Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-27 Tax Classification Task Force MinutesReading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page C-8 of 13 Task Force Report TAX CLASSIFICATION TASK FORCE MINUTES Meeting: September 27, 1993 7:30 P.M. Town Hall Employees Lounge Present: Steven Cool Pres. Reading Taxpayers Association David Billard Town Appraiser David Hurley Reading Realtors Association Beth Klepeis Town Finance Director Bill Burditt Board of Selectmen Bob Nordstrand Chairman, Board of Assessors Dick Coco Chairman Finance Committee Michael Linnane Chamber of Commerce Vinny Gatto Chamber of Commerce Brad Latham Chamber of Commerce Neenie Durham Chamber of Commerce Absent: Bill Goodrich Community Planning & Development Observer: Mollie Ziegler Chairman Cool called the meeting to order at 7:41 P.M. New representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, Brad Latham and Neenie Durham, were introduced. The minutes of the September 9, 1993 were accepted. In the review of the activities since last meeting, Chairman Cool distributed a comparison of residential and commercial tax rates with shifts to Commercial, Industrial, & Personal properties from 100% to 150% in increments of 10%. Bill Burditt reported that the sale of Reading Business Park was a number of years away. A marketing strategy, not a taxing strategy is important for the coming fiscal year, and foreseeable future. Beth Klepeis reviewed the information prepared by the Finance Department. A graph designed by David Billard shows that for every incremental shift equalling 10%, the residential tax decreases by only 1.09%, and conversely,s when the commercial tax increases 10%, the residential goes down only 1.09%. A maximum of 50% shift to the commercial & industrial would result in only a 5.45% reduction in the residential rate. The personal property tax would be shifted as well and this tax is also paid by commercial and industrial properties. Chairman of the Board of Assessors, Robert Nordstrand, reported that the Board of Assessors had voted to recommend one tax rate to the Board of Selectmen for Fiscal 1994 because Mollie Ziegler of the board would be leaving to be away for approximately one month, and they wanted to take a vote when the full Board was present. It was questioned whether the vote was premature, and should have been taken after the Tax Classification Task Force made its report. Mr. Nordstrand assured the task force that the Assessors would consider its report and would reconsider the vote if necessary. The Task Force agreed to proceed without taking the Assessors' vote into consideration. The Classification Hearing has been set for November 2, 1993 during the Board of Selectmen's regular meeting. It will be advertised in the Reading Chronicle according to law. The Task Force's report will be presented to the Board of Assessors at its regular meeting on Monday, October 18th. (Continued...) Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page C-9 of 13 Task Force Report Mollie Ziegler, as observer, presented a chart for various surrounding towns, showing values, % of property which is residential, combined tax rates, and shifted rates where applicable. Twelve towns were listed. Of the towns with 80% or less residential properties, six have different rates for different classes of property. Of the six towns with 80% or greater residential properties, only two towns, Lexington and Stoneham, have different rates for different classes of property. Michael Linnane of the Chamber of Commerce reported that the Chamber had a concern with the time factor allowed for the Task Force. Brad Latham read a letter which outlined the Chamber's position on the question of a different tax rate for commercial properties. The letter addressed the questions of fairness and ability of the town to sell commercial and industrial zoned land. The Chamber quoted John Sanguinet, a professional at the Massachusetts Department of Revenue Data Bank , that "businesses tend to stay away from municipalities with split rates." More than two-thirds of Massachusetts municipalities do not have different tax rates for various types of properties. The Chamber requests that the Selectmen leave the tax rate in Reading the same for all properties. Observations were made concerning the plight of small businesses in Reading. They do not generally return a profit for as many as ten years after being opened. If the business is losing money, it is hard to pay more in taxes. Even with rental property, property owners have a burden because raising the rent of business tenants may cause the tenant's business to fold or go elsewhere. If a business closes, it is a negative factor, and the value of the property drops. Most towns that classify and shift the rate have a larger percentage of commercial and industrial property than Reading. David Hurley reiterated that a savings of pennies to the homeowner would cost them in the long rate because of the harm to potential sales of commercial property. Steve Cool read from Bill Goodrich's report, as Bill was attending a CPDC meeting. It echoed David's concern that any shift in tax rate now would harm the marketing of the Reading Business Park and other commercially zoned properties. Dick Coco recommended considering a shift of tax rate to the commercial, industrial, and personal property rates, as there is a need to give residential property owners the sense that town government cares about their tax burden. He noted that two communities, Winchester, and Stoneham both have developed commercial property. Winchester does not shift the rate, but Stoneham does. Dick does not see the shift has having an impact on the business development. It was countered that Stoneham is a ghost town with many vacancies in their commercial downtown, except for the Redstone Shopping Center. It was also mentioned that most Reading voters voting for the Prop 2 1/2 override did not expect a tax break, and that the override provided approximately $1,000,000 for schools and $1,000,000 for residential trash pick up, neither service benefitting the business community. (Continued...) Reading 1993 Tax Classification October 26, 1993 Page C-10 of 13 Task Force Report Steve Cool gave his personal view that there should be no difference in the residential and CIP tax rates. He feels that it is a question of fairness and equity. He stated that the Assessors should make fair valuations reflecting fair market forces. Shifting the rate could send the wrong message for commercial land, and businesses are now paying more than their share, considering the services which they receive. Chairman Cool then presented the position of the Reading Taxpayers Association. The R.T.A. declines to take a position on the subject of shifting the tax rate. It reiterates that there is a high level of taxation in general in the Town. The failure of the Town to reduce expenses and curb the rise of expenses is seen as a major problem in the tax rate in Reading. It was commented that the Town is a residential Town, and giving quality services and schools at a reasonable price has been an ever increasing problem over the years. The Town was viewed as the most efficient Town in this part of the country. It was observed that when the former president of R.T.A. joined the Finance Committee, he found much less fat in the budget than he had anticipated. The R.T.A. was invited to become involved int the budget process and to come to budget meetings. School reform as promulgated by the State Legislature has decreased home rule control over the budget. Chairman Cool mentioned that a new law allows a town choosing to shift the tax rate to C.I.P. properties can exempt businesses employing 10 people or less. This law cannot be implemented in Fiscal Year 1994, as the Department of Employment and Training is not prepared to certify the number of employees in businesses, which is required by the Law. There are technical problems with implementing this law. It was concluded that the majority view of the Task Force would be to recommend a factor of one to the Selectmen, or one rate. There will be no formal minority view, but the opposing view as represented by Mr. Coco will be included in the Task Force's compiliation of views by the members. It was noted that the question of shifting the rate is an annual decision, and that if in the future, factors change, another Tax Classification Task Force could be formed. These factors could include a significant change in the balance of residential and C.I.P. properties, significant changes in the law, or the view of the Selectmen that a Task Force was necessary. The Chamber of Commerce asked that they and other interest groups be given more time for research and preparation if a Task Force was reconvened. Chairman Cool was thanked for his willingness to listen, and for his work as chairman. He will compile the reports and distribute them, along with copies of the minutes to all members prior to the October 7th meeting. The Task Force will meet on October 7, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Hall Conference Room. The meeting adjourned at 9:27 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth W. Klepeis Secretary TAX CLASSIFICATION TASK FORCE MINUTES Meeting: September 27, 1993 7:30 P.M. Town Hall Employees Lounge Present: Steven Cool Pres. Reading Taxpayers Association David Billard Town Appraiser David Hurley Reading Realtors Association Beth Klepeis Town Finance Director Bill Burditt Board of Selectmen Bob Nordstrand Chairman, Board of Assessors Dick Coco Chairman Finance Committee Michael Linnane Chamber of Commerce Vinny Gatto Chamber of Commerce Brad Latham Chamber of Commerce Neenie Durham Chamber of Commerce Absent: Bill Goodrich Community Planning & Development Observer: Mollie Ziegler Chairman Cool called the meeting to order at 7:41 P.M. New representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, Brad Latham and Neenie Durham, were introduced. The minutes of the September 9, 1993 were accepted. In the review of the activities since last meeting, Chairman Cool distributed a comparison of residential and commercial tax rates with shifts to Commercial, Industrial, & Personal properties from 100% to 150% in increments of 10%. Bill Burditt reported that the sale of Reading Business Park was a number of years away. A marketing strategy, not a taxing strategy is im- portant for the coming fiscal year, and foreseeable future. Beth Klepeis reviewed the information prepared by the Finance Department. A graph designed by David Billard shows that for every incremental shift equalling 10%, the residential tax decreases by only 1.09%, and conversely,s when the commercial tax increases 10%, the residential goes down only 1.09%. A maximum of 50% shift to the commercial & industrial would result in only a 5.45% reduction in the residential rate. The personal property tax would be shifted as well and this tax is also paid by commer- cial and industrial properties. Chairman of the Board of Assessors, Robert Nordstrand, reported that the Board of Assessors had voted to recommend one tax rate to the Board of Selectmen for Fiscal 1994 because Mollie Ziegler of the board would be leaving to be away for ap- proximately one month, and they wanted to take a vote when the full Board was present. It was questioned whether the vote was premature, and should have been taken after the Tax Classifica- tion Task Force made its report. Mr. Nordstrand assured the task 6 force that the Assessors would consider its report and would reconsider the vote if necessary. The Task Force agreed to proceed without taking the Assessors' vote into consideration. The Classification Hearing has been set for November 2, 1993 during the Board of Selectmen's regular meeting. It will be ad- vertised in the Reading Chronicle according to law. The Task. Force's report will be presented to the Board of Assessors at its regular meeting on Monday, October 18th. Mollie Ziegler, as observer, presented a chart for various surrounding towns, showing values, % of