Orders

Transcript (~45 min @ 2:17)

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

▶ 2:06 Peter D. Mortimer: Made by Alderman Inferno, duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, the public hearing is closed. And the order 2016-45 is before us. I have discussed this as chairman of this committee with the assessor, Mr. Wilcox.

▶ 2:31 Peter D. Mortimer: They thought that a differential of 1.485 would be the most equitable and probably the most beneficial for all concerned, but of course that is up to this committee to recommend to the board for next week. But I'm sure in a few moments you're going to hear much about this from them if we can have a motion to suspend the rules. Moved. Second. Alderman Forbes has made a motion to suspend the rules, duly seconded by Alderman Inferno. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, we are under suspension. Mr. Wilcox, our chief assessor, and Mr. Lee Fallon from the board of assessors are here with us this evening. Gentlemen, please join us.

▶ 3:21 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, sir. Would you like to make an opening statement? I would.

▶ 3:26 Speaker 1: Please do. So the classification hearing, we have four items that we have to get to. One is a selection of a minimum residential factor to shift the tax burden from residential to commercial. The second item would be to select an open space discount. The third item would be to grant or not grant a residential exemption. And then the fourth item would be to grant or not grant a small commercial exemption. the minimum residential factor is decided by the board of alderman a factor of one would mean no shift in the tax rates for this year that rate is twelve dollars and sixty nine cents that would be one rate for commercial and industrial and personal personal property all taxed at the same rate by selecting another rate you would shift the tax burden from the residential properties to the commercial properties the total value for this year for taxable property in the city of Melrose is four billion two hundred and nine million one hundred and sixty nine thousand eight hundred and thirty dollars it's by far the highest value we've ever had in the city this value is based off of sales and activity that happened in calendar year 2014 in 2014

▶ 4:48 Speaker 1: in single-family homes we roughly had 232 sales the average day on the market was about 42 days and the average value from the sales was four hundred and ninety six thousand two hundred and forty four dollars up from 438 the

▶ 5:13 Speaker 1: previous year if you look on the sheets the tax shift options this year the max allowable shift by law is 1.5 we would have to wait until we got to 1.5 to go anything further by law we can go up to 200 but we have to get to 1.5 for one year to go any further at a shift of one point four eight five the tax rate for residential would be twelve dollars and 33 cents per thousand that would mean an increase in single-family tax bill for 197 or three and a half percent the average value for 2016 is four sixty five nine eighty eight again that's the highest that we've ever had for average single-family values the average commercial value for this year is 668 451 and based on that shift the tax rate would be $18.85 or an increase of 2.9% or $359.

▶ 6:23 Speaker 1: The next item that I want to touch on is the residential exemption. Last year I was asked to provide what we would estimate the percentage of owner occupied dwellings in Melrose is. After some calculations we've estimated at 92% owner occupied. When you look at the residential exemption, this would mean that the $12.33 tax rate would actually go to $15.12, and the break-even point on assessments would be $4.94 even. So anyone with a higher value of $4.94 would see an increase by going to a residential exemption. That's roughly 29% of the residential properties. so that that's one of the numbers that we we were asked to present from last year so there's a whole slide with that and I can take questions after as far as the open space discount that's a third item we can shift a maximum of 25% or have a 25% exemption currently we do not have any property classified as open space in the city of Melrose so our recommendation would be not to opt for for that small commercial exemptions an exemption up to 10% of the property valuation the building can't exceed a million dollars and all the businesses have to qualify in that in that that dwelling we are not aware of any businesses that qualify and meet these standards in the city of Melrose and we would recommend that you not adopt that one and I'll open it up for any

▶ 8:06 Peter D. Mortimer: questions thank you very much mr. Wilcox Alderman Tramontozzi please yes thank you

▶ 8:09 John N. Tramontozzi: go if you take a look at the tax shift options yes now you have one point four zero and I'm comparing that with the one point four eight five if you look at it across the the table the rates for the residential tax estimates are the same yes what's the difference in the commercial and how is that calculated so if if the residential rates the same why is not the commercial different why is

