Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2014-12-08
Attendance
Jaclyn L. Bird ; Robert A. Boisselle ; Donald L. Conn Jr. ; Scott M. Forbes ; Gail Infurna ; Jennifer L. Lemmerman ; Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis ; Monica C. Medeiros ; Peter D. Mortimer ; John N. Tramontozzi ; Francis X. Wright Jr.
Agenda
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CALENDAR● DECEMBER 8, 2014 Aldermanic Chamber Committee Meeting 7:45 PM The public should take notice that the Melrose Board of Aldermen may, on certain occasions, have a quorum in attendance due to standing committees of the Board of Aldermen consisting of both voting and non-voting members. Members attending this duly posted meeting are participating and deliberating only in conjunction with the business of the standing committee. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived John N. Tramontozzi Chairman Present Jaclyn L. Bird Vice Chairman Present Monica C. Medeiros Alderman at Large Present Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis Alderman at Large Present Gail M. Infurna Ward 5 Alderman Present Robert A. Boisselle Ward 4 Alderman Present Scott M. Forbes Ward 7 Alderman Absent Francis X. Wright Jr. Ward 3 Alderman Present Jennifer L. Lemmerman Ward 2 Alderman Present Peter D. Mortimer Ward 6 Alderman Present Donald L. Conn Jr. President/Ex-officio Member Present In Attendance: Chief Assessor Christopher Wilcock
ORDER-2015-63 Classification of Property Request to set a public hearing on Classification of Property for December 1, 2014 at 8:00 P.M. and Subsequently Determine The Classification Of Property. Recommend as Amended Board of Aldermen City of Melrose Page 1 Updated 12/10/2014 2:23 PM
Transcript
▶ 37:23 John N. Tramontozzi: adjourn from alderman Tramontozzi duly seconded by alderman inferno all in favor please say aye any opposed hearing none the committee on finance is hereby adjourned thank you one and all Good evening, the hour is 8, 10 PM. This is December 8th, 2014 is the Appropriations Committee of the Board of Aldermen for the City of Melrose. Just for the public, this meeting is being recorded pursuant to the Massachusetts Open Meeting Laws and it's available for future review. Also, the Appropriations Committee is a committee of the full board. With the exception of, in the absence of Alderman Forbes, we welcome every other member of the Board of Aldermen present this evening. We have one order on the agenda this evening.
▶ 39:22 John N. Tramontozzi: It's order 2015-63, where we request to set a public hearing, a classification of property for December 1, 2014, 8 PM, which was held, and subsequently now, to determine the classification of property. So if we have a motion to open the floor for public participation by Alderman Medeiros, seconded by Alderman Mortimer. On the motion, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed, seeing none. This is the opportunity for any member of the public who wish to come forward. Just so the public understands, last week, December 1st, We had a public hearing on this order in which the members of the public were welcome and invited to attend. We had discussion from the appropriate city officials relative to the classification of property.
▶ 40:16 John N. Tramontozzi: The order was remanded to the Appropriations Committee for further hearing, and that's what we're doing today. The public has another opportunity to present any questions or concerns or opinions this evening on order 2015-63. So if any members of the public wish to come forward, they may do so now. Motion to close public participation, Mr. Chairman. Second. Okay, seeing no members of the public coming forward, we have a motion to close public participation by Alderman Mortimer, seconded by Alderman Boisselle. The motion, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed, seeing none. So we do have order 2015-63, we do have, and we are under suspension of rule, so we will come forward to the assessor's office, representative, to further discuss this order with us.
▶ 41:12 John N. Tramontozzi: Good evening, and for the record, if you could just identify yourself. Chris Wilcock, Chief Assessor. Good evening, Mr. Wilcock. So we have this order before us, and would you like to make a statement before a question being asked? I'm all set with a statement. President Kahn is right up front and ready to go with some questions. Yeah, actually, I don't have any questions. I just have a- Comment? A, well, you could call it a comment. My comments are usually a little bit longer than a comment. Mr. Chairman, for people who are watching us on television, This is called a classification hearing, but in the vernacular, this is setting of the tax rate. What we're called upon to do this evening is we have an amount of money that we need to raise through the real estate taxes, the levy.
▶ 42:04 This year, we're being asked to raise $51,429,849. and um as we traditionally do uh the city is going to the maximum uh two and a two preposition two and a half limit uh in terms of the money that we raise uh we're able to raise money that the budget the levy from prior year we're also able to add in new growth uh and we're able to go up by two and a half percent that's how they come to this figure which they give us which is which is the 51 million odd figure. In order to determine how we are going to set the tax rate, we have to do two things this evening. Number one, we have to make a decision whether we are going to have a unitary tax rate pursuant to which all properties, regardless of category, are taxed together.
