Assessors staff presented four local-option changes tied to the HERO Act that would let Hampden widen eligibility or increase exemption amounts for veterans and certain surviving family members if the town accepts the changes at town meeting.

The options described include a new Clause 22g to allow trust-owned dwellings to qualify when a veteran is a beneficiary; Clause 22h for full local exemptions for surviving parents or guardians of service members who died or were incapacitated in service (without state reimbursement); Clause 22j to raise existing exemption amounts by a percentage chosen by the town; and Clause 22i to apply an annual cost‑of‑living adjustment (COLA) to existing exemption amounts.

Assessors staff said the town cannot predict exact costs for 22g because the assessors are not aware of specific trust situations in Hampden. Using FY24 exemption totals, the assessor reported 69 veterans qualified for property tax exemptions under Chapter 22 provisions. Staff also said 12 veterans in town are recorded as receiving VA benefits but may not currently be getting town property tax exemptions. For a hypothetical 100% increase under a proposed Clause 22j, staff estimated the town’s additional cost at about $40,800 based on current figures; assessors translated that into roughly $16.76 a year for the average single‑family taxpayer on a $419,000 home. Smaller increases were also costed: 75% ≈ $12.57, 50% ≈ $8.38 and 25% ≈ $4.19 per average taxpayer, per the assessors’ calculations.

Board members asked clarifying questions about which households the options would affect, whether life estates would be covered (assessors clarified life estates would not be affected by 22g), and whether the state would reimburse the town. Assessors staff repeated that some clauses (notably 22d and certain existing clauses) carry state reimbursement, but the newly adopted local percentages or the 22h gold‑star parent exemption would not be reimbursed by the state; the town would cover the added cost from overlay or other local sources. Staff explained that current state reimbursements reduce the town’s share of the existing $400 and $1,000 exemptions by specific amounts (described in the presentation) and that any local percentage increases under 22j or a COLA under 22i would remove additional state reimbursement for those incremental dollars.

Select Board members did not vote to adopt any change at the meeting. The assessors and veteran service officer recommended bringing the options to the Select Board for possible placement on the annual town‑meeting warrant. The board directed staff to return with draft warrant language and additional comparative information about what neighboring towns are doing and whether the state has signaled any changes to reimbursement levels. The board scheduled further discussion at a future meeting and recognized that each local option must be accepted individually at town meeting.

The presentation and discussion emphasized that these are local options, not automatic changes: the Select Board must approve warrant articles and voters at town meeting would decide whether to adopt any clause or percentage.

Ending: The board agreed to revisit the subject at a later meeting so staff can prepare precise warrant language, updated fiscal impacts, and examples of implementation for voters ahead of the annual town meeting.