ORDER-2023-39 : Request to set a Public Hearing on Classification of Property for December 5, 2022 at 8:00 PM to determine the 2023 Classification of Property.

Transcript (~46 min @ 25:56)

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

▶ 25:57 Christopher Cinella: All right. We are back from recess we have. eight o'clock public hearing

▶ 26:07 Speaker 1: order 2023-39 request to set a public hearing on classification of property for December 5th at 8pm to determine the 2023 classification

▶ 26:18 Christopher Cinella: of property. All right, if there's no objection, I would like to open up public hearing at this time. Seeing no objection. Our public hearing is open and if there is no objection, I'll open up public comment on the public hearing that we're having. Seeing no objection or public comment section is now open. Is there anybody with us this evening wishing to speak on? in public hearing

▶ 26:42 Speaker 6: None, do we have anybody online?

▶ 26:45 Speaker 1: No one online.

▶ 26:46 Christopher Cinella: Okay, without objection will close public comment. and we have Sarah following the floor is all yours.

▶ 27:28 Speaker 7: Okay, good evening. Good evening

▶ 27:30 Speaker 8: everyone. I'm the chief assessor and chair of the board of assessors and I'm joined tonight by my fellow board members Lee Phelan and Kathy gleno. So it's that time of year for the property tax classification hearing for fiscal year 2023. Before we start the presentation. I want to give a brief update on the operations in the assessor's office. So we've had several changes in our real estate tax exemptions this year the city council voted to add an exemption for active duty members of the National Guard. And also updated local options to increase in the income and asset limits for our senior exemptions. The senior means tested property tax relief legislation also known as the senior circuit breaker exemption was passed at the state level over the summer. We've worked with the mayor's office in the Council on Aging to roll out this program to our eligible older adults. I'll talk more about this new senior tax relief program for Melrose and how it affects our tax rate later in the presentation. I want to recognize the staff and the assessing office who have done an excellent job this year providing great service to our residents and taxpayers our head clerk Tina and our assistant assessor Tristan who recently received his designation as a Massachusetts accredited assessor. So the Melrose assessing department now has two fully qualified assessors certified by the state. I also want to thank our GIS manager Jane and our volunteer Bob for their work in our department. And with that I'll start the classification presentation. So this presentation is posted with the agenda packet this evening, and it's also accessible in the city of Melrose website the Assessors page under the heading 2023 property tax classification here.

▶ 29:11 Speaker 8: So each year the assessors must determine the usage classification in the full and fair cash value of all real and personal property in the city as of January 1st. The market values for the fiscal year 2020 feet three are determined by the arms link sales from calendar year 2021 other value adjustments are made to properties that have undergone physical changes through June 30th. Once assessed values and classification have been finalized by assessors. They are submitted to the Department of Revenue for review and certification after the assessors received the certification of values from the commissioner of Revenue the city council holds the this classification hearing and subsequent vote.

▶ 29:53 Speaker 8: to the purpose of this hearing is and vote is to allocate the tax levy among the classes of property. The classes are residential open space commercial industrial and personal property for the purpose of allocating the tax levy percentages residential and open space are grouped together and referred to as Ro commercial industrial and personal property are referred to as the CIP classes. Personal property is defined as all tangible items that are not firmly attached to land or buildings and are not considered part of the real estate. All personal property is taxable at the local level unless it is exempt an example of an exemption is household items in a primary residence. So when we're talking about personal property, it's most commonly referring to business personal property.

▶ 30:44 Speaker 8: So under Mass General Law chapter 40 section 56 the city council together with the mayor's approval shall adopt a residential factor to be used by the board of assessors to determine the percentages of the local tax levy to be born by each class of real and personal property the assessor shall provide information and data relevant to making such determination and the fiscal effect of the available Alternatives the residential Factor governs the percentage of tax levy to be paid by residential and open space. Properties the differences then shifted to the commercial industrial and personal property classes. The adopted Factor cannot be less than the minimum residential factor, which is determined by the department of revenue for each community in Massachusetts, the minimum residential Factor represents the maximum shift allowed in the tax levy for the year. So after the hearing this evening the city council must vote on the following items the selection of a residential factor or tax shift and whether to Grant an open space discount, there are two other tax classification policy options that are at the option of the mayor which I will give a brief overview of at the end of the presentation, but they do not require a vote this evening.