property which is residential, combined tax rates, and shifted rates where ap- plicable. Twelve towns were listed. Of the towns with 80% or less residential properties, six have different rates for dif- ferent classes of property. Of the six towns with 80% or greater residential properties, only two towns, Lexington and Stoneham, have different rates for different classes of property. Michael Linnane of the Chamber of Commerce reported that the Chamber had a concern with the time factor allowed for the Task Force. Brad Latham read a letter which outlined the Chamber's position on the question of a different tax rate for commercial properties. The letter addressed the questions of fairness and ability of the town to sell commercial and industrial zoned land. The Chamber quoted John Sanguinet, a professional at the Massachusetts Department of Revenue Data Bank , that "businesses tend to stay away from municipalities with split rates." More than two-thirds of Massachusetts municipalities do not have dif- ferent tax rates for various types of properties. The Chamber requests that the Selectmen leave the tax rate in Reading the same for all properties. Observations were made concerning the plight of small businesses in Reading. They do not generally return a profit for as many as ten years after being opened. If the business is losing money, it is hard to pay more in taxes. Even with rental property, property owners have a burden because raising the rent of business tenants may cause the tenant's business to fold or go elsewhere. If a business closes, it is a negative factor, and the value of the property drops. Most towns that classify and shift the rate have a larger percentage of commercial and in- dustrial property than Reading. David Hurley reiterated that a savings of pennies to the homeowner would cost them in the long rate because of the harm to potential sales of commercial property. Steve Cool read from Bill Goodrich's report, as Bill was attending a CPDC meeting. It echoed David's concern that any shift in tax rate now would harm the marketing of the Reading Business Park and other commercially zoned properties. 7 Dick Coco recommended considering a shift of tax rate to the commercial, industrial, and personal property rates, as there is a need to give residential property owners the sense that town government cares about their tax burden. He noted that two com- munities, Winchester, and Stoneham both have developed commercial property. Winchester does not shift the rate, but Stoneham does. Dick does not see the shift has having an impact on the business development. It was countered that Stoneham is a ghost town with many vacancies in their commercial downtown, except for the Redstone Shopping Center. It was also mentioned that most Reading voters voting for the Prop 2 1/2 override did not expect a tax break, and that the override provided approximately $1,000,000 for schools and $1,000,000 for residential trash pick up, neither service benefitting the business community. Steve Cool gave his personal view that there should be no difference in the residential and CIP tax rates. He feels that it is a question of fairness and equity. He stated that the As- sessors should make fair valuations reflecting fair market forces. Shifting the rate could send the wrong message for com- mercial land, and businesses are now paying more than their share, considering the services which they receive. Chairman Cool then presented the position of the Reading Taxpayers Association. The R.T.A. declines to take a position on the subject of shifting the tax rate. It reiterates that there is a high level of taxation in general in the Town. The failure of the Town to reduce expenses and curb the rise of expenses is seen as a major problem in the tax rate in Reading. It was commented that the Town is a residential Town, and giving quality services and schools at a reasonable price has been an ever increasing problem over the years. The Town was viewed as the most efficient Town in this part of the country. It was observed that when the former president of R.T.A. joined the Finance Committee, he found much less fat in the budget than he had anticipated. The R.T.A. was invited to become involved int the budget process and to come to budget meetings. School reform as promulgated by the State Legislature has decreased home rule control over the budget. Chairman Cool mentioned that a new law allows a town choos- ing to shift the tax rate to C.I.P. properties can exempt businesses employing 10 people or less. , This law cannot be implemented in Fiscal Year 1994, as the Department of Employment and Training is not prepared to certify the number of employees in businesses, which is required by the Law. There are technical problems with implementing this law. 8 It was concluded that the majority view of the Task Force would be to recommend a factor of one to the Selectmen, or one rate. There wil be no formal minority view, but the opposing view as represented by Mr. Coco will be included in the Task Force's compiliation of views by the members. It was noted that the question of shifting the rate is an annual decision, and that if in the future, factors change, another Tax Classification Task Force could be formed. These factors could include a significant change in the balance of residential and C.I.P. properties, sig- nificant changes in the law, or the view of the Selectmen that a Task Force was necessary. The Chamber of Commerce asked that they and other interest groups be given more time for research and preparation if a Task Force was reconvened. Chairman Cool was thanked for his willing- ness to listen, and for his work as chairman. He will compile the reports and distribute them, along with copies of the minutes to all members prior to the October 7th meeting. The Task Force will meet on October 7, 1993 at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Hall Con- ference Room. The meeting adjourned at 9:27 P.M. Respectfully submitted, M1 Eliza eth W.Klepeis Secretary 9