ORDER-2017-44 : Request to set a Public Hearing on Classification of Property for November 28, 2016 at 7:30 P.M. and subsequently determine the Classification of Property

Transcript (~10 min @ 13:15)

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

▶ 13:20 Speaker 5: order passes order 2017-44 request to set a public hearing on classification of property for november 28 2016 at 7 30 p.m and subsequently determine the classification of property

▶ 13:32 Gail Infurna: this order came from the committee without recommendation what is the will of the

▶ 13:39 Peter D. Mortimer: committee alderman madam president pro temp i make a motion that we adopt a selection of a minimal residential factor of 1.535 that we do not have an open space discount since we have no open space under the law that we do not grant a residential discount and that we do not adopt a granting of a small commercial exemption is there a second

▶ 14:07 Michael P. Zwirko: point of order you said residential discount do you mean residential

▶ 14:12 Peter D. Mortimer: exemption that we do not have a residential exemption and that we do adopt a minimal residential factor and that that minimal residential factor

▶ 14:22 Gail Infurna: be 1.535 all right so alderman mortimer has answered the four questions that have been before the board second um on this it's a second by alderman Zwirko on discussion alderman Boisselle

▶ 14:35 Robert A. Boisselle: just out of curiosity why are we selecting 1.535 when one pi one five two five and one point five three give the same results on the residential aspects of it is there a difference that we

▶ 15:00 Robert A. Boisselle: we have to look at or we're supposed to suspend the rules you're looking at that's my that's my

▶ 15:03 Speaker 3: question you should suspend the rules and bring forward mr we'll call them and we have an

▶ 15:06 Gail Infurna: assessor our goal is to make a motion to suspend the rules so we can hear from mr will second back in the motion second by alderman mortimer all those in favor suspension of the rules say aye all those opposed mr. Wilcock if you could come before us thank you for

▶ 15:23 Robert A. Boisselle: coming back this evening again answering the question recommended the CIP shift of one point five three five but one point five two five and one point five three represents the same number for all three categories for the residential side and for the commercial side it varies from fifty dollars to seventy dollars difference is is there a reason why one point five three five was

▶ 15:53 Speaker 6: selected one point three five I'm sorry one point five three five is where they're balanced it's up to the board to select any of the shifts I just outlined where they were balanced with a two point eight percent increase in both the residential and the commercial side it is not a recommendation from the

▶ 16:12 Robert A. Boisselle: Board of Assessors so in other words in that last column of the full of the fiscal 2017 tax shift option where the change represents the 2.89 is for both

▶ 16:25 Speaker 6: groups is that what's that's correct there's a 2.8 change on both the residential and the commercial tax at that that fact in comparison to the

▶ 16:32 Robert A. Boisselle: others is 2.29 and 2.59 for the other categories that's correct so everyone commercial and residential the average increase will be uh 2.8 percent across the board for both

▶ 16:48 Speaker 6: of them on the uh five point uh one point five three five that's correct sir okay thank you

▶ 17:01 Michael P. Zwirko: thank you man thank you madam pro tem um and at first i'd like uh mr wilcox thank you so much for responding quickly with the items that we had asked at the last meeting to provide us with it's very helpful so you know I know some of that information isn't easy to gather and I know that you need us to set this rate in this evening so in doing this analysis it was very helpful because we often talk about communities that are either near us or communities that are similarly situated to us and one of the items that you provided was municipalities in the Commonwealth that have within a certain margin of error commercial tax parcels within the range of Melrose's commercial tax parcels so there's an attachment that shows some of the other cities and towns and the only one that I think is somewhat similar or as similar to Melrose is Redding and on that list the one thing that also jumped out at me is that all of the communities the municipal communities have no shift Melrose is the only outlier there and in 2016 our rate was 1.48 for the shift is that correct that's correct the you know you can when you look at the list of communities I believe it's just over 20 and I had stated just a moment ago that reading is the closest reading also is while it is closest it also differs from our community and in many ways as well even though the percentages of the parcels are similar for whatever reason writing has decided to put the burden on the residents versus the commercial properties to in their shift something that we've done here historically we have not done here and I also wanted to raise that the at the last meeting I wanted to entertain the possibility of looking for ways that maybe we could reduce the increase of this shift on the residents and after much consideration and much review for a list of reasons I've determined that maintaining a excuse me going with a CIP shift of one point five three five makes the most sense and particularly if you look at the graph that you provided that shows the rate shift options the rate of rise on the commercial side and the factor is enormous per half percentage basis point that it shifts whether it's up or down just giving an example if we were to go to the bottom of the shift on page four of your your table at one point four eight the increase would only be that of fifteen dollars to the resident over a calendar year whereas if you were to go another that same amount on the increase to one point five eight the residents would only be saving $25 in the increase whereas for the commercial property there are commercial properties would drop a hundred and ten dollars at one point four eight or they would go up almost double at one point five eight to just over seven hundred dollars per annum the shift whether it's small or not by just half a basis point a full basis point or even ten basis points the factor and the rate of rise is extremely high on the commercial end and furthermore I want to talk about the commercial properties that we have here in Melrose because the term small business gets thrown around a lot but if you look at the Small Business Association or the excuse me the Small Business Administration their definition of a small business is a business with 500 employees or less in certain categories I can't think of an employer in the city of Melrose that has 500 employees and furthermore I don't even think we have small businesses we have mom-and-pop shops for most of our downtown our Franklin Square region our Wyoming our Wyoming Street area our Tremont Street corridor we do not have many commercial properties not those that are tax-exempt commercial properties that employ probably over a hundred people I actually can't think of one there may be one but we do not have many and many of the businesses that we have whether or not their restaurants nail salons, hardware stores, clothing stores, and even some of our newer businesses, their employees are probably the owner, or at least the owners among one of those employees. I feel like any burden that we, any increase in the shift that we give to the commercial side is actually going to not only hurt the business owners, but it's easier to do this if it's a chain or if it's a nationwide company that's here. And I just think this time, this burden being shared of the rate of increase of 2.8%, both on the residential and the commercial, is fair and equitable across the board. The other comment that I did want to make, and this is something that we're seeing both at the national level and the local level, there is a large feeling of uncertainty out there, given the outcome of the most recent election. We have Treasury yields are rising, interest rates most likely will be going up this month by the Federal Reserve, if not certainly soon, if not sooner, and the dollar is getting stronger, which means that our goods being exported will decrease.

▶ 22:33 Michael P. Zwirko: There is, in my business and the employer that I work for, as well as just a general sentiment, there is a lot of uncertainty that we haven't seen, at least in my lifetime. I mean, even in the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, it might not have been a rosy scenario, but you were certain that the economy was tanking. Right now, we do not know which way this is going to go. I feel that at this time one point five three percent five percent rate is at least going to allow stability and some modicum of certainty to our mom-and-pop shops in the Greater Meadows area so I would support that and with that I yield

▶ 23:13 Gail Infurna: thank you very much at this time I do have two other speakers but it is past eight o'clock and we have a public hearing so could we just recess this order for at this time and if you could just step back mr wilcock and we will begin our public