ORDER-2022-49 : Request to set a Public Hearing on Classification of Property for December 6, 2021 at 8:00 PM and subsequently determine the Classification of Property.

Transcript (~48 min @ 28:10)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 27:56 Jeff McNaught: the rules are now suspended um and i do note that our first order of business is um would be spoken to by uh our dpw director uh elena prowakis ellis um and i know that she's in another meeting right now um and i know that vice chair eccles is also in that same meeting um in that vein i will entertain a motion to take the second you know take an order out of order so that we can do that cleanly does that make sense council mcmaster thank you mr chairman

▶ 28:44 Shawn M. MacMaster: could you just cite the i'm happy to make that motion could you cite the uh order number for the second matter on our agenda sure um the

▶ 28:54 Jeff McNaught: The second order of business is order 2022-49, a request to set a public hearing on classification of property for December 6th, 2021 at 8 p.m. and subsequently determine the classification of property.

▶ 29:14 Shawn M. MacMaster: That's it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that in mind, I would make a motion to take order number 2022-49 out of order.

▶ 29:29 Jeff McNaught: 2nd, motion to take 2022 dash 49 out of order by Council McMaster seconded by Council Grigoraitis. Mr. clerk. Will you please call the role?

▶ 29:40 Speaker 2: Yes, Councillor, uh, yes. Yes, yes.

▶ 29:50 Speaker 2: Yes, yes. Counselor.

▶ 29:59 Speaker 2: Yeah, counselor Stuart. Yes, counselor Thomas. Yes, presence. Yes.

▶ 30:10 Jeff McNaught: The motion passes that I interrupted you were going to say. 10 yes or 9 yes. The motion passes. So, in that vein, we can bring in the folks from the assessor's office. Our city assessor is Sarah McClellan and anyone else who may be coming in with her.

▶ 30:33 Jeff McNaught: And again, I'll read the order that's before us. again it's order 2022-49 request to set a public hearing on classification of property for December 6 2021 at 8 p.m. and subsequently determine the classification of property miss McCollum thank you for being here with us this

▶ 30:55 Speaker 3: evening I'm just gonna share my screen here sure be able to see the

▶ 31:16 Jeff McNaught: Presentation. Yes. Okay. Can everybody see it? Good. Nobody's yelling. No. So I think we're good. Okay.

▶ 31:27 Speaker 3: Good evening everyone. So it's that time of year for the property tax classification presentation in public hearing. Um, this year is a bit different from the past several years because fiscal 22 is a revaluation year for Melrose. Every 5 years for each community in Massachusetts, the Department of Revenue conducts a certification review. In this review, the state looks at our data quality. They do an audit of our evaluation practices. They conduct statistical analyses of our property values in the city. They review our public disclosure program and finally. Certification and classification review. So Melrose has received this final certification of our values from the Department of Revenue earlier this month on November 10th. As a note, the revaluation does not raise individual taxes per se. It simply ensures that assessments in Melrose reflect full and fair market value as of January 1st, 2021. Also, in terms of the law, nothing has changed throughout the pandemic in the process of determining property tax. We still have the same requirements and responsibilities that existed before. I want to recognize our assessing office staff, our clerk, Janet, and our new assistant assessor, Tristan. Our manager, Jane, and our volunteers, Bob, Kathy and Bonnie, who have continuously provided a high level of service to the public and internally during this period that we've been undergoing the recent application with the state. And, of course, I would say, thanks to my fellow board members for their work and support during this process. I also wanted to provide an update on the senior circuit breaker taxes exemption that was passed at the local level in Melrose earlier this year. Um, we've heard from our representative Kate that the bills are still in the committee on revenue at the state level. Um, the chairs have not yet decided when they will vote on them, but it's expected to be in the near future. Once we do hear back anything back on that exemption, we'll be sure to provide another update to Melrose residents with that. It will start the classification presentation. Um, this presentation is posted with the agenda packet this evening and it's also accessible on the city of Melrose website. On the assessors page underneath the heading.