▶ 8:48 Speaker 1: the commercial different on those two with the with a commercial section of our property is getting smaller and smaller the impact to the residentials is almost nothing it can't shift a cent within just the commercial on those shifts and absolutely have no impact on residential it's because we have four or five percent commercial industrial and personal property it's because of the the tax base is so small so the difference the difference between the

▶ 9:10 John N. Tramontozzi: one point four eight five and one point four eight zero is an increase to the commercial businesses of about forty six dollars that's correct so and your recommendation is 1.485 what why would you not recommend 1.480 given the

▶ 9:34 Speaker 1: businesses a tax break I'm not gonna make any recommendations I tried to you know find out what I picked something that was in the middle it's up to you guys to vote on on it I just tried to look historically where you went but so

▶ 9:50 John N. Tramontozzi: it's all up for discussion you can pick anything so if I go with the 1.480 which which would give the business community a break of the difference between the 1.485 and the 1.480 being about $46. That will not change the residential, it'll still be the same. That's correct. Residential gets no benefit with that, nor does it get hurt by that. That's correct.

▶ 10:20 Speaker 2: All right, thank you, that's all I have.

▶ 10:22 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much. Alderman Chairman Tozzi, Alderman Wright, please.

▶ 10:25 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. the residential exemption what would be the savings for the 71% of the

▶ 10:44 Speaker 1: properties that that would fall under the residential the the exemption is roughly 91,000 off of their assessed value that's a median oh that's the average assessed value for the residential class so what you would do is if you had a property at you know 391 000 that 91 000 would come off and they'd only pay taxes on

▶ 11:05 Francis X. Wright Jr.: the 300 000. okay so what would that what would the average tax savings be um i i don't have the

▶ 11:12 Francis X. Wright Jr.: exact number okay but you could get that okay and 29 of the residential properties in the city would not qualify for that but that includes apartment buildings what percent can you find out what give us what a percentage of that would be multi-unit buildings okay yep um four four units plus or

▶ 11:32 Francis X. Wright Jr.: three families uh i would say three plus three units plus and and just to make a point of

▶ 11:38 Speaker 1: clarification uh single families would be impacted anything above that 494 would have their taxes on

▶ 11:46 Francis X. Wright Jr.: this thing okay i understand thank you i appreciate that um okay and in order for us to apply a residential exemption this board would need to vote on it that is correct okay and maybe this is a question better asked for the city solicitor that's a majority vote or a supermajority I actually do not know that but I can find

▶ 12:06 Francis X. Wright Jr.: that out for you okay so you'll get us the savings with that would be realized by 71% of the homes homeowners in the city the owner occupied homeowners in in the city were we to apply a residential exemption

▶ 12:30 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you mr jim thank you alderman wright for the first time we have alderman medeiros and

▶ 12:37 Monica C. Medeiros: in queue we have alderman Tramontozzi thank you um mr wilcox could you explain how you determined which homes are owner occupied and which homes aren't there's uh three things that i did i

▶ 12:46 Speaker 1: actually compared the voter database i use the assessing database to compare addresses where the tax bills are going i looked at mls for listings those are probably the three only things i can do besides knocking on doors or sending out letters we have reduced budgets so i know mass mailing was not in my budget for this year but i use those three items to to estimate

▶ 13:11 Monica C. Medeiros: the 92 is there a program that you're using to kind of consolidate all of this or is this

▶ 13:22 Monica C. Medeiros: Excel and just to kind of go back to you know I guess the different tax rates so at 1.4 debt tax shift factors at 1.485 the average residential single-family

▶ 13:46 Monica C. Medeiros: increase would be 3.5 percent and the corresponding increase to commercial would be 2.9 okay and a question that we get a lot of the time and maybe you can just kind of explain it for people at home if we can't and you know we hit heard a lot about it this year if if proposition two and a half limits our tax levy increase to two and a half percent each year yes if you could explain to the public how you know say their their tax bill might increase three point five percent even though we're not allowed to collect more than two point

▶ 14:23 Speaker 1: five percent yeah the three and a half is the actual tax bill itself as far as the two and a half that were limited that's based on the levy calculation so new growth is factored into it you also have any any changes from the previous year any debt exclusions um so we're limited for this year um i actually have a slide on here of all the different levies went from roughly 51 million to 53 million but that is a number besides overrides and debt exclusions that we can't go past so that number is capped at two and a half but when you actually look at the tax bills it could be higher than that for the class and and

