total time: 6.71 minutes
total words: 753
total time: 2.24 minutes
total words: 410
total time: 0.7 minutes
total words: 145
total time: 1.01 minutes
total words: 189
total time: 5.56 minutes
total words: 785
[Caraviello]: Good evening, everyone. 14th regular meeting of the Medford City Council. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Present. Councilor Falco? Present. Vice President Knight? Present. Councilor Marks? Present. Councilor Morell? Present. Councilor Scapelli? President Caraviello? Present.
[Caraviello]: All rise and salute the flag.
[Hurtubise]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[Caraviello]: Motion by Councilor Scarpelli. Suspend the rules. To take paper. Paper 21633 out of order. Seconded by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Caraviello]: Yes. to President Calvillo and members of Medford City Council, we respectfully request that your Honorable Body approve the final proposed re-precincting map with legislative districts. The full map of re-precincting is available for view at the City Clerk's Office and online.
[Gale]: Good evening, Sandy. A little brief presentation. Good evening, Your Honorable Bobby. The map that's before you tonight is the legislative side of the voting that went on. The legislature passed a bill and was signed into law by Governor Baker that legislative lines had to be honored within the city, and that is the map that is before you tonight. We initially started with six split precincts, and we managed to get it down to two. So we have two sub-precincts, one within Ward 6, and one within Ward 7. Questions for Ms. Gill?
[Bears]: I don't know the motion, but that's what it is. Sandy, just so you can explain this. This is mainly because the legislature went out and approved their districts prior to the city, or without considering the city's re-precincting.
[Gale]: That is correct. And that is something that in the history of maps and boundaries being drawn has never happened before. And I did consult with both legislatures, Paul Donato and Sean Garbally, one loses, one gains. I was unable to get in touch with Christine Barber, but she will gain some down in 7-1-2 as well, I should say. Thank you. You're welcome.
[Caraviello]: Any further questions for Ms. Gell? So the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Caraviello]: President Caraviello? Yes. Seven in the affirmative. Motion passes. Thank you, Sam. Thank you. Same to you. On the motion by Councilor Falco, it will be referred back to regular business. Seconded by Councilor Morell. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Yes. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Yes, I have an affirmative. Motion passes. Hearings, 2-1, 6-2-5 tax hearings. The public hearing will be held by the Medford City Council and the Harvard Appellate Chambers at Medford City Hall at 85 George P.S. Drive, Medford, and via Zoom on Tuesday, December 14th. A link to this meeting, to this hearing, will be posted no later than Friday, December 10th, 2021. The purpose of this hearing is to hear the Board of Assessors on the following items for the allocation of the fiscal year 2022 property tax. to determine the residential factor to be used for fiscal year 2022. Two, to select an open space at discount. Three, select a residential exemption. Four, select a small commercial exemption. Call 781-393-2501 for any aids and accommodations. So, we open this hearing up. Good evening.
[Ellen Brideau]: Good evening.
[Caraviello]: Our name and address of the record, please.
[Ellen Brideau]: Certainly, Ellen Brito, Chief Assessor, City of Medford, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Mass.
[Caraviello]: Thank you.
[Ellen Brideau]: So this evening, we are, the City Council is requested to set a box policy for the City of Medford by allocating the levy and then making decisions on the other options available to you, which include from whether or not to adopt an open space, which I don't typically address because we do not have any open space in Medford, so it's not something we need to make a decision on, although you do vote it. And then whether or not to adopt a residential exemption and whether or not to adopt a small commercial exemption.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Okay, before we, do we have any questions for Ellen before we get to the classifications?
[Bears]: just that for the benefit of the public, we just held a committee of the whole meeting with Alan at 530 this evening and asked many questions and discussed this process.
[Ellen Brideau]: So I did prepare during my homework assignment. I do have that impact of the residential exemption at a 20% or 35% that I was able to do.
[Caraviello]: If you like, just give a little explanation on it.