▶ 33:44 Speaker 3: 2022 classification hearing, so the purpose of the classification hearing is to adopt the city's tax policy. By allocating the tax levy amongst the 5 property types. This is residential and open space and commercial, industrial and personal property. After the public hearing, the council must vote on the following 4 items, the selection of residential factor, whether to adopt a small commercial exemption. Whether to grant an open space, just discount and whether to adopt a residential exemption. So, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of these have not been historically adopted in Melrose. But as a vote is still required for them, I will review them after we look at the residential factor in more detail. So, the city council with the mayor's approval determines the percentage of the tax levy to be paid by each class of property. They do this by choosing a residential factor. This factor governs the amount of the tax living to be paid by the residential class. And the difference is then paid by the commercial, industrial and personal property classes. Um, and the Department of revenue determines the minimum residential factor for each community, or the maximum shift allowed for the tax year.

▶ 34:59 Speaker 3: So, um, uh, the total amount that can be raised in taxes stays the same. But there's a single or split tax rate, a split tax rate does not raise more revenue. It simply shifts the tax burden amongst the tax payers. So, adopting the residential factor of 1 results in taxation of all property at the same rate. For fiscal 22, adopting that factor of 1 would yield a single tax rate of 1094 per 1000 of value. Adopting a factor of less than 1 to as low as that minimum residential factor results in an increasingly greater tax burden shift from the residential classes to the commercial, industrial, and personal property classes. The minimum residential factor for the City of Melrose for Fiscal 22 is 0.961408, or a CIP shift of 1.75, which is again determined by the Mass Department of Revenue.

▶ 35:56 Speaker 3: So, this slide here is showing the percentage of the levy by class before any shift. You can see that over 95% of the property value in Melrose is residential. And you'll also see here a breakdown of the number of parcels by property type.

▶ 36:18 Speaker 3: And this slide shows how we arrive at the single tax rate for the community for this fiscal year. On the left is a form that comes out of Gateway, which is the Department of Revenue's website that tracks our values and data. This has all of the valuations by property type. And you will note a total taxable valuation of about 6.5Billion at the bottom. You'll also see at the bottom the number and value of exempt parcels, which are excluded from the taxable valuation. On the right at the top, we start with the 2021 levy limit. we add the two and a half percent allowed through massachusetts law prop two and a half we add new growth which has been certified by the department of revenue for this year and we add our fiscal year 22 debt service and arrive at the max allowable levy of 71 million 196 thousand 790. so then we take that number and we divide it by the fiscal 22 total taxable value in the city to arrive at the single tax rate of 1094 for thousand dollars of assessed value

▶ 37:25 Speaker 3: this next slide is showing the historical levy percentage paid by class after the shift has been chosen and you can see here that it has remained relatively the same for the last decade so i have

▶ 37:43 Speaker 3: included this next slide so that you may compare melrose in relation to some of its surrounding communities it shows the fiscal 21 average single family values the tax bills and residential tax rates from some of the cities and towns around Melrose. And today, while the DLS does not have sufficient data, they can't calculate the average single family tax bill because they do have the residential exemption. I did find out today that the Mauldin single family average is about $503,739.

▶ 38:29 Speaker 3: um this slide is showing the residential to cip percent of total value in melrose versus

▶ 38:47 Speaker 3: our surrounding communities okay and here we see the historical shift that has been chosen for the past 10 years the average single family tax bill for those years and the average impact year over year so last year a shift of 1.65 was chosen and the average single family tax bill is about $7,195. This is an increase of 2.57% and $180 over the prior year. It's not listed here, but at that shift, the average commercial bill increased $386 or about 2.59% year over year From 20 to 21. um.

▶ 39:36 Speaker 3: Okay, so the average single family value for fiscal year 2022. Is now 703,389 dollars.