▶ 14:57 Monica C. Medeiros: we may see a lower tax rate even though the tax bill will go up because the assessed values of the total property in the city have increased that's correct we back into the tax rates when

▶ 15:08 Speaker 1: you have a higher assessed value you usually usually have lower tax rates thank you thank

▶ 15:14 Peter D. Mortimer: you alderman Medeiros i'm seeing no one else for the first time alderman Tramontozzi please

▶ 15:21 John N. Tramontozzi: yeah getting back to the uh the residential exemption yes um has the city of meroz ever adopted a residential exemption not not that i'm aware of uh so um essentially i mean 90 He says that 92% of the residents' dwellings in Melrose are owner-occupied. That's correct. So essentially what the residential exemption would do is increase the tax basis for those that are not owner-occupied.

▶ 15:53 Speaker 1: It would increase both, actually. Anything over $494,000 would have an increase in their valuation. The impact of the residential exemption would not take away the increase for anything 494 and above.

▶ 16:08 John N. Tramontozzi: Are we calculating residential exemptions, if we go that way, on values of property of 494 and less?

▶ 16:14 Speaker 1: Yes. I can provide a graph showing a couple different assessed values and what the impact would be. I could have that ready. That's not a problem. It is popular in Boston and Watertown, Cambridge, because the percentage of owner-occupied is a lot lower. I don't know exactly what they are, but I'm sure 70% are lower.

▶ 16:34 John N. Tramontozzi: How do you come up with the 494, 494,000 as the foundation for that exemption?

▶ 16:42 Speaker 1: So 494, you would take the impact, the 20% exemption is 91,000.

▶ 17:01 Speaker 1: So at the adjustment of the tax rate, the tax rate would go from $12.33 to $15.12. At $4.94, anything at $15.12 would start to increase. I can present a graph that would show that and make it a little clearer.

▶ 17:17 John N. Tramontozzi: so you see are you suggesting that a value of a home say six hundred thousand um could potentially have a a tax rate greater than fifteen twelve no they would have an increase they would have

▶ 17:26 Speaker 1: a rate at fifteen twelve but it would be an increase uh the taking in ninety one thousand dollars off of it really would not impact it it's not enough to to not see an increase so

▶ 17:42 John N. Tramontozzi: there's a break-even point and that 494 is that's that break-even point yes right well it just seems um it doesn't doesn't make sense for us to have a tax uh residential exemption in that case yeah

▶ 17:51 Speaker 1: and i will prepare a slide that will have all the the numbers in it but all right thank you thank

▶ 17:56 Peter D. Mortimer: you alderman trey matosi uh seeing again seeing no one else for the uh first time alderman wright

▶ 18:03 Francis X. Wright Jr.: please okay are you expressing an opinion on residential exemption because that's what i'm hearing i'm not expressing it okay but you have an opinion on why boston and watertown and cambridge

▶ 18:13 Speaker 1: past this the um the make the parcel makeup in those communities is less owner occupied

▶ 18:18 Francis X. Wright Jr.: but you said that's why they passed it you don't know why they voted on it

▶ 18:24 Francis X. Wright Jr.: yes okay and malden has it malden does some of them has it i i don't know any other communities

▶ 18:32 Speaker 1: you know have it i don't i think there's roughly 13 communities i can have a list for you okay

▶ 18:40 Francis X. Wright Jr.: and of so if there's 29 wouldn't qualify for it eight percent of those are non-owner occupied isn't that correct say that again i'm sorry you're saying 29 of residential property owners would see an increase in taxes and only 92 are owner occupied so that's eight percent of that 29

▶ 19:03 Speaker 1: are non-owner occupied am i reading that correctly the 29 is is anything over the 494 plus the own non-owner occupied so it's a combination of both of those numbers okay

▶ 19:10 Francis X. Wright Jr.: that's what i'm asking okay so maybe i'm not asking clearly enough the 29 includes non-owner occupied that is correct okay so a non-owner occupied worth 300 000 is still falling within

▶ 19:21 Speaker 1: that exactly for for for an example a three hundred thousand dollar house would see a benefit um a five hundred and thirty thousand dollar house would see an inc a slight increase in about three

▶ 19:30 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Every $100,000 house that's rented out would not qualify.