▶ 32:00 Speaker 8: So before we discuss the residential factor and the tax shift, it's important here to review the senior circuit breaker legislation, which went into effect for the first time this year. In March of 2021 the Melrose city council passed the senior circuit breaker Bill locally, then it moved on to the state legislature where it was signed into law this past July. This legislation allows the board of assessors to qualify older adult applicants for tax relief by a state income tax credit that's referred to as the circuit breaker credit qualified applicants receive a property tax exemption equal to 150% of their state circuit breaker income tax credit the total amount Exempted by the legislation is to be allocated within the tax levy or shifted to the non-eligible residential taxpayers. So this year the summary of the circuit breaker program there were 107 applicants and 78 Parcels were granted exemption by the board of assessors reason for application denials included excessive assets co-applicant age and real estate trust or ownership interest issues. 127,170 dollars in tax dollars were Exempted and this is to be shifted only within the residential class. So it adds 2% to the residential tax rate 2% per $1,000 of residential property value. This would also be about $14.70 added to the average single family tax bill.

▶ 33:39 Speaker 8: So the residential Factor tax shift the total amount that can be raised in taxes or the maximum Levy Remains the Same whether there is a single or a split tax rate or a tax shift. The shift does not raise more Revenue it simply changes the allocation of the tax burden among the classes of taxpayers. With the senior circuit breaker exemption in place. Melrose will no longer have be able to have a single tax rate as a residential rate before any shift will always be higher than the CIP rate. For fiscal 23 adopting a factor of one would result in a residential tax rate of 1081 for thousand dollars of property value adopting a factor less than one to as low as the minimum residential Factor results in an increasingly greater tax burden shift from the RO classes to the CIP classes. The Department of Revenue has determined that the minimum residential factor for Melrose for this fiscal year is 0.960486. That's a CIP shift of 1.75.

▶ 34:48 Speaker 8: So this slide is showing the percentage of the levy class. By class before any shift you can see that 95% of the property value in Melrose is residential. It has been the past few years roughly. You will also see here a breakdown of the number of parcels by property type.

▶ 35:12 Speaker 8: So this slide shows how we arrive at the tax rate for the community for the fiscal year on the left is a form that shows all of the valuations in Melrose by property type. You'll see the total taxable valuation of about 6.8 billion dollars in Melrose. You'll also see at the bottom the number in the value of exempt Parcels which are excluded from taxable valuation. So we start with the fiscal 22 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. We add our fiscal year 2023 Debt Service and we arrive at the max allowable Levy of $74 million 11,551 dollars. We take that number. We divide it by the fiscal 23 total taxable value in the city and arrive at a single tax rate of 1079 for thousand dollars of assessed value for the residential rate. We add the two cents for the circuit breaker exemption to the single rate and get 1081 if there's no shift. So as just as a note the debt exclusion is from the bond that was issued in 2005 for the Middle School the final year for this debt. Exclusion is fiscal 2029 and the payment that year will be just over 173,000. So new growth in the past five years melrose's average in the $600,000 range in New Growth this year. We added just over a million dollars of growth to the levee limit the primary reason for this increase this year was that utility company is added underground conduit and conductors over the past year in Melrose adding over 20 million dollars in value. This value growth was tax is taxes personal property. So we apply last year CIP rate to the value to get the tax. Levy growth. 47% of New Growth this year came from the residential class of property. Well 53% came from the CIP classes.

▶ 37:19 Speaker 8: So this next slide is just showing the historical Levy percentage paid by the residential and CIP classes after the shift has been chosen. You can see that it has remained relatively the same over the last decade.

▶ 37:36 Speaker 8: This is we have the assessed values here by class over the last five years. The residential class was at 4.6 billion in 2018. And for fiscal 23, it's now at 6.5 billion for the CIP classes. You can see here that the personal property value is rising in a faster rate than the commercial and Industrial class values. and we see this happening with the personal property in other towns like It's been personal properties Rising a little faster. So this side shows a comparison of the fiscal year 22 average single family values tax bills and residential tax rates for Melrose and then in comparison to surrounding

▶ 38:23 Speaker 5: communities.