▶ 39:51 Speaker 3: The average, if we compare this to fiscal 21. Average single family value of 657,000 dollars. You can see that increase in property values in Melrose year over year. So, this slide also demonstrates the effects of the shift with no shift. At all the single tax rate, the residential bill would increase by about 500 dollars and the commercial bill. Would decrease by almost 40% by 5,778 dollars. With the Max shift of 1.75, the average residential bill increases 205 dollars roughly. And the average commercial bill increases, um, 1,335 dollars or roughly 8.74%.

▶ 40:46 Speaker 3: So, this brings us to the shift options. Um, I've included a complete list of the shift options from 1 to 1.75. Um, on the next slide, but here I've listed only the range that the council has has considered and chosen from in the past several years. So, on the left and green, you'll see the residential rate, the corresponding average single family tax bill. the dollar increase and the percent increase from last year on the right in blue is the corresponding cip rate the average commercial bill at that rate the average dollar increase and the percent increase as a reminder the fiscal 21 residential rate was 10.95 per thousand and the commercial rate was 1869. um so as a note um while we speak of the shift in discussion when voting the council must choose the residential factor that corresponds to the chosen shift um and it's important to note that because of rounding the final tax rates may change slightly when we submit to the department

▶ 42:07 Speaker 3: of revenue um all of the options okay for the small commercial exemption um melrose has not historically adopted this exemption um however the council has the option to adopt a small commercial exemption of up to 10 percent of assessed value which can be applied to commercial parcels that are one occupied as of january 1st by a business with an average annual employment of no more than ten during the previous calendar year and two have a valuation of less than one million dollars this exemption further shifts the tax burden within the commercial class increases the tax rate for the cip class and it was adopted by 14 communities in massachusetts in fiscal 21 out of the 351 the office of labor and workforce development provides the assessors with a list of businesses in Melrose and the number of employees that they have for the year. Because of the nature of the qualification for the exemption and the changing statuses of the businesses, we do not at this time have any businesses identified that would qualify. The consideration is that the adoption of the commercial exemption is that it works as a further shift in tax burden to be borne by the majority of the CIP segment.

▶ 43:25 Speaker 3: So, the open space discount is a required vote for the council, but Melrose does not currently have any property that meets the state definition for the classification as open space. So I've included that definition here, just for reference.

▶ 43:47 Speaker 3: And finally, the residential exemption, the council has the option to adopt a residential exemption of up to 35% of the average assessed value of all of the residential parcels. Which is applied only to residential parcels that are the principal residents of the taxpayer. This exemption shifts the tax burden within the residential class only it increases the tax rate for the entire residential class. And it was adopted by 15 communities in Massachusetts in fiscal 21. I do have included at the bottom of this slide some of the communities that that have adopted it. Melrose has a high percentage of owner occupied residential parcels.

▶ 44:38 Speaker 3: And for this on the last slide, I have included definitions of some of the terms that we use during the property tax classification presentation for reference. And, um, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

▶ 44:54 Speaker 5: Thank you miss. Um.

▶ 44:58 Jeff McNaught: Would you mind taking the presentation down so that I can see everybody and. Absolutely, and they raise their hands and get.

▶ 45:18 Jeff McNaught: And share the screen, thank you very much for that presentation. It was very helpful. Okay.

▶ 45:41 Jeff McNaught: There we are, um, all counselors, you want to raise your hands? I have counselor Stewart.

▶ 45:47 Jeff McNaught: And councilor Grigoraitis, councilor Migliorelli.

▶ 45:58 Jeff McNaught: Okay, councilor Stewart, we'll start off with you.

▶ 46:02 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. McLuhan for a very comprehensive presentation. That's very helpful. The only question I have is, you cut out for a period, at least on my end, when you were talking about the residential exemption. You mentioned that Melrose has a high percentage of residential parcels. And it sounded like you're going to say something important after that. But I didn't get to hear it, so I was wondering if you would mind. Restating what you said? Sure.

▶ 46:31 Speaker 3: Melrose has the high percentage of residential. So, owner occupied residential parcels. And at this time for this fiscal year, the administration is not recommending the adoption of the residential exemption.

