The call for flexibility was present in all six sessions. Participants expressed frustration that they had been told there is only one way to qualify for maintenance aid, and they said they wanted the program to allow for more than one process. Participants said they wanted to know why and how the process was to be changed and why alternate methods were not considered. In some cases participants said the new process was a deterrent to successful implementation. The two consistent sub themes discussed below appeared in the workshops.

Where the current process works—leave it alone. The sub theme of “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” came across quite strongly in each workshop. Those who were already doing periodic reassessments wanted to be allowed to continue with the work they were doing. They saw this program as a way to penalize good work by attaching more bureaucracy to an already burdensome system. Those that were doing reassessment on a two–four year cycle said their rolls were “okay” based on the conditions that exist in the community they support. Many said that this new program took away any incentive to participate in the maintenance aid program.

Let the users choose what works best for them. Those municipalities who were not currently doing annual reassessments said they wanted other options to obtain maintenance aid stating “one size does not fit all.” Participants offered various strategies for both technical solutions as well as process alternatives that ran the gamut from the most simplistic, cost-effective solutions to the more elaborate. One participant said that alternative software was better suited for smaller municipalities and asked not to be penalized for using “non-sanctioned” software. Others said there were alternative means to obtaining the same end by changing the way the tax rate is calculated. Some suggested forming a state assessment/data collection team that moves from town to town to relieve some of the work or the additional time required as a result of the new program. This was particularly important for those municipalities that had part time officials or minimal staff. Still others suggested allowing for local analysis of their data at the individual municipality level. In short, this was a topic that generated considerable discussion and spurred a number of suggestions.