▶ 19:33 Speaker 1: Would not qualify. That's correct. Okay. And I'll provide a graph and that's my apologies for not having it.

▶ 19:41 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 19:43 Speaker 3: Thank you, Alderman Wright.

▶ 19:46 Peter D. Mortimer: Seeing no one further, wishing to be heard. Oh.

▶ 19:49 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Sorry, and maybe you went over this before, but I'm still grappling with the exemption. did you determine what the rates would be with the discount how did you go

▶ 20:06 Speaker 1: from the 1233 to 1512 I have a I can provide my it's a long formula but let me let me just walk through basically you take all of the residential parcels so anything from residential land all the way to multifamily you know Oak Street are large developments you find out what the average value for that for this year was 455 623 the max that you can ship the max that you can have for residential exemption is 20% 20% of that number is $91,000 the eligible parcels are we went through the three databases we found out roughly that 92% would qualify that's 8,000 parcels we applied the we multiplied the 8,000 times in 91 we kind of came up roughly with 733 million dollars that had to be shifted to the other taxpayers once you take that amount you can back into what the new tax rate is it went from $12.33 to $15.12 after the shift so I can provide this also but that's how we back into the 20% so it's a matter of

▶ 21:14 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: calculating the amount that you need to raise versus how many properties would qualify for the reduced rate yes and we're estimating with what we have

▶ 21:24 Speaker 1: available with MLS with the voter registration with the assessing database

▶ 21:39 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: and what that 92% is and and basically in in non assessor terms the advantage of this is is to have a less of an increase on the lower valued homes and as well as giving the higher valued homes a decrease in the evaluation so it sort of helps both ends is that what I'm hearing it would actually shift the tax

▶ 22:03 Speaker 1: burden to the higher end properties to the higher and probably think over 494

▶ 22:10 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: would see an increase right but what's what was the 91,000 that comes off the

▶ 22:14 Speaker 1: 91,000 at some point with a difference in tax rates it does not have an effect the break-even point I see when I give you supply a graph it's it's gonna make sense and and every year I have to go through this exercise and and retrain myself with new numbers so I will present that graph for you but that's the break-even point okay so at some point you know there'll be no effect from the residential exemption on property and if you start to actually

▶ 22:43 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: pay more to in taxes and we've never done this before in your I mean in your not to your knowledge we've never done this in Melrose before I I would

▶ 22:53 Speaker 4: actually defer to mr. Phelan it's never been never been voted on okay do you

▶ 23:05 Speaker 4: know if it's ever been proposed before proposed to the board yeah I think every year we offer assessor has laid out exactly what Chris has but it's my understanding it's never been okay voted approved thank you thank you welcome

▶ 23:21 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman McAteer-Margolis for the second time now we have Alderman Medeiros and then we'll have Alderman Tramontozzi and Alderman Wright

▶ 23:32 Monica C. Medeiros: unless someone else wants to jump i just wanted to ask a little bit about tax exempt properties and i don't think i saw any kind of itemization in in this presentation but we do have a number of properties that are tax exempt that's correct um do we have any kind of count as to you know how many more we have saved from one year to the next like have we had any

▶ 24:01 Speaker 1: increases I'd say maybe one or two as far as changing use from either a single family or multi to a tax-exempt one or two two years about common I will say that we have some coming off the books though so I'd say it's about a net gain within the last two years that I was here but only a handful of usually residential either three families or two families sometimes one family house is converting back over going back and forth so a net pretty much okay and

▶ 24:28 Monica C. Medeiros: about what percentage of our total property is tax-exempt I have to get

▶ 24:36 Speaker 1: their number I don't have the percentage usually I just deal with the for this presentation the taxable but I can have that number for you. And is there anything

▶ 24:46 Monica C. Medeiros: that we don't have any say in whether or not the property goes on or off the tax rolls and whether or not they become tax exempt so if a non-profit for instance purchases a piece of property that was otherwise on the tax rolls we have no