▶ 38:33 Speaker 8: So here we see the residential to CIP percentage of total value in Melrose inversing versus surrounding communities.

▶ 38:49 Speaker 8: Um on this slide, you can see the increases and assessed values by property type the most significant value change this year. We're seeing an apartments in Condominiums.

▶ 39:07 Speaker 8: So the average assessed value of a single-family home for this fiscal year 2023 is 735,134, which is a four and a half percent increase from over fiscal year 2022 single family value.

▶ 39:25 Speaker 8: So here we have the historical shift that has been chosen for the past 10 years the average single-family tax bill and the average impact year-over-year last year shift of 1.65 was chosen which increased the average single family tax bill by 3.3% or 240 dollars over the prior year. It's not listed here. But at that shift the average commercial Bill increased 2.4% or 372.

▶ 39:59 Speaker 8: So this next slide demonstrates the effect of the shift. We look at the tax rates applied to the average single family value and the median commercial value here for the purposes of the chuck. Tax classification hearing the medium commercial value is a more widely used measure versus the average value because as there were more extremes and Commercial values the median provides a better representation of a typical commercial property in Melrose. Here you can see that with no shift or choosing a residential factor of one. The single-family tax bill would increase by about $512 and the commercial bill would decrease 37% by about 3,750 with the Mac shift of 1.75. The average single-family Bill increases $196 and the commercial Bill increases $980 or about 9.7%

▶ 41:01 Speaker 8: So this brings us to the shift options. I've included the complete list of shift options on the next slide, but here I've listed only the range that the council is considered and chosen from from in the past several years on the left in green. You see the residential rate the corresponding average single-family tax bill the dollar increase in the percent increase from last year. On the right in blue is the corresponding CIP rate the median commercial bill out that rate the dollar increase in the percent increase. So as a reminder the fiscal year 22 residential rate was 1057 per thousand dollars of value. And the commercial rate was 1803. Well, we speak of the shift in discussion when voting the council must choose the residential factor that corresponds to The Chosen shift. It's important to note that the final tax rates may change slightly when we submit to the Department of Revenue.

▶ 41:59 Speaker 8: So on the next side of listed the all of the shift options available for the fiscal year. And then the open space discount. So this is a required vote for the city council this evening, but Melrose does not currently have any property that meets the state's definition as classification. As open space. I've included the definition here. Just for reference. There are two other options available during property tax classification. These are the small commercial exemption and the residential exemption. Both of these are policy options of the mayor with the city council's approval. Melrose is not historically adopted either of these exemptions and the Administration has not opted to put them forth for adoption for this fiscal year.

▶ 42:51 Speaker 9: and then

▶ 42:54 Speaker 8: On the final side. I have included on the final side. Just some definitions of the terms that we use during that property tax classification for reference. So that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions that

▶ 43:10 Speaker 6: Any questions counciloritis? Thank

▶ 43:13 Jen Grigoraitis: you Mr. President. I just wanted to first thank all three of you for being here tonight. Thank you both for your service on the board of assessors that that's a weighty role. So thank you for taking that on and Ms. McClellan. I just wanted to thank you for making this information. So accessible to us. I know you reached out to the council and offered to have conversations with us. Well in advance of this meeting and that is appreciated. I just wanted to quickly ask a few more questions about the senior circuit breaker since I know it's new this year based on what you're seeing and other communities is it are the number of applicants and the number of rejections. We're having does that seem typical are we I was honestly surprised that we had so many rejections.

