ORDER-2016-45 : Request to set a Public Hearing on Classification of Property for November 23, 2015 at 7:30 P.M. and subsequently determine the Classification of Property

Transcript (~13 min @ 2:00)

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

▶ 1:59 Speaker 2: our real estate taxes, whether we wish to adopt any exemptions, and whether we wish to adopt a shift factor between residential and commercial property.

▶ 2:14 Speaker 2: I do see that we have Mr. Wilcock in the audience.

▶ 2:17 Speaker 3: Motion is to suspend the rules to bring forward Mr. Wilcox, please.

▶ 2:20 Speaker 1: Second. There's a motion to suspend the rules so that we may hear from the assessor made by Alderman McAteer-Margolis, seconded by Alderman Byrd. On the motion, all those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? Motion passes. Could you come forward please, sir?

▶ 2:39 Speaker 2: The order is before you. What is your pleasure?

▶ 2:43 Peter D. Mortimer: Mr. President, I make a motion that we adopt a shift factor of 1.480 and have no exemptions. Second. And we adopt a shift factor, excuse me, let's express that more clearly. That we, one, adopt a shift factor. Two, that that shift factor be 1.480 and that we do not have the other three exemptions.

▶ 3:07 Speaker 1: Okay, Alderman Mortimer makes a motion relative to the adoption of a shift factor and relative to exemptions. The motion is seconded by Alderman Byrd. Do we have discussion relative to the motion?

▶ 3:31 Francis X. Wright Jr.: right um i had posed some questions and i was unaware we had a response to them to them until

▶ 3:40 Francis X. Wright Jr.: i got here this evening so um put us out a little bit at least put me at a little bit of a disadvantage and knowing what the responses were i'm trying to work my way through them now but but if I could just ask a question with regards to the residential exemption

▶ 4:01 Francis X. Wright Jr.: where we to adopt one am i right looks like on page I'm not sure what page it is 3.1 B that's a page number page 35 I guess that there are four different

▶ 4:20 Francis X. Wright Jr.: calculations here five percent ten percent fifteen percent and twenty

▶ 4:27 Francis X. Wright Jr.: percent and they would apply to the assessed values let's say we just go with the zero dollar difference depending on which shift you look at the

▶ 4:42 Francis X. Wright Jr.: highlighted number would be the number you would use to determine whether or not your property is eligible for a residential exemption is that how I'm

▶ 4:54 Speaker 6: reading this if you're referring to the page that has the five and ten fifteen and twenty percent yes broken out by assessed valuation yes the the

▶ 5:06 Speaker 7: highlighted amount is the break-even point after that amount there'll be an increase in taxation for all those properties anything under that amount see a reduction in uh taxes based on the residential exemption okay and do you know what

▶ 5:21 Francis X. Wright Jr.: percentage of let's use the first figure five percent what percentage of our properties are valued at 499 000 um or more 29 would be over is is the number that would see it wasn't that

▶ 5:42 Speaker 6: the percentage we had last week for 494 the uh the actual amounts um one is four night

▶ 5:49 Speaker 7: the the difference between four or five thousand dollars in assessed value we might have a handful maybe five or ten would be the difference between all of these numbers all these break even points

▶ 5:57 Francis X. Wright Jr.: okay and what percentage of that 29 is oh i see it okay so that's the next page yes i'm sorry

▶ 6:06 Speaker 7: the next page would have the breakout of all the parcels and and what would see the increase by

▶ 6:21 Francis X. Wright Jr.: uh land use code okay so it's primarily either single or two family properties of several you

▶ 6:32 Speaker 6: know some condo units and a very small percentage of mixed use that that's correct 73 uh 71 would

▶ 6:37 Francis X. Wright Jr.: be single family valuations okay and then another 10 percent is two fam two two family that's

▶ 6:52 Speaker 1: correct thank you thank you thank you all right further questions for mr wilcox or discussion

▶ 6:56 Monica C. Medeiros: relative to the motion alderman medeiros thank you um mr wilcox when we're at a special meeting

▶ 7:03 Monica C. Medeiros: tonight to set the tax rate when is the last day that we must do this um i don't think that there's

▶ 7:08 Speaker 7: is a date we would like to get the tax billing out for a time for a timeline the sooner the better the treasure collector is very worried about not setting a tax rate it would delay us sending out tax bills as soon as possible I would like to say but if you require an additional meeting I guess

▶ 7:30 Monica C. Medeiros: that's that's up I don't particularly want to have an additional meeting I'm just a little bit disappointed that you know there were several questions asked relative to this question of residential exemption at our meeting last week and my understanding that that information was going to be forthcoming probably the next morning but you know I didn't see this until about five minutes before I came here myself and you know it's just this is the you know getting information

▶ 8:02 Speaker 5: at the last minute like this is is not a good way for us to be able to digest the