▶ 25:09 Speaker 1: as a city have no involvement in that anytime a property goes on or off the tax rolls the Department of Revenue has a process that we follow they would qualify it as a tax-exempt entity we would look at the use of the property just because a business is tax-exempt doesn't mean the property is used for taxes on purposes I can tell you every year we look at the uses of the property and if for some reason they're being used for profit we will switch the codes and that's something we review with building permits sales activities cyclical inspections driving around neighbors we get a lot of information and we do add things that are non taxable to the tax rolls at times thank

▶ 25:51 Peter D. Mortimer: you Thank You Alderman Medeiros seeing no one else Alderman Tramontozzi please seeing that I don't have any further questions I'll

▶ 26:00 John N. Tramontozzi: yield the floor to Alderman Wright thank you very much Alderman Tramontozzi

▶ 26:07 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Alderman Wright please. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly under the statute with regards to residential exemptions and I apologize for coming back to this third time. The maximum allowed is 20% but you can do it any percentage up to 20% is that correct? That is correct. So if you're gonna break this out for us could you do it at 5% intervals? 5, 10, 15, 20? Not a problem. And just so it's

▶ 26:32 Francis X. Wright Jr.: it's clear the rate would change from $1 or from $494,001.

▶ 26:41 Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'm not understanding that.

▶ 26:43 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Well, you say that the break-even point is $494, I just want to make it clear, my understanding is the rate changes from $1, from tax, you'll be a new tax rate, and that counts, you know sometimes you get a shift in the rate you pay after you hit a certain threshold? Yes, that's not the case with this, is that correct?

▶ 27:04 Speaker 1: The tax rate would actually go to 1512.

▶ 27:07 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Yeah, from the first dollar. Yes. The first thousand, I guess.

▶ 27:11 Speaker 1: That is correct.

▶ 27:12 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Okay, great, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 27:14 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, Alderman Wright. So ladies and gentlemen, we have these four questions before us on which we need

▶ 27:25 Peter D. Mortimer: presumably motions with other parliamentary procedures available to us, of course. But the four before us, once again, the selection of a minimal residential factor, selection of an open space discount, yes or no, granting of a residential exemption, yes or no, and granting of a small commercial exemption, yes or no. And the first one is obviously-

▶ 27:48 John N. Tramontozzi: Mr. Chairman, if I may, regarding the tax shift options, I will move that we accept the tax shift of 1.480.

▶ 27:59 Peter D. Mortimer: second all right alderman Tramontozzi has made a motion that we accept a tax shift of 1.480 that motion was duly seconded by alderman lavender bird and on discussion before we proceed uh alderman Tramontozzi by a millisecond got in just a second before you alderman Medeiros so i'll let you have some discussion on this but of course you can

▶ 28:28 Monica C. Medeiros: discuss anything yeah i'm sorry i was going to make a different motion so that's just fine all

▶ 28:34 Peter D. Mortimer: right mr chairman thank you all right so the motions before us and if there's any discussion on the motion on the first item sub item of the evening alderman Boisselle please uh it's nice to

▶ 28:48 Robert A. Boisselle: make the decision of 1.485 but we seem to be asking a lot of information that may

▶ 29:00 Peter D. Mortimer: uh influence this number to a different number the motion was actually 1.480 is that correct alderman Tramontozzi that's correct is that correct madam yes but 480 480 was the motion just just

▶ 29:15 Robert A. Boisselle: for the record is that one discussion well i'm trying to understand you lower you're lowering the number are you lowering it because you want to do this or you're looking are we going to wait for more information concerning the shifts that we're talking about on the residential exemption

▶ 29:33 John N. Tramontozzi: which may shift numbers here no i if i may uh through the uh the chairman um as as i asked the the administration the assessor here the difference between 1.485 and 1.480 there's no effect to the residential rate but with that that small shift however does benefit by a small amount but still benefits the commercial establishments by about 46 dollars but um and so that's why that's why i chose the 1.480 over the 1.485 as an alternative because again it's not affecting it's not it doesn't increase the residential rate it remains the same but there's a slight benefit

▶ 30:22 Speaker 3: to the commercial rate now my question go ahead alderman boys my question is