▶ 43:55 Speaker 8: So it is

▶ 43:57 Speaker 10: for the first year, I think it's

▶ 43:59 Speaker 8: typical. There's only so when you when you look at the number of You can get kind of the number of circuit breakers that are in Melrose like from the state so you can kind of estimate how many you'll have like for the community, but when you get that number, it's it can be renters or owners. Okay, so because the exemption would only apply to owners it's hard to estimate exactly how many we would receive an applications. But in terms of looking at other comparing with other communities who do have this exemption for the first year because the literally the governor signed the bill in July and then we had to in order to factor it into the tax rate in the shift not the shift but the in order to factor it into the You know to the to the tax rates shift we have to have the applications in the board has to qualify everything. So because of that small like the tight turn around this year. I think it was, you know, it was a quick turnaround to be able to get the information out to everyone and you know, so I think that played into how many applications there were in terms of the percentage that were approved versus Versus denied. I think that's a matter of just educating about, you know, the qualifications for the exemption you have to have owned the property and have owned the property for 10 years 10 consecutive years. So there's a lot of like ownership. Kind of issues. So yeah. Thank you

▶ 45:42 Speaker 5: for that. Thank you, Mr. President.

▶ 45:46 Speaker 6: Castle Williams

▶ 45:47 Ryan Williams: Thank you. I wanted to ask a couple of questions around, New Growth. And please correct me if I have added this up wrong, but between Condominiums. Two families three families and apartments. It looks to me like about 28% of the value change we had for fy23 came from multifamily housing. 15% from Apartments 8% for condos 3% for two families and 2% for three families. I'm kind of rounding up and down here. Okay.

▶ 46:22 Speaker 10: the chart that I

▶ 46:24 Speaker 8: had the value change. Yeah something to note about that. Is that like for example like Apartments? Part of that would be growth from actual construction or growth from you know adding but another part of it is value growth in terms of like so this is just overall value growth. Sure. It's not just New Growth. Okay? Okay. Yeah. Yeah, so just to clarify like new growth is like for real estate. It's defined as like increases and assessed value over the prior year that's only resulting from new construction or physical improvements to real property. So it's not like any it's new growth is not just like a change in value based on market value change.

▶ 47:13 Ryan Williams: Okay, so let me rephrase. the value change not necessarily New Growth about 28% of that value change was multifamily housing. So it's a significant portion of the growth and value that we're getting our taxes from. You know almost 30% of our growth and value comes from that multifamily housing.

▶ 47:45 Speaker 8: right, so I'm not sure what the question is why the question

▶ 47:50 Ryan Williams: is just to note that the question is to confirm that I'm correct in my in my notation that about 28% of the value chain value change by property type is coming from multifamily housing. Whereas you have. I don't know. 9% 13% of that is commercial industrial mixed use single family,

▶ 48:14 Speaker 8: right? So this is based most generally not new. Growth, so the apartments may be a little bit of growth but most generally this is like Market. Yeah Market driven. Yes, right. Yes.

▶ 48:29 Ryan Williams: Okay, so separate separate topic. Okay, the actual topic of New Growth. Yes, the actual correct topic of New Growth million dollars in New Growth for fy23. It's a lot. Yes, and you said about 40 some 45% of it 47 was 47 was residential. So I know in this chamber we've heard a lot about the budget and we've heard a lot about revenue and if you sit in on planning board meetings, sometimes you hear different opinions on multifamily housing on apartments.

▶ 49:01 Speaker 6: but without

▶ 49:03 Ryan Williams: the new growth From multifamily housing. What would the addition to the budget for fy23b in Melrose if you had no apartments, no condos, no new growth from residential and all the new growth was from CIP.

▶ 49:20 Speaker 8: Ben 50 three percent of the new growth it's like half. Yeah, so it was like 570,000 I think okay, okay.

▶ 49:34 Ryan Williams: And I put a point on this because for folks listening at home or people who may reference the recording. I want to I want to note this conflict that I see in our public discourse around multifamily housing and the value of multifamily housing to Melrose and it seems to me that there's kind of a balancing act here. If you lose the new growth from multifamily housing, you're losing. Let's say, you know 400,000 this year and I would guess in previous years. It's kind of similar in its in its value from our budget And then in order to maintain our budget if we want to keep it, let's say at the level that we have had it, you know, we don't want to decrease it. We want it to grow we want to give teachers raises things like that. We would need to find that money somewhere else. So without the new growth Would we have to increase resident? What would we have to rely more on our residential property taxes from single-family homes and from other asset classes to fill the budget so I

▶ 50:38 Speaker 8: don't really speak to the budget really at the this is more just about yeah. Yeah. Sure.