▶ 43:03 If we had a uniform rate, every piece of property in Melrose would be taxed $13.30 per 1,000. If we choose not to have a unitary rate, we need to make a vote relative to classification. What does classification mean? It means that we have to vote as to whether we want to have a residential tax rate and a commercial tax rate. Historically, we have always voted to classify and adopt the two rates. Under Massachusetts law, based on our amount of commercial property, we're able to assess a tax rate of up to 1.5% on commercial properties beyond the residential tax rate. That would be the maximum that we could go to. We could take any tenth of a point or a hundredth of a point below there. Also, we have to make a determination as to whether we are going to adopt any exemptions.
▶ 44:06 One exemption that the law provides is an exemption for open space. We have no open space in Melrose that qualifies for an exemption. There are also some exemptions that can be given to residential and properties based on the tenth or ten percent or twenty percent of the values of the property that is not something that we have ever done in the past here in Melrose after I hear additional discussion on this I'm going to make a motion that we do in fact classify that we adopt a rate of 1.42 and that we do I do not adopt any exemptions for this tax year. I will not give my discussion about whether we should go to the two and a half limit every year in setting the levy. You've heard it all before and we're not going to get into that.
▶ 44:59 John N. Tramontozzi: Well, thank you. I'll second Alderman Cahn's motion. Very well said. Thank you for that summary. I think it was well said and very clear and very helpful to not only this committee but also to the general public. Second the motion. So Alderman Kahn has before us a motion to adapt the classification. But before we get to that motion, which is seconded, I want to open up for any further discussion of this committee. Seeing no further discussion, oh, oh, Alderman Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate President Kahn's history and comments on this issue and I will definitely support the motion to adopt the classification of rates between residential and commercial and not to adopt any of the exemptions. I was looking
▶ 45:59 Jaclyn L. Bird: at a shift factor of 1.41 and would love to hear any discussion on this. The difference being that the residential change does not seem between 1.41 shift and 1.42 is a difference of an average of four dollars for the residential side but is a significant difference on the commercial side to the tune of about looks like seventy dollars so I just I'd be interested to hear a little bit more discussion on whether or not the board had a strong feeling on one point four 1 or 1.42 on the shift factor. Mr. Chairman. All right. Very good. Alderman Wright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to support the 1.42. I understand Alderman Bird point and it is a dollar difference that may seem relatively minor, but I'd prefer to stick
▶ 47:04 Francis X. Wright Jr.: with the percentage change and under 1.42 the percentage change is fairly consistent between residential and commercial so for that reason I rather see them both be adjusted again by a similar percentage rather than look at the dollar amounts and I think in the past we have done a good job of protecting our commercial property owners in the city and we do not have a residential tax exemption and yet I believe we're in a situation now where we have more and more large residential properties being built by developers we see a lot of it coming in as transit oriented development we see it but coming in potentially now is transit oriented development between Cedar Park and Franklin Street and at some point we may want to entertain a residential tax
▶ 48:10 Francis X. Wright Jr.: exemption and that's for owner-occupied properties for the people who are watching who don't understand the owner-occupied properties would be taxed at a slightly lesser percentage based on an exemption that can be granted under the statute several cities and towns in the Commonwealth do that it doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense for Melrose but I think as more and more properties are developed we may want to look at that down the road but right now I think based on the fact that we don't do that and based on the fact that I'm looking at the percentage change I'm going to support the one point four two and on average save our residents a little bit more money and and have a consistent increase between both residential and commercial very good
▶ 49:05 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: thank you thank you all of them in McAteer my goal this is up next Thank You mr. chairman I I was leaning also in alderman Byrd's direction partly because I was thinking of some of the new development that might be coming in that we want to be encouraging to those commercial enterprises that will be entering in, although I do see what Altman Wright is saying in terms of the percentage difference increase for the residential at 142 is 3.7 and uh 3.16 for um commercial whereas if we went down a point it's 3.15 for residential and 2.145 for commercial so um and mr wilcox you could just maybe um verify for me and for the public for instance apartment houses and condominiums those are taxed at a residential rate is that right that's correct right so when alderman
▶ 50:15 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Wright talks about owner-occupied discounts perhaps in future years looking at that that would affect for instance like it like a large apartment building it would affect anyone above the median assessed value so it would shift the tax burden for all classes and residential to only residential properties so it would increase the tax rate and shift the burden to the median and higher for values so it's only in the residential class it wouldn't shift to a commercial class it wouldn't but it would perhaps give the owner occupied people a little more of a if they're at the median or under right right so that I mean obviously that's nothing consider this year but perhaps going forward if with thinking about developments that may be
▶ 51:04 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: like lease departments or something like that, you know, going forward, we may be able to think of classifying them in a different manner. As far, you'd have to accept the residential exemption, which would classify, but it would raise the tax rate on all residential, and then they would qualify based on their assessed value. Mm-hmm, okay. That's all, Mr. Chairman. I really don't have much more to add. I mean, I do note that the rate is actually decreased, although the assessments are more. So at 1.41, we're looking at an average increase for residents of almost 170 and 247.52 for commercial. At 1.42, it's $165 for residents and $319, so it is somewhat of a considerable jump for our commercial.