▶ 30:32 Robert A. Boisselle: if we initiate the tax exemption on properties will that cause a change in numbers that we'll be looking here the um increase residential tax estimate increase

▶ 30:44 Speaker 1: would that change the presentation was based off at 1233 both of those shifts actually have a residential rate of 1233 so there would be no impact okay that's

▶ 30:51 Peter D. Mortimer: what I want to know all right Thank You mr. Karen Thank You alderman Boyce L you you don't you're not in queue right all the women down alderman right please

▶ 31:07 Francis X. Wright Jr.: you're not thank you I guess I'm just not getting this I'm not a numbers guy I uh i see as alderman Tramontozzi has pointed out so clearly um when you move um from 1.480 through 1.490 actually the residential number doesn't change but the commercial number does change

▶ 31:39 Francis X. Wright Jr.: considerably um from 313 to 399. how do we make up that that shortfall or that in loss

▶ 31:43 Speaker 1: so the the increase we have um excess levy capacity so that would be adjusted for whatever the shortfall is uh our commercial base is so small that it's not we're mainly residential so that's where the bulk of our value is coming in so it's a very you know small percentage and and the excess levy capacity is what deals with a change in a penny from here to there but okay

▶ 32:11 Francis X. Wright Jr.: but it's it's the difference between 313 dollars and so it's and 399 dollars so it's roughly $72. Is that right? $82? $82. What lines are you referring to?

▶ 32:30 Francis X. Wright Jr.: I'm looking at from 1.490 to 1.480. The residential number doesn't change. It stays at 233, if I'm correct. 12.33, I'm sorry. But the commercial number does change. But you're telling me me that difference between 313 and 399 is inconsequential it is because the

▶ 32:56 Speaker 1: percentage of the tax base is so small that when you add up that $87 to $87 or now let's just say $80 it's not a lot to sway the the budget what's up what's not

▶ 33:13 Speaker 1: lot a thousand um our access our access lobby capacity i think last year was nine thousand

▶ 33:21 Speaker 5: dollars okay so nine thousand dollars okay okay thank you thank you very much thank you thank you

▶ 33:30 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: alderman wright alderman mccarty and margolis please so i'm not sure if bob if alderman brazel if he asked the question that i was going to ask but let me ask it in my words if we are to consider the residential exemption that is not going to affect the the shift

▶ 33:56 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: correct because the resident the the the exemption is based on $12.33 on the residential regardless of whether or not we do the shift correct the the

▶ 34:08 Speaker 1: residential amount was based off of the $12.33 tax rate which is the the residential rate for three different shifts starting with one four one point four eight one point four eight five and one point four nine exactly right so no

▶ 34:22 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: matter what we do in relation to the exemption we can still establish the

▶ 34:34 Speaker 1: shift tonight if we so choose right okay thank you thank you very much Alvin

▶ 34:42 Monica C. Medeiros: McAteer-Margolis. Alderman Medeiros, please. Thank you. This proposed tax shift would show an increase of $197. This is on the average single-family residential

▶ 34:57 Monica C. Medeiros: home value. Does that include the middle school debt exclusion in that number?

▶ 35:05 Speaker 1: Yeah, all the tax rates are based off the two million dollars that's for the middle school debt exclusion that's over and above the the two and a half percent the new growth and last year's levy those are all the components but so the

▶ 35:18 Monica C. Medeiros: the debt exclusion is being included in the tax levy that's correct so that's

▶ 35:26 Speaker 1: increasing that was a one-time only debt exclusion is every year it's roughly two million dollars so the levy of fifty three million dollars includes a two million dollar debt exclusion thank you Thank You alderman Medeiros seeing no

▶ 35:44 Peter D. Mortimer: further hands signal no one further wishing to opine on this issue a comment we have a motion duly seconded by alderman Tramontozzi ozi and alderman bird

▶ 36:00 Peter D. Mortimer: respectively to recommend a residential shift factor of one point four eight all All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, a residential shift factor of 1.48 will be recommended to the full board at the special meeting that we're having on November 30th, next Monday. Alderman Bird, please. We're ready for the next item, but on a point of personal privilege, please proceed.