▶ 46:48 Robb Stewart: Okay. Okay. That's all I needed to know. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

▶ 46:57 Jen Grigoraitis: Councilor Grigoraitis? Thank you, Chair McNall. And thank you, Ms. McClellan. I just wanted to, I know you very graciously thanked your staff and your board, but I also just wanted to thank you. I know you're about six months into this goal and this is a lot of information. It's very dense, it's very complicated, and this was incredibly easy to understand. And I also just want to say how much I appreciate your reaching out to the Council proactively and offering your time to to walk us through that. So thank you for that. And the only question I had that might be a little off basis, it seems like we had a pretty significant jump in our assessed home values for the community. Is that something that you see trending for, I mean, that you see continuing forward given the real estate market? I mean, I think our values, our average value went up almost $100,000.

▶ 47:45 Speaker 3: Yeah, so the, um. Because of the sale, so 1st of all, it was because of the reval, um, you know, we use the statistical analysis, um, very carefully and closely and the state is is looking at those numbers with us as well. Um, but we are basing it on the numbers this year are based on 2020 sales. So, um, as I said, that number was 740,000 was the. Average sale price for calendar year 2020. So it had jumped up significantly from the previous year. Um, so. Um, that was part of it and then part of it was just the corruption that happens. During the, um, the reval, um. I think that's, um, does that answer the question?

▶ 48:38 Jen Grigoraitis: Yes, thank you. No further questions. Thank you, Chair.

▶ 48:42 Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor McAleer-Raley.

▶ 48:45 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ms. McClellan for this presentation. I'll just echo what Councillor Grigoraitis said. This is a lot of information and I really appreciate the detail and thorough nature of your presentation. Given that, I just wanted to kind of walk through again um the the tax shift variance is so i think it's the slides um 11 and 12. um just to kind of go through again just just repeat again the the impact of the shift um no shift versus a max shift and kind of just going through that again a little bit absolutely thank you um

▶ 49:39 Speaker 3: Um, okay, sure. So, um, so with no shift, the, um, the residential rate, uh, increasing by, um, you know, the residential rate. So, as the values in Melrose increase, the, uh, tax rate tends to go down because we only have a certain levy that we, that we, um, Collect so, um, that's normally what happens. So here, um, the. Tax rate, um, of 1094 increases the, um. The residential rate 500 dollars, um, which was. The 6.95% with no shift. The residential values were increasing in this past year at a, at a higher and faster rate. than the commercial values so there was also a lot of growth in the residential classes so that also increases the values and as those values increase at a faster rate it will make it so that their change is is greater at the at the not having a shift at the single tax rate. Then they have for no shift as well, the CIP classes are going to have a decrease, you know, a significant decrease. And then for the max shift, so basically the max shift would be the minimum change for the single family tax bill would be that point eight four percent um and the increase of 204 uh 65 and if you remember back to the previous slides um it was about 180 dollars last year but that's going to the you know that that was at the 1.65 so this is at the 1.75 um so in you know so it's just a little bit more of

▶ 51:51 Speaker 3: a significant um workout this year based on the changes in values in the different classes sorry

▶ 51:56 Leila Migliorelli: you just cut out again briefly so it's just a little bit more of a significant and then you

▶ 52:03 Speaker 3: kind of cut out um oh it's more of a significant change um this year based on the the change in

▶ 52:13 Leila Migliorelli: in values and the different classes okay thank you um no further questions at this moment okay

▶ 52:17 Speaker 5: thank you any other counselors have questions Councilor Garipay. Councilor Garipay.

▶ 52:28 Mark Garipay: Yeah, I'm sorry. I got two moses here. Thank you, Ms. McClellan, for being here. I have just a couple questions. One is regarding the – I think it's slide five. You know, we've had some commercial property get turned over to residential. For example, the 99 Washington Street. So, I'm assuming that we're going to see a fluctuation of, you know. 9 to 9 to 1012Million dollars in that is that. Calculated in these numbers where we see that at next year. Meaning the commercial value be less.