▶ 52:04 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. Very good. Any other aldermen for the first time? Alderman Medeiros. I'm sorry. Thank you. I know this is slightly off topic, but we had a number of aldermen now mention the residential tax exemption. I know, I think it was during the public hearing on this matter that you mentioned that the City of Melrose does not collect information about properties, whether or not they're owner-occupied or non-owner-occupied currently. Is this some information that we could get, a roundabout figure, possibly from the Department of Revenue? There are some figures out there, and I'm looking into it, but as far as the best figure, it would be a survey to find out exactly who owner occupies their house.
▶ 52:57 Monica C. Medeiros: It's a pretty hard task, but there are some sources out there that I can explore. Just to maybe give us a round figure so we can look at if it's worth going into getting to a survey or not. On this matter, I do support President Kahn's motion at the 1.42 rate. It is the closest percentage change and I think we have, you know, I'm glad that historically Melrose has chosen to classify and often not to the maximum and I think when you compare some of the other communities that you know we we do have a very successful commercial business base i know that's just just a little part of why but i'd like to think that it is a little part of why so i think 14.42 is a good number thank you very good alderman bird
▶ 53:56 Jaclyn L. Bird: for the second time thank you mr chairman and uh this was very helpful this is what i was hoping here tonight with some feedback on this um i'm now inclined to to support the 1.42 i appreciate alderman wright pointing out the percentage change where i was looking more towards the numbers of the um the dollar figure so i think that's really helpful and glad to hear that we're all fairly close together it sounds like on the 1.41 or the 1.42 so um i appreciate um president khan's motion and we'll support it thank you very good you might have the last word before we uh yeah i didn't intend to discuss exceptions i didn't really think we were going to go down that road but um from from my perspective granting exemptions for the first 10
▶ 54:48 John N. Tramontozzi: or 20 percent of various types of properties um it is a bit of a shell game because whatever the levy is it has to be raised so if you exempt some properties uh the money still has to be raised from others so this is not a situation where we can give exemptions to others without to some without uh without raising the money um from other rate payers uh taxpayers so um i guess we're not going to be going down that road this year but uh it's it's something to keep in mind definitely very good uh thank you for that so uh we we currently have on the floor motion by president khan uh to uh adopt a shift factor of 1.42 which would set the residential tax rate at 12.96 and the commercial tax rate at 18.90 also also to adopt no exemptions and i have that motion that
▶ 55:50 John N. Tramontozzi: motion yes that's right motion has been seconded by alderman mortimer um any further discussions on the motion just this is a motion for passage just like to point out very quickly that uh the tax rate has gone down that's right from 1328 to 1296 if that's any uh solace to uh our constituents that the actual tax rate has gone down for the city of moros which is attractive to uh new buyers and increases everyone's property values thank you but just so the record is also clear, and I appreciate that, Alderman Mortimer, the tax rate that we're assessing. The valuations have gone up. The property assessments have gone up, which will result in most taxpayers seeing an increase in their property taxes.
▶ 56:35 John N. Tramontozzi: Just so the public knows, assessments have to be done. By law, the statutes require 100 percent assessments to be done, and the valuation of the property be assessed at 100 percent. are complying with the law so all right so we do have that motion on the floor um all in favor or passage of uh that motion guy here say all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed seeing none that order will be uh forwarded to the full board for final enactment which will be tonight so hang in there and uh thank you so much uh mr wilcox i appreciate you coming in and see nothing further we have a motion to adjourn by Alderman Mortimer seconded by Alderman Byrd on that motion all in favor any opposed seeing none we are