▶ 36:30 Jaclyn L. Bird: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a point of clarification, 1.480, just to be clear because-

▶ 36:36 Peter D. Mortimer: 1.48.

▶ 36:37 Jaclyn L. Bird: think you said one point just to add the zero so that there's no confusion yeah it's the same thing same as okay just because the other we've been throwing a

▶ 36:45 Peter D. Mortimer: couple numbers around just the other one was one point four eight five yeah we went up to thousands thousands place on the other one but one point four eight

▶ 36:53 Jaclyn L. Bird: zero after all the back and forth I appreciate like batting averages thank

▶ 36:59 Peter D. Mortimer: you mr. chairman you're welcome of course I'll have been right on a point

▶ 37:02 Francis X. Wright Jr.: thank you mr. chairman I recommend that on the residential exemption we sent it to the full board without recommendation?

▶ 37:09 Speaker 2: Yeah, I second that.

▶ 37:10 Peter D. Mortimer: All right, we're gonna skip ahead, and that's clearly your right to do so, so.

▶ 37:15 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Well, do we wanna vote it out of committee without recommendation?

▶ 37:18 Peter D. Mortimer: We can do that.

▶ 37:20 Francis X. Wright Jr.: We can get the information at the full board meeting next Monday night, rather than make decisions without having everything in front of us.

▶ 37:29 Peter D. Mortimer: Certainly, if you would, because we're not, Apparently, it looks like I saw a lot of nods around the room that seemed to be in agreement. Just so we can walk through this procedurally in the correct manner, would you kindly make a motion to divide the order, which is a privileged order, which is a privileged motion that passes automatically, to divide out the third item?

▶ 37:55 Speaker 4: Peter, that makes it very messy.

▶ 37:58 Speaker 3: Too messy? All right.

▶ 38:01 Peter D. Mortimer: Please forget what I just said.

▶ 38:09 Francis X. Wright Jr.: My order is simply that we, because all we're doing tonight is making a recommendation. The full board needs to vote on the actual passage of this. What my order would be that we vote to send it to the board without recommendation.

▶ 38:24 Speaker 3: The entire order?

▶ 38:30 Francis X. Wright Jr.: That portion related to the residential exemption. We are voting on the four individual items separately, so as to this one of the four, my recommendation is that we recommend, by our vote, that it go to the full board without recommendation.

▶ 38:55 Peter D. Mortimer: All right. So Alderman Wright is making a motion that item three of the items before us tonight, granting a residential exemption, that that portion of tonight's order be sent to the full board without recommendation. That's Alderman Wright motion. Second. Duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. Is there any discussion? Alderman Bird, please.

▶ 39:16 Jaclyn L. Bird: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to make a note. I'm happy to give others on the committee more time if they feel like they need it. So I'll support the motion to send it forward without recommendation, but I don't support granting a residential exemption, so just for the record. But if you need more time to do it, to have more time and to feel like you want to have all the information that you've requested, I'm happy to support Alderman Wright motion.

▶ 39:39 Peter D. Mortimer: Very good. Chairman. Thank you, Alderman Byrd. Seeing anyone else? No? Okay, so on all, excuse me, all right. So on Alderman Wright motion, duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. this portion of the order will be sent to the full board without recommendation we have two of the four items that are parts of this order before us tonight alderman Mac excuse me alderman Medeiros please thank you I'd like to move that

▶ 40:14 Monica C. Medeiros: we do not accept that we not we do not select an open space discount as I don't But from past discussion, I don't think we have enough, and it would be meaningful.

▶ 40:28 Peter D. Mortimer: Second. Second. Very good. Alderman Medeiros has made a motion that we do not select, and we send forward the recommendation to the full board at our special meeting next Monday night, the 30th, that we do not select an open space discount, said motion was duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. On discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? So item two of the four will be ought not to pass that we will not select an open space discount.

▶ 41:01 John N. Tramontozzi: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we not accept small commercial exemption, that's item four.

