of 1,700 building permits going back at least five years that had not been included on the town’s Grand List. (See WestportNow.com March 30, 2004)
There were also complaints by residents that many of the values published in the initial draft of the property list were unfair either too high or too low.
At today’s meeting, one of the group’s members, Acting Assessor Kevin Murowsky, reported that the firm hired to help the town clean up the building permit backlog had begun its work and would likely cost less than initially anticipated.
Town bodies have appropriated $150,000 to hire the firm, Cole Layer Trumbull, but Murowsky said he expected them to complete their work in about 90 days for considerably less, perhaps about $50,000.
Farrell, who arrived late for the meeting, told the group they had “a daunting task” to perform.
She suggested that the committee divide up into subgroups, invite experts to consult and plan to hold at least two evening meetings to hear public testimony.
Farrell also suggested that the group invite the appraiser from Milford, which is doing its reval entirely in house, to attend to explain the mechanics of a mass revaluation.
As for correcting errors in the 2003 reval, Leaman said that the administration would present alternative strategies for the committee to consider in two weeks.
Some members of the public attending the meeting suggested that the town simply do a full physical reval, which it will have to do anyway in 2007.
But both Don Miklus, the town’s finance director who chairs the committee, and Selectman Carl Leaman objected due to the cost and the time constraints.
The charge to evaluate the assessment model occupied discussion for a good part of the meeting, with members of the public expressing their concerns about the model and its implications.
Michael Stashower, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, argued that, without a full physical evaluation of every property in town, many relevant factors cannot be taken into account.
He said these included the subdivision potential for multi-acre properties, the impact of Poirer v. Wilton, a controversial recent zoning case in the Town of Wilton, the ability of developers nowadays to build practically everywhere, and the impact of teardowns and “McMansions.”
Others expressed concern that the model gave too much weight to land value, something that was attributed to the teardowns.
The committee decided to hold a session at which Murowsky would explain the assumptions in the model.