▶ 53:12 Speaker 3: And residential, yeah, so that change in use, um. Took place the previous fiscal year that was. For that particular property, that would have been a larger, um, change that took place in fiscal 2021. so you would have seen the numbers, um, reflected there.

▶ 53:33 Mark Garipay: Instead of in this year, so is it is it safe to assume that as we have commercial properties potentially get redeveloped into either mixed use of residential? We're going to see a larger and we're going to see a larger value residential lesson commercial. So, won't the discrepancy over the next number of years, we're going to see that percentage as we try to be fair on both. On both on the tax rate between both. Commercial and residential isn't that we didn't take to assume that that's going to get that percentage is going to get get bigger. It's going to be tougher to get.

▶ 54:08 Speaker 3: Closer together right for for parcels like that that add a lot of more residential because eventually that specific parcel is going to be a residential. It's going to be mostly residential value. It will. You know, add to as they change over like that, it will add to the residential values.

▶ 54:39 Speaker 5: Versus the commercial think you're on mute.

▶ 54:43 Mark Garipay: Sorry, um, and, you know, this is what the 2nd year where a lot of us have done this and it's, it's a lot of information and it's tough to get our hands around it. So, when we're looking at the commercial assess value, and it's a mixed use property. How does the percentages usually work? So we have a. Let's say the average commercial value properties, 867, 380. How does that usually average out? Like, is it, you know. If it's 2 floors of a, of residents and a floor of commercial, is it a 1 3rd commercial? So, in theory, if there was no shift. And I'm not saying we do, I'm sorry if there was a, uh, we did the, uh, back shift. And it was a mixed use the increase wouldn't be 1334 would be a lot less based on what. That that property was, uh, how we, um, how we did the percentage between the residential and commercial. Correct?

▶ 55:48 Speaker 3: Right. Yeah. With with properties that have primarily, um. You know, if their apartment buildings that also have, um, commercial. In them, um, they like retail space in them. Um, they usually have it's primarily, um. Residential, so they would be, uh, taxed. Primarily at the residential rate, and then a little bit more at the end. So you'll see if you, if you did look back at that, um, slide, um, number 6, I think. um where you see the 012 to 043 that that's basically the mixed use properties and you can see how the breakdown um comes out it's it's primarily residential for those mixed-use properties so they're primarily paying the residential um tax rate sorry i can't hear you

▶ 56:51 Mark Garipay: again sorry that's about 5 million on 174 74 million is that how i'm looking at it we got a

▶ 56:58 Mark Garipay: we got a commercial value of 174 million and we have or is that 5 million into the residential

▶ 57:12 Speaker 3: value i'm sorry i'm i'm it broke up a little bit when you were saying that

▶ 57:18 Mark Garipay: 5Million, the 101 and 102.

▶ 57:23 Speaker 3: Those are single family and condos. So, it's 012 to 043. Okay, like, halfway down, that's the mixed use 012 to 043 and you'll see the, the various breakdown of industrial residential and commercial for those. Okay.

▶ 57:49 Mark Garipay: I think that's all the questions I have right now I'm just trying to get a better understanding if we look at the commercial side you know I think we got

▶ 58:01 Mark Garipay: a is there any way to that we can forget that question all on I have another question thanks for your time this afternoon I appreciate it okay okay so

▶ 58:13 Jeff McNaught: Council Chairman Tozzi.

▶ 58:17 John N. Tramontozzi: Thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you Ms. McClellan for the presentation, which is a very good, excellent presentation and easy to understand. I note that our focus this evening is primarily on real estate. I just wanted to address briefly the personal property Because it's not insignificant since it's even more than the industrial base. But is it fair to say, though, that whatever the tax rate on the single family home is set at, that's going to be the tax rate for personal property.

▶ 58:57 Speaker 3: The rate will be the tax rate for personal property. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Great.

▶ 59:00 John N. Tramontozzi: So, so the shipping, the effect on the personal property is really. It's not factored into the shift rate. Um, well, it is only in the sense that, um, it's, um, going to be the rate that the single family home rate is assessed at.