▶ 41:08 Peter D. Mortimer: Second. So Alderman Tramontozzi for item four has made a motion that it ought not to pass, that we not select a small commercial exemption. Said motion was duly seconded by Alderman Lemmerman. discussion Alderman McAteer my goal is please thank you and we didn't really

▶ 41:26 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: have a chance to talk about this but you are unaware of any current business

▶ 41:37 Speaker 1: that's operating under this criteria that is correct every year we receive a report from the Department of Employment and Training which we look at every year and to our review we can't find any properties that are qualifying so you

▶ 41:49 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: you don't necessarily you don't think it's a case of business is not necessarily being aware of it it's that we just physically don't have properties in this in the city that meet that type of criteria I think our selection sample

▶ 42:03 Speaker 1: is just really small for businesses and most of our properties downtown have multiple units this is more designed for a standalone one business with tenor or

▶ 42:18 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: fewer employees I see and do you get a list of all of the businesses from the DOR so you would know that there are not any that qualify for this we get a list

▶ 42:25 Speaker 1: from the Department of Employment and Training but yes all the businesses registered in the city of Melrose every year and you're able to cross reference

▶ 42:33 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: that with the actual properties and the valuation of those properties it's

▶ 42:38 Speaker 1: pretty much process of elimination when you look at how many units are in the building so if you drive up Main Street and there's more than one unit in the building all of those businesses have to qualify not just one I'm thinking that I

▶ 42:49 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: know there are a few new bill a few buildings now that have gone condo on businesses and those you know are those taken into considerate like Eastman

▶ 42:59 Speaker 1: place or it's yeah I do not believe that they would qualify okay I just wondered

▶ 43:05 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: if we made it available if it were something that we were able to tell our entrepreneurs that was available would it attract more smaller businesses into places that were going into commercial condos or small standalone businesses in

▶ 43:30 Peter D. Mortimer: our outlying areas Thank You Alderman McAteer excuse me yes Thank You Alderman McAteer my bolus Alderman Medeiros please Thank You Mr. Wilcox do you have

▶ 43:34 Monica C. Medeiros: any idea how many vacant commercial spaces we have or what the percentage of

▶ 43:42 Speaker 1: vacancy is vacancy it's it's pretty low in Melrose I want to say it depends on whether you're looking at retail we break it out in multiple classes the one that in my in my head is residential because that's mainly what Melrose is but downtown I mean you can see ten to fifteen percent is probably a high I mean as low it depends on the time of year it could be five percent but anywhere from five to fifteen percent depending on what kind of businesses in

▶ 44:08 Monica C. Medeiros: your professional opinion do we have a vacancy problem I do not considering

▶ 44:13 Speaker 1: surrounding communities I think that we have a very vibrant business downtown business property ownership downtown thank you thank you thank you Alderman

▶ 44:26 Peter D. Mortimer: Medeiros the motion has been made that this portion granting the small commercial exemption ought not to pass duly seconded seeing no further the discussion on this portion of the order all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none uh item four granting of the small commercial exempt i'm sorry i'm sorry i didn't hear you uh there was one opposed uh alderman macarty margolis uh you're welcome thank you uh so uh we have the uh four orders the four portions of this order uh before us us, just as a quick review, the selection of the minimal residential factor passed at 1.480. And the selection of the open space discount was sent forward without recommendation pending further information. The granting of the residential exemption failed.

▶ 45:21 Speaker 2: No. No, the other way around.

▶ 45:24 Peter D. Mortimer: Other way around. Thank you, yes. The selection of the open space discount failed. The granting of the residential exemption will be sent forward without exemption. And the granting of the small commercial exemption failed. That is what we have, so we can, at this point, send the entire order forward, I would say, without recommendation, since there are parts of it that are open and making an A order is a little too messy, especially considering that a special meeting is involved. So probably the proper motion at this point would be to send the order forward without recommendation, if I may so suggest. Alderman Byrd has made a motion to send this forward without recommendation. Second. Do we second it already by Alderman McAteer-Margolis, this time I did hear you. So that is what we have on this. Mr. Wilcox, I've spoken with him about this order. he's easy to reach he's here in City Hall if anybody has any questions between now and next Monday please reach out to him and we can get a good understanding of this for our special meeting next Monday night and we can take care of this okay so we will move on now to the next order oh yes I'm sorry thank you very much all in favor of the motion to recommend this order to full board without recommendation uh i say aye aye any opposed hearing none this order will be sent to the full board without recommendation