▶ 50:46 Ryan Williams: Yeah, so is it fair to say that new growth is important? Is an important contributor to the tax base, so it's adding

▶ 50:53 Speaker 8: to the levy so when you see that slide if you want to put that back there.

▶ 51:03 Speaker 5: so when you look at this slide, I

▶ 51:05 Speaker 8: so if you're only adding it's just it's just a you're adding to the levy base with that new growth each year, and it kind of compounds because you're So it's it's just gonna go from from next year. Then you're adding two and a half percent to that amount. So it's kind of compounds in a way.

▶ 51:29 Ryan Williams: Well, thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, that's it for me. Thank you anybody else?

▶ 51:37 Leila Migliorelli: Has something really thank you. Thank you Mr. Collin for being here tonight and for taking the time the other day to kind of walk through some of this with me. Could you talk just like expand a little bit? I found it very helpful when you were talking about the personal property being.

▶ 51:52 Speaker 4: the more the

▶ 51:54 Leila Migliorelli: the largest percentage of the new growth and what that personal property is and you talked about a little bit but I think just for helpful to hear it more than

▶ 52:03 Speaker 8: once so I I kind of did I did more analysis like in the interim that you know that the 47% of the new growth this year came from the residential class and the 53 came from the CIP. So when we take the value of the seat of the CIP growth the actual value, we apply the

▶ 52:25 Speaker 3: last year's CIP rate to

▶ 52:27 Speaker 8: that. So basically in other communities say, I think it was just comparing to other communities and other communities that maybe have a higher. Levy in the same values as us they would have a higher tax rate. So they would be taxing that they would be applying a higher tax rate to that growth. And then it's just kind of like it creates more. You know. addition to the levy basically

▶ 52:59 Leila Migliorelli: So when you were talking to about maximizing the new growth, so other communities you're saying you've seen where when in a given year when they wherever the new growth is, right? The majority

▶ 53:13 Speaker 9: of the new growth is right if they had a

▶ 53:14 Speaker 8: lot of personal property like if they had a lot of utility growth and then they shifted all the way to one one seven five then they'd have a higher CIP rate and then they would be applying that to the to that

▶ 53:32 Leila Migliorelli: growth growth. So in in one way if I'm understanding it correctly. You're it's more like a philosophical thing or whatever that you're where wherever you're having the new growth that makes sense to perhaps make sense to

▶ 53:46 Speaker 4: Apply a higher rate to that in a given year it could

▶ 53:49 Speaker 8: yeah, it just depends how I guess how you want to look at it. Yeah, but I think in other community, I think it's in comparison Melrose versus other communities. It's more of that kind of a point of like why you know We are kind of where we are versus. Another yeah. I think so. Yeah, but in ours, it's like it's really 50 almost 50 50 in this in this fiscal year.

▶ 54:15 Leila Migliorelli: And then most of that. New Growth again isn't necessarily Increase in value or it's for example the personal property which is a kind of an odd terminology. It's not really like you said personal it's you know personal to the to the business and then most of that was in utility to talk

▶ 54:37 Speaker 4: a little bit about that the

▶ 54:41 Speaker 8: Right. So we had like 21 million dollars in value and growth just from like one utility company of just putting that was underground conduit and conductors like in into Melrose like physically so that is personal property growth that You know, we we don't know like if that will come again in the future or you know, and we haven't had that in the past. So

▶ 55:13 Speaker 8: so it's not something that can be dependent on I guess every year because growth is dependent on economic conditions and a lot of different factors, I guess.

▶ 55:23 Leila Migliorelli: And I guess um finally like in the other communities you looked at. Do you see year over year wide shifts in the community shifting a lot or is it mostly consistent in

▶ 55:37 Speaker 8: terms of it's usually consistent. Yeah,

▶ 55:39 Speaker 11: unless there's like

▶ 55:42 Speaker 8: And a lot of big projects that

▶ 55:46 Speaker 12: happen in communities the growth is over several

▶ 55:48 Speaker 8: years, you know, even like here like we've had big projects like we're big apartment, you know buildings get built. There's like the growth will be realized through several years because it's not you know until completion and then income Generating properties are our valued based on income so they don't. Rowan value until they make

▶ 56:16 Leila Migliorelli: And then just sorry another question. Just looking at the Historical factors it looked like.