▶ 59:20 Speaker 3: Right, so so traditionally, um, we look at the at the primary class, um, you know, which is the single family. For, um, residential, and then the primary class.

▶ 59:38 Speaker 3: The personal property class does have a significant, um. A significant value here, and they're not factored in. It's. There's no average rate for them. It's not, they're not factored into that average commercial rate. That's just the simple average commercial rate.

▶ 59:55 John N. Tramontozzi: Is that is that by state law or is that why is it or is a traditional that way? We do it. Why is we don't shift the personal property over to the commercial rate? That's presumably benefiting the. a single single prop single family home property rate a little bit it wouldn't be much but

▶ 1:00:17 Speaker 3: so the way that we have um just on that first slide the way that we break down um commercial um sorry residential and open space and then commercial industrial and personal property that is um by law we have to we have to break them down into those two separate um shifts one to the other

▶ 1:00:39 John N. Tramontozzi: um but yeah yeah okay no that that explains it thank you i appreciate that it's a very good

▶ 1:00:48 Jeff McNaught: presentation thank you mr chairman okay so there's four votes that we have to um ask this evening um three of them as we heard from miss mcclellan um don't really apply they're not things that we need to take action on so i'm going to go in order of those three and entertain motions that i'll describe for instance i'll entertain a motion to not approve a granting of a small commercial exemption and the reason i say i'll entertain that is there's no there's no um commercial property in morrow's that would meet the specifications for that so these are things we've done for many years i'm just trying to um remind the council my fellow counselors and and um keep us moving so i'll entertain a motion to not accept a grant of granting of a small commercial exemption

▶ 1:01:50 Jen Grigoraitis: motion to not accept the granting of a small commercial exemption second second motion to

▶ 1:01:56 Jeff McNaught: accept uh to not accept a granting of a small commercial exemption exemption made by counselor Grigoraitis seconded by president sinella seeing no discussion mr clerk will you please call the role

▶ 1:02:17 Speaker 2: chair mcnaught yes councillor Tramontozzi yes councillor mcmaster yes councillor Garipay yes

▶ 1:02:29 Speaker 2: councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor Migliorelli yes councillor stewart

▶ 1:02:37 Speaker 2: Yes, Chancellor Thomas. Yes, and President Sonella. Yes, 9 yes, motion passes.

▶ 1:02:44 Jeff McNaught: Um, the next motion is that I'll entertain is a, um. Motion not to accept a selection of an open space discount.

▶ 1:03:01 Jen Grigoraitis: Motion to not accept an open space discount.

▶ 1:03:06 Jeff McNaught: A motion to not accept a selection of an open space discount made by Councillor Grigoraitis, seconded by President Sinella. Seeing no discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

▶ 1:03:17 Speaker 2: Chair McNaught? Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes.

▶ 1:03:32 Speaker 6: Councillor Grigoraitis? Yes.

▶ 1:03:34 Speaker 2: Councillor Migliorelli? Yes.

▶ 1:03:38 Speaker 2: Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes. And President Sinella? Yes.

▶ 1:03:48 Jeff McNaught: Nine yes here too. Motion passes. The third motion of the same kind is a motion to not accept a granting of a residential exemption.

▶ 1:04:02 Jeff McNaught: I'll entertain a motion to not accept a granting of a residential exemption.

▶ 1:04:07 Jen Grigoraitis: Motion to not accept the granting of a residential exemption.

▶ 1:04:12 Jeff McNaught: We have a motion to not accept the granting of a residential exemption made by Councilor Grigoraitis, seconded by President Cinella. Seeing no discussion, I will just note that the administration did not make a recommendation to do so, but seeing no further discussion, Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

▶ 1:04:35 Speaker 2: Chair McMott? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes, Councillor McMaster. Yes, Councillor Garipay. Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis. Yes. Councillor Migliorelli. Yes. Councillor Stewart. Yes. Councillor Thomas. Yes. And President Sinella.