▶ 8:04 Monica C. Medeiros: information have meaningful questions and be able to make meaningful decisions especially on something as important as setting the tax rate and certainly the public can't weigh in and have any input when we're not getting things until you know sometime after nine o'clock this morning was the last time that I had

▶ 8:27 Monica C. Medeiros: looked for this so was this presented to us in some way other than before today

▶ 8:32 Speaker 7: the document was attached to minute track on Tuesday or Wednesday Tuesday or

▶ 8:35 Monica C. Medeiros: Wednesday yes but it was not there this morning it was it was there as of

▶ 8:42 Speaker 7: Tuesday or Wednesday and with the holiday we weren't in on Thursday and Friday but I did put it in before I left and it was attached to this this meeting and right under it said updated if you have other avenues if you would like me

▶ 8:57 Monica C. Medeiros: to send I I'm just you know quite surprised because I logged in this morning at 9 a.m. and it wasn't there and I happen to speak to Alderman Forbes who can't be here for this evening and he didn't have it this morning and I hear that Alderman Wright is saying he didn't know it was here and it's just

▶ 9:17 Gail Infurna: because I printed out early this morning I don't know I didn't see it there

▶ 9:24 Monica C. Medeiros: thinking this is why I've tried to make some orders to have this sharing information be more public thank you any further discussion

▶ 9:34 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Alderman McAteer-Margolis thank you thank you mr. Wilcox for laying this out for us if we were to adopt any of those shifts would it with the with the

▶ 9:49 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: overall tax shift option chart change with the numbers change on that where we've been talking about 1.4 80 the motion that we have on the floor right

▶ 10:07 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: now at 1.4 80 the residential rate is 1233 and the commercial is 1878 so if we were to in scrolling down to the the shifts the residential exemption that

▶ 10:20 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: calculation if we were to go with let's say like 10% the that the the rate

▶ 10:32 Speaker 6: changes to 1358 that's correct all the shifts that were presented through the

▶ 10:38 Speaker 7: last meeting were based on $12 and 33 cents per thousand for residential properties this adjustment would be to that rate so and what does that do to

▶ 10:50 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: to the does it change the commercial rate as well then the shift would only be

▶ 10:53 Speaker 7: in the residential taxes so it would be anything from residential land all the way to large apartment buildings but commercial and industrial properties would not be affected by any of the residential shift so if we were so in

▶ 11:09 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: going back to the the original chart that we have with the four fourteen one 1.480, if we adopted like the 10%, that would be 13, whatever, but the commercial would still stay 1878. That's correct. Okay. And the advantage of supporting a residential exemption would be that the lower valued properties would have less of an increase in their taxes.

▶ 11:48 Speaker 7: I am not going to say an advantage, but I will say shifting the residential burden would shift the tax burden from the lower-valued properties to the upper-valued properties, and the break-even point would be right at that 494 to see what is a moderate value per house. So anything 494 and above would see a little or an increase in taxes.

▶ 12:16 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: and am I reading this correctly that so those lines that you've highlighted the 494 basically 29% of our residential properties are valued already are already assessed at more than 494 yes they would the the breakdown is of that

▶ 12:32 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: 29% so in other words almost 30% would see an increase and the other 70% would

▶ 12:39 Speaker 6: see a decrease? A slight decrease depending on where the property, it depends on what percentage

▶ 12:49 Speaker 7: you pick first and then you would see the decrease based on $100,000 in value. So that's the chart

▶ 12:57 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: that's on that page. But we're still going to be raising the same amount of revenue and we're still not going to be, we're still within the parameters of proposition two and a half in terms of the overall revenue that the city is allowed to raise that's correct the tax levy would not

▶ 13:10 Speaker 7: change and the residential total amount would not change okay i think that clears that up for me

▶ 13:22 Speaker 1: thank you very much thank you anyone else okay there's a motion that's before the board to uh

▶ 13:29 Speaker 1: adopt a shift factor of 1.48, I believe, and to not adopt any of the exemptions. On the motion, all those in favor of the motion indicate by saying aye. Aye. Anyone opposed?

▶ 13:45 Speaker 2: Motion passes.

▶ 13:47 Speaker 1: I would remind the board that we also have to determine whether we want to adopt commercial and residential rates, which is what classification means, whether we want to have a classification for commercial properties

▶ 13:56 Speaker 2: and a classification for residential, which we have done for quite some time.

▶ 14:02 Speaker 8: So moved, Mr. President.

▶ 14:06 Speaker 2: Alderman Mortimer moves that we establish a residential and a commercial tax rate.

▶ 14:08 Speaker 1: The motion is seconded by Alderman Byrd. Is there discussion relative to the motion to classify?

▶ 14:20 Speaker 2: all those in favor of amending the order to adopt classification please indicate

▶ 14:28 Speaker 2: by saying aye anyone opposed motion passes the order is before you is there

▶ 14:32 Speaker 1: further discussion on the order as amended by the two motions as I say

▶ 14:43 Speaker 4: could you call the roll please yes yes yes yes yes yes 10 is a 10 votes is