Shall the Town of Hampton vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $225,000 to complete appraisals on the Town’s utility properties as part of the 2016 Town-wide revaluation of property in Hampton as required by the State Constitution and the Department of Revenue Administration under RSA 75:1, RSA 75:4 & RSA 75:8. This shall be a non-lapsing appropriation per RSA 32:7, VI and will not lapse until the Town-wide revaluation is completed or by March 31, 2017, whichever is sooner? (Majority vote required)
Note: As the Town of Hampton is required to complete appraisals on all property types as part of the 2016 revaluation this would also include all Utility properties so they, too, are appraised in accordance with their full and true market value as of April1, 2016.
The Town has now received proposals for the completion of these complex appraisal reports, the list of which includes:
- Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant (Hampton Assets)
- Unitil Energy Systems Inc.
- Northern Utilities Inc.
- Aquarion Water Company
- Public Service of New Hampshire
- Fairpoint Communications
As Hampton’s utility assets represent a substantial portion of the property tax base, it is imperative that they reflect fair and equitable assessments as of April 1, 2016.
What it means: The town-wide revaluation that was approved by voters last year does not include the properties of utilities, which are a different class of valuation (more complex).
Those in favor say: The utilities represent the highest taxpayers in town. It makes sense to have their values established in relation to each other. This will be valuable in court cases where the utilities attempt to get their property values lowered at the expense of all the other taxpayers in town. This is the most cost-effective time to do the valuations. The cost per taxpayer is reasonable in comparison to the savings that even one successful case will mean to the Town.
Those against say: There won’t be an immediate impact, so why not wait?
Fiscal Impact: The average Hampton home valued at $329,000 would bear an increased tax cost of $26.65 if this Article passes. The tax impact is for this year only.