▶ 1:05:01 Jeff McNaught: Yes. 9 yes. Okay, the motion passes and that brings us to The 1 item that we do have to vote on, which is the shift, which we will not call it to shift when, when we do make the vote or suggest the number, because we know that we can't do that. By law, we need to, we need to refer to it as the, um. What is it? The, the, the minimum residential factor and we need to need to use that tricky number with the, uh, 0. Bunch of numbers that we haven't seen since middle school. So, um, Mr. chairman. Yes, sir.

▶ 1:05:40 John N. Tramontozzi: Are we not taking a vote for recommendation? I mean, we still have to hold a public hearing. Do we not so a public hearing is is to be scheduled on December 6th. At which time then at the full board meeting at the full board, we vote on the acceptance of the shift. Likewise, we're floating at the full board, the acceptance of the 3 recommendations that we adopted here at the committee. So, again, I think we can make a recommendation to adopt the shift, but the final vote has to occur.

▶ 1:06:19 Jeff McNaught: After the public hearing, that's absolutely correct. That's what we're doing.

▶ 1:06:25 John N. Tramontozzi: Just just want to make sure that the public understands that the final vote ultimately is going to be after the public hearing because the vote that we took in the 3 was really not a vote for passage, but a vote to. Recommend that we not adopt those 3 items.

▶ 1:06:44 Speaker 1: That's correct. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you.

▶ 1:06:47 Jeff McNaught: Does anybody want to kick off the discussion on on what they think might be a good. Minimum residential factor council Grigoraitis.

▶ 1:06:58 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you. I won't make a motion so that others have to weigh in, but based on the chart, I was going to suggest a shift of 1.66, which is the minimum residential factor of 0.9660, which I think is where we landed last year. Just in terms of a percentage increase, it seems to be the one number that gives us the most parity between the two different classifications, it would raise residential 3.33 percent and commercial 3.17. That to me seems to be the sweet spot in the middle. I would offer that as a suggestion. Thank you.

▶ 1:07:41 Jeff McNaught: Thank you, Councilor Grigoraitis. Councilor Stewart.

▶ 1:07:46 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Chair. To Councilor Grigoraitis point, I think it's appropriate to find a parity between the two. But when I look closely at the chart and I look at 1.65, I see that the increase in dollar amounts stays the same for residential, yet the amount drops almost $100 for commercial interests. And I would prefer to favor that as I think that would be a benefit to our local businesses by lowering the tax rate by $100. So, if I'm reading this correctly, the increase remains the same for residential, but it does have a significant impact. So, I think I would prefer to lean toward the 1.65 as opposed to the 1.66. And please, if anybody sees it differently than I am, please speak up because I'm hoping for feedback. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

▶ 1:08:47 Jeff McNaught: And if I can mention to Councilor Stewart’s point, if you were to go with the rate I believe you're referring to, Councilor Stewart, is 1.65. Is that correct?

▶ 1:09:01 Speaker 1: That is correct, Mr. Chair.

▶ 1:09:02 Jeff McNaught: So that would essentially raise single-family homes by $60 a year for this year, and it would keep commercial properties almost to the exact dollar that they were at last year.

▶ 1:09:24 Jeff McNaught: So, and if we want to do a little bit more history, 2019, which was right after the override, there were very, very large spikes. And last year resulted in a $500 savings. I don't want to call it savings, but call it reduction from the year before with the override. There's a $500 reduction for single family and $700 for businesses because of these significant increases, which were in 2019 would have been $723 per single family household and $1,616 for businesses. So, um, we certainly, um, and I don't think we are don't want to be a prohibitive prohibitive environment for businesses. Um, so I think both Council Grigoraitis and Councilor Stewart, um. We're angling towards saying, saying that in in the rates that they were going for, but, uh, any further discussion suggestions.