▶ 56:21 Speaker 4: in Prior years like 2013 and

▶ 56:25 Leila Migliorelli: 2016 we went very close to the max CIP shift, but in the last several years.

▶ 56:33 Speaker 8: We haven't been.

▶ 56:36 Speaker 8: So that so that's kind of like what we were saying with the Department of Revenue like determines so they had determined at that time that we could only shift 1.5. Mm-hmm. So then all of a sudden we were able to do 1.75 and they kind of Base it on like what you have done in the past and what so it's really based on like a number of factors, but like as you go So much to the CIP classes and as the residential value gets higher and higher and higher there's a there's a certain point that you won't be able to shift. It's it won't be possible to shift to the full 1.75 just based on the makeup of the value in the community because it's so markedly like heavy on the on the residential side for value.

▶ 57:29 Speaker 4: Okay, so if it gets more residentially focused than the shift is

▶ 57:33 Speaker 8: It we won't like the Department of Revenue will just say your max shift will be 1.74 like this year, for example a community that's near us Malden. They weren't able to go to like the full shift because the residential value is just get so High versus the commercial that it's just you can't shift all of the you know of your residential Levy like onto percentages on to the commercial. Yeah.

▶ 58:02 Speaker 4: Thank you.

▶ 58:04 Speaker 6: Casa Garba

▶ 58:06 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thanks for taking time last week to talk to me. on the new growth the 1,082,000 you may not have this number but You said it the value went up 21 million in utilities. Do we know what what dollar amount in of the utilities was in that new growth of a million 82 a couple hundred thousand or

▶ 58:31 Speaker 8: I'm so oh in utilities. Yeah, what

▶ 58:34 Mark Garipay: the dollar growth was out of the one one million eighty two thousand that we had the new growth.

▶ 58:41 Speaker 8: I can get that number, but I believe it was. It was at least so just from one company. It was like in the mid 300s range the 300,000. Yes, and that was from that one

▶ 58:56 Mark Garipay: company. Yeah. Okay. And then how how much do you know? How much 99 Washington kind of finished up this year? That was probably the big project that came online. How much of it would was that project right? That was

▶ 59:12 Speaker 8: one of the

▶ 59:17 Speaker 8: That I can get the exact number. I think it increased seven.

▶ 59:24 Speaker 8: I think it increased seven million this year. So I will I can get the number the exact number via what? I think it's in. a 20 near 20

▶ 59:35 Speaker 3: so

▶ 59:38 Mark Garipay: just jumping back to utilities right now. With that one cup we're looking at about 30% of the new growth was utilities or more. Right. It was 300,000. Yes. Yes.

▶ 59:52 Speaker 8: like so CIP in total was Half about you know more than half. but the the 99 Washington was the biggest residential Yeah by far. Yeah.

▶ 1:00:06 Mark Garipay: In do you know if we have any utility projects ongoing over

▶ 1:00:10 Speaker 8: the next year or two? So I I'm not sure. Yeah, and it's also they report the growth so you're not really sure when it's gonna come in. I know several surrounding communities are waiting because there's utility projects like like this going on. You know across Massachusetts, so they're waiting for their code in many places.

▶ 1:00:32 Mark Garipay: Just two other quick questions one when does a house become a commercial property? How big is it for six family is an apartment building or when they when do they kind of convert over?

▶ 1:00:45 Speaker 8: So I got the law for you. So Mass General a lot chapter 59 section, 2A all real property used or held for human habitation containing one or more dwelling units including rooming houses with facilities assigned and used for living sleeping cooking and eating on a non transient basis is classified under class 1 residential under the law.

▶ 1:01:12 Mark Garipay: And just one of the quick question regarding the utilities you had mentioned that some of the utilities are appealing. the the tax tax bills that they receive for the conduit with the work with other communities. What happens if those executive appeal directly to the city or is that is at a court case

▶ 1:01:36 Speaker 8: it it's a pellet text for yeah. okay, it's

▶ 1:01:46 Speaker 5: um, yeah, it is for each City. They do have to apply for an abatement for each City. But then it's it's so big that it goes to the Pella Tax Board because it involves so

▶ 1:01:58 Mark Garipay: many communities. So if there's any chance if a utility does get a tax rebate on what we've already built out, does that take effect next year or would it take effect? This year like if if we've we've realized 300,000 from one of the utilities right now when they win an appeal jacket reversed when I guess so it's kind of

▶ 1:02:17 Speaker 8: accounted for in the overlay. The Apple at Tax Board cases and yeah we account for that there. Okay. Yeah.

▶ 1:02:27 Speaker 1: Thank you.

▶ 1:02:28 Speaker 6: counselor Atlas

▶ 1:02:29 Jack Eccles: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilor. Pitt brought up a good point with 99 Washington Street. And I just kind of want to make sure I understand how properties like this change because it's likely not the last time something like that will happen in Melrose because it doesn't control something doesn't contribute to New Growth when the value goes up, right? So the value of 99 Washington Street went up. But the seven million dollars you just mentioned is that from just the

▶ 1:02:55 Speaker 8: additional four? It was gross. Yeah. Yeah in because it was construction like finishing before

▶ 1:03:02 Jack Eccles: June 30th, right? Yeah, and then did it did and anything get realized because the use changed or was it purely just the change to the property to change the assess value. Yes contributed to New Growth.

▶ 1:03:13 Speaker 8: It also changes the class it so that changed apartment growth clap like the change in values because it used to be classified as industrial like that. You know that building for a while, so It changed the class of the property. So that's why the value shifted from one to another.

▶ 1:03:40 Jack Eccles: and did that but but the nothing that has nothing to do with new growth. The only thing that asks you

▶ 1:03:46 Speaker 8: with new growth is the actual. Yeah, like the finishing of the construction of the project. Yeah.

▶ 1:03:52 Speaker 6: Gotcha.

▶ 1:03:53 Jack Eccles: and then just just kind of because counselor Miguel really brought up, you know maximizing new growth and that's first time I think I've heard that in the context of this so I guess If I'm I just want to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly, which is let's say there was no new growth and all we got was two and a half percent. Keeping the same factor as the year before could have the same percent of the total burden between each class. Is that correct?

▶ 1:04:22 Speaker 8: You mean in choosing like a I'm sorry. I don't understand the question based on growth. So if

▶ 1:04:30 Jack Eccles: there was no like uneven new growth and it was just let's say the new growth was zero and it was just two and a half percent. Oh, yes, and then you pick the same factors a year The percent of the total burden split between the two classes would be the same. Yeah, and then if there were new growth in one and not the other and you picked the same then the percent of the total burden would shift. Yes, okay. So when it's uneven sometimes it might make sense to change.

▶ 1:04:59 Speaker 6: Thanks. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. And Sienna the hands go up. What is the will

▶ 1:05:09 Speaker 6: of the new tax chefs

▶ 1:05:14 Mark Garipay: How's the cafe? Um, I'll make a motion for 1.68. Tax shift it's keeping the residential pretty consistent what our increases have been over you take the average over the last 10 years taking out the override. We're at about three percent on the residential side. So I would I would make a motion that the tax should be 1.68 and

▶ 1:05:45 Christopher Cinella: Sorry, everyone discussion motion made by Council Gary pay seconded by Council of migliarelli on

▶ 1:05:51 Speaker 4: discussion. Yeah, do we have to revote is the order? On six eight or is it on the residential factor that we're supposed to

▶ 1:05:59 Speaker 5: vote on the residential Factor residential? Yeah. Yeah.

▶ 1:06:06 Leila Migliorelli: six four one seven four correct the

▶ 1:06:09 Speaker 6: six digit number That's right. I'm gonna read I'm gonna if you don't mind if you could read that I

▶ 1:06:14 Mark Garipay: make a motion that we go with a factor of I'm sorry 9 9 8 4 2 my reading that right? No, no point nine eight, four two presidential Factor.