▶ 1:10:29 Jeff McNaught: I might suggest also taking a look at, um. And this is if, you know, this again, this is all just for discussion, but a 1.64 would raise our, uh, single family an additional 7 dollars while bringing a commercial from 389 down to 294. So, again, um, that would raise us 67 dollars and it would save them about 100 dollars from last year. us being single family homes and businesses commercial being dropped quite a bit. So I think all three are fair. Just open a discussion or a motion if anyone feels strongly

▶ 1:11:24 Jen Grigoraitis: about any one number. Councilor Grigoraitis. Thank you, Chairman. I very much appreciate both of your and Councilor Stewart’s insights. I don't understand how mathematically 1.65 can not change the residential but change the commercial but i'll go with it because that's not my area of expertise um so i'm fine with any of those rates the only thing i did want to point out is that the commercial property tax is not necessarily being borne by our businesses it's being i mean it may be being passed down to them and for those that rent i just want to clarify that that's not a direct um correlation to our businesses just like for those that rent um their homes they may or may not see that increase in their rent i'm sure they likely do i just i feel like we were making a correlation that may or may not exist so i just wanted to make that point but i would be completely comfortable with any of those rates that were suggested so i will stay out of me i feel like i've motioned a lot tonight so i will stay

▶ 1:12:24 Leila Migliorelli: out of it that was very helpful councilman really um could i ask another question of uh miss mcclellan and kind of explain that how the 165 and 166 is no difference for residential but there is a significant difference on the commercial side so it really stems from the

▶ 1:12:37 Speaker 3: fact that there's so much more value on the residential side like that we have 95 of the value just so that it just rolls up into the numbers don't make that much of a change when you shift when you go from one to another because these if you see these residential factors if you look at that number it's just changing a tiny tiny bit so it doesn't like it doesn't even change a cent for the rate you know what i mean because the value that you're applying it to um is so much and so great versus the commercial which is even though you know they have larger values they um it's still just a much much smaller percentage relatively thank you um for that reason

▶ 1:13:31 Leila Migliorelli: i mean just to put my own i'm not necessarily making motion yet but one six five seems like a good option that would maybe you know address some of that if those if the commercial tax rates are you know passed along to those who are the business owners who are operating in those rented spaces um that would be ideal and it would make no difference to the personal um tax rate so

▶ 1:14:08 Jeff McNaught: that's just my observation would you like to make a motion for that councilman really i see council

▶ 1:14:21 John N. Tramontozzi: chairman does he has a question yeah i don't have a question i and i like those uh that those three areas but uh i will make a motion then at this time to to recommend the shift of 1.65 second

▶ 1:14:35 Jeff McNaught: so um can we just correct the language to um a motion to adopt the minimum residential factor and then that long number on the left that i was talking about um so it's a motion uh you said 1.65 correct so it would be a motion to adopt a minimum residential factor of uh 0.9660 right what you

▶ 1:15:05 Jeff McNaught: said good all right one moment we have uh we have counter stimulation point of clarification i think

▶ 1:15:10 Robb Stewart: I think 1.65 is 0.9666, not 9666.

▶ 1:15:18 Speaker 5: Correct. Did I read that right?

▶ 1:15:22 Speaker 1: It's 0.9666.

▶ 1:15:25 Jeff McNaught: So, for clarification, Council Tramontozzi is making a motion to adopt the minimum residential factor of 0.9666. Do we have a second for his motion?

▶ 1:15:43 Speaker 7: Second.

▶ 1:15:45 Speaker 5: On discussion, seeing none.

▶ 1:15:48 Jeff McNaught: Mr. Clark, will you please call the roll? Chair McNaught?

▶ 1:15:56 Speaker 2: Yes. Councillor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councillor McMaster? Yes. Councillor Garipay? Yes. Councillor Grigoraitis?

▶ 1:16:07 Speaker 2: Yes. Councillor Migliorelli? Yes. Councillor Stewart? Yes. Councillor Thomas? Yes. and President Cinella yes we have nine yes okay the motion passes and as Councilor

▶ 1:16:20 Jeff McNaught: Tramontozzi said that will be recommended to the full council for passage at the next meeting and after the public hearing on December 6th which is at eight o'clock so Mr. McClellan did I miss anything I think that's it awesome great job everybody thank you for