▶ 1:06:35 Speaker 6: So just to clarification 964174. I'm

▶ 1:06:38 Mark Garipay: looking at the other for this around sorry, so constant gas

▶ 1:06:41 Christopher Cinella: making a motion for the council to adopt a 0.964174 residential factor, which was seconded by councilor. Migliarelli. Thank you and on discussion we have Council Stewart.

▶ 1:06:54 Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President.

▶ 1:06:58 Robb Stewart: I think the shift is too high and here's why. It puts an unreasonable burden.

▶ 1:07:06 Speaker 6: on our

▶ 1:07:07 Robb Stewart: commercial base particularly the the businesses within our community I think they've been impacted. tremendously over the last couple of years and if you look at how quickly The change goes up. When you go down that shift. It really increases the tax burden. and I would recommend to be a little bit more conservative on the shift. I think 1.68 is putting a little bit of a burden if for example you go from 1.68. to even 1.64 that is like a $25 change in the tax rate. but for the the commercial side

▶ 1:08:00 Robb Stewart: It's a couple hundred dollars. So I think that strong consideration should be made to be a little bit more conservative on the shift. Thank you, Mr. President here. Anybody else on discussion Council Williams?

▶ 1:08:14 Ryan Williams: It's funny because I landed right in On 1.66. I think we do need to realize that melrose's asset Base is almost exclusively residential and we have seen good growth in our business sector. And we're seeing more of it. and I I think that we need to

▶ 1:08:46 Ryan Williams: start to balance this a little bit more towards commercial. And so, you know, I I was thinking myself of something along the line of 1.66 which winds up being 3.1% for residential 4.1% for commercial? However, I'd be inclined to support counselor gear Pace motion. if the council moves in that direction because I think that I think that we need to find Opportunities to raise revenue and I think that we need to balance our Revenue mix with a little bit heavier hand on commercial

▶ 1:09:27 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you counciloritis. Thank you, Mr. President. I on discussion would just like to say I'm in support of counselor garapays motion and I certainly hear the excellent points raised by counselor Stewart. I do feel like this Council really took under consideration these past two years the economic impacts of covid on our business Community. I do think we are also seeing the economic impacts of you know, record high inflation and energy prices on our residents as well. So I think there is both there is challenge on both ends that I'd like us to be mindful of and I'm also recognizing that some of the commercial properties that we are taxing our massive utility companies. So for that, I would be comfortable with the motion as it's been presented. Thank you.

▶ 1:10:09 Speaker 6: Anybody else on discussion? Seeing not Casa Grande. Yeah, I was

▶ 1:10:14 Mark Garipay: just gonna say on the commercial side over the last 10 years. We've had a take the override out. We're at a two two point five five percent increase. So it has been less over the last 10 years than the residential.

▶ 1:10:29 Speaker 6: Okay. Madame clerk. If you could please call the roll counselor Eccles.

▶ 1:10:33 Speaker 5: Yes counselor garapay. Yes counselor. Gregoritis. Yes counselor melodyne. Yes. Council of camshady. Yes Council Laurent McMaster. Yes Council amigliarelli. Yes. Counselor obrimski. Yes counselor Stewart. No Councilor Williams. Yes.

▶ 1:10:57 Speaker 5: President sonella. Yes, ten. Yes, okay.

▶ 1:11:00 Christopher Cinella: Motion passes and then we need to take up a vote on open space

▶ 1:11:04 Jen Grigoraitis: Coastal triggeritis. Oh, I motion because we have no open space that the council vote not to adopt an open space discount for fiscal year 2023 second

▶ 1:11:13 Christopher Cinella: motion made by counciloritis seconded by counselor Eccles any discussion Seeing none Madam clerk. Please. Call the roll councilor Eccles.

▶ 1:11:21 Speaker 5: Yes counselor garapay. Yes counselor. Gregoritis. Yes councilor maladene. Yes Council caram treaty. Yes councilor McMaster. Yes counselor. Migliarelli. Yes counselor oprinsky. Yes counselor Stewart. Yes counselor Williams. Yes president. Sonella. Yes 11. Yes. Okay, and if

▶ 1:11:42 Christopher Cinella: there is no objection at this time, I will close out our public hearing.