[Ellen Brideau]: Certainly. Councilor Marks, I did send one to your email address, so you should be receiving that. There we go. So during the Committee of the Whole meeting, one of the items that I did not include in this year's presentation was the breakdown, and I apologize for that. This year has been very tight on time. I was still working on this packet on Friday, and I would prefer to be meeting with city council before Thanksgiving, so maybe next year we can set that as a target. But with this one item that I did not include in the original packet, was the breakdown of, and again, these are estimates in a draft. This is not by any means the final, what those numbers would look like. It's my best estimate of what it would appear to be. So we know factually that we have 16,574 residential properties in the city of Bedford. That's what was approved by the commission, the Bureau of Local Accounts and the Division of Local Services for the state. Our total value on residential value, and that correlates back to the classification packet, is over 11 billion. And we know that without a residential exemption, our tax rate, again, estimate $9.02, that could move by pennies depending on what the state finalizes our tax recap with. So with a 20% exemption, the value of that exemption, the $141,073 comes off of somebody's residential assessment. If we voted and they were owner occupied, they would take that amount off of their assessment and that would be what they would pay taxes on. So I'm going down the very first column here using that 20% example. I estimate that over 13,000 qualify to receive that exemption. So you take that, what the exemption is, and you multiply it times the amount to come up with a net taxable residential value after a residential exemption. And that amount is divided into the levy, which is the residential cost levy over 105 million. Therefore, if there was a residential exemption, using these rough estimates here, the rate would not be 902, the rate would be $10.79. So properties that are above the break-even would be paying that higher rate, but properties below the break-even would potentially see a $636 tax savings. Properties that don't qualify for the exemption at all would see an increase in of $887 in taxes along that say again using average break even point average numbers. And that's called I use the 20% and the 35% as examples going through.
[Caraviello]: So the average home right now goes up, you said about $138? That's correct. So it would go up from $100 and change to $887?
[Ellen Brideau]: For a property that did not qualify for an exemption.
[Caraviello]: For a property that did not qualify.
[Ellen Brideau]: Correct. Right, which is that tax without, with tax savings. For those, and again, I did this very quickly, so. I know assessor's strong point, it's supposed to be math and I use Excel pretty well, but this was done fast. So I thought I had till 7.30 and my assistant said, oh no, you gotta get back up there. So here we go. One of the other questions Councilor Bears had requested was how many seniors under, that would take a little bit more. That I would be picking a number out of the air and that I'm very uncomfortable doing. So we will work on that for you certainly.
[Bears]: just if I made that request was for to talk about next year.
[Ellen Brideau]: Correct.
[Bears]: When you have time.
[Ellen Brideau]: Yeah.
[Bears]: Certified.
[Ellen Brideau]: And I I I apologize again like last year we're not not 2021 cuz it's been a horrible year. But the year prior I'm able to do that analysis you know in the spring and send those documents up to city council at that point in time if you wanna meet with me I'm happy to meet with you over it. And I'm not an advocate either way. That's not my role. My role is just to implement whatever this body decides is the most appropriate that you feel as elected officials with the city.
[Morell]: Mr. President. Council Member Hill. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Ellen, for that. Yeah, I just wanna go on record saying that I'm very much in favor of exploring this and just learning more about how this could impact or benefit or harm in some cases, the community through the tax bills. But based on what we discussed at the last meeting, understanding that it's very late in the year to have these discussions, you would need to really be staffed up in order to process exemptions like this if it were something that we were to pass. I, you know, I'm really interested in having these conversations, but understanding your advisement that this is something we should do in the spring. My vote is going to reflect that. So thank you. Thank you.
[Knight]: Hey, Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. And Ellen, thank you for being here this evening. You always do a great job. So in reading the packet here, and I apologize for not being able to make the meeting earlier. The breakeven point looks like it's 705,000 give or take so that would be the assessed value of your home at 705,000 would be the breaking point, the breakeven point, which means that if your home was assessed over that amount that you, even though you would be an owner occupied policy wouldn't be eligible to receive. the exemption, because when you receive the exemption but the shift would still come back to you so you'd actually see an increase in your tax bill if your property was assessed over that figure.
[Ellen Brideau]: That's correct.
[Knight]: And then based upon your assessments here it looks like there would be about almost 14,000 eligible parcels.
[Ellen Brideau]: That's correct. Those were the numbers that we derived from the assessing database.
[Knight]: Okay. And it almost looks like half of those would be above the break even point.
[Ellen Brideau]: Yeah, that's using averages.
[Knight]: And then of that 50% almost a third of that would be senior citizen population.
[Ellen Brideau]: And that was one of the ones that Councilor bears had requested to know we know that we took the voter registration role, but I there's some things that in my mind I need to prove out of that. We know how many older, and it was over age 60 I apologize I said 65 before so I want to correct that it was over 60. We know they're over 60. And then when you step back, there's so many layers to it. So yes, we have this many people over 60. Oh, how many are a married couple or a couple still living in the same home? So my numbers get really distorted when you start going down that rabbit hole where, wait a minute, I might not have 6,000 elderly single owner properties. I might have, 63,000 couples living in owner occupied property. So those are the things that have to get all flushed out. And that's why it's not something that I can just flip a switch and say, we've got residential exemption. I can't.
[Knight]: Excellent. Thank you. I appreciate it.
[Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Ellen, if you could just clarify, out of the 6,500 properties that are above the break-even point, do you have a breakdown on what type of classification those properties are? If I live in a two-family, am I eligible if I own a two-family?
[Ellen Brideau]: Yes, you are. And when I, when I know those are stats I got it right down on the desk down there where when I took the ancestors database, I knew that it was 97% were single family, then when you go to a condo it was like 80 something percent, you get to a two family now you're starting to have a more of a 70%. So I have that percentage, but again, I feel that I'm not giving a true picture when I'm just taking the assessor's database and saying, where am I? I'm assuming that if you get your mail in Medford and your tax bill in Medford, you live in Medford. That's a very poor assumption for me to make. And that's why I feel like it really needs due diligence to go through and make a very more informed opinion on to what that impact is.
[Marks]: So just so I understand, how are we counting? If someone has a two family and they live on half the two family and they rent the other side, that rental would not be considered, correct?
[Ellen Brideau]: They would be considered, it's the property. So if they live in the downstairs unit, the entire property gets the exemption. I don't allocate it by the number of units. And you gotta realize too, many of those two families are multi-generational families that share the home. It's not like they are renting them out. To the flip side, the whole two family gets rented out. So, you know, you have both going on in the city. But there's no allocation. If they live in one of the units, they get the exemption.
[Marks]: Right, and is that state statute or is that just how each community handles it?
[Ellen Brideau]: That's by the way that you do calculate your residential exemption. It's not an option for the city to say. And they're different than my senior exemptions are, or a veteran exemption would be a better example. There's no allocation. A veteran owns a two family, he's 100% disabled, he gets his full exemption. We don't reduce it for that certain types.
[Marks]: Right, I'm just trying to figure out what the number that 6,500 is compromised of.
[Ellen Brideau]: The 6,500 of the number that I put on.
[Marks]: The breakeven number, the number of properties that are above the breakeven point.
[Ellen Brideau]: That is compiled of all single family, multifamily condos. So when I take all the parcel counts within that, class, anything in a residential class, which equals the 16,574, 6,500 are over the 705,000 and change a break even point.
[Marks]: Right. So someone has a three family, they rent out two of the units, they're still eligible for a residential exemption.
[Ellen Brideau]: They live in, they occupy That property.
[Marks]: Even though it becomes a moneymaker, right? I mean, the property is now a moneymaking property and not a residential type situation.
[Ellen Brideau]: That would be correct. You know, you have so many other layers to it that Councilor, you can say that those properties that they're renting are more affordable rent because they aren't paying a higher tax rate, you start charging a higher tax rate on. properties that are non-owner occupied, then the rents go up and then we get into the flip side of not having affordable housing in Medford. So you got to look at all of that. You can't just look at the one piece and what the impact is if you do one thing where it goes. That's why it's a really, it's a lot.
[Marks]: We all know the cost savings would probably not be passed on to the renters, correct? If someone received a residential exemption, I'm sure they're not gonna lower the rents based on what exemption they're receiving.
[Ellen Brideau]: or they could be correct, or they might provide a better rent to somebody to live in Medford.
[Marks]: We would hope that's the case, but I don't think it's the case. I support this. I support having this reviewed. I've mentioned in the past that because this affects a number of property owners that currently live in their property, they would pay a higher rate. That's one reason why in the past I did not support this. But I think at some point we're getting close to a number that may make sense in this community to give people, you said $636 savings. And this economy would go a long way to assisting those people, seniors and people on fixed incomes and so forth. So I think, you know, maybe not this go around, but eventually I think we're going to hit that point where this makes all but sense to support in this community. And if you look at the surrounding communities that probably have a higher rate of, you know, non-owner occupied, it makes sense for them, like Malden and Cambridge and Chelsea and Everett, it probably makes sense for them. I don't think we're quite at that point quite yet. So that's why I will not be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
[Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Watts. Councilor Betz. Thank you. And this was actually really helpful for me to understand this. Basically, if we were to implement this, anyone who lives in a residential unit and owns that unit, or owns that property would qualify for the residential exemption. The issue is that over a certain value, the increased rate overtakes the savings from that exemption. So even if your home's worth $2 million, you would still qualify for the residential exemption. It's just that the difference in the rate of $2 per 1,000 would end up being more than the exemption that you're getting on the front end. So it's not that certain, if you're over 700,000, you wouldn't qualify. It's just that you wouldn't save anything. and you may end up paying more because the rate is higher. So essentially the policy decision, and obviously I think we're all very clear we're not gonna be making this decision today, not only because it would be a nightmare for your office, but it would be very difficult. It'd be impossible, I think it's fair to say. The policy question in the future would be, do we think that people whose home values are less than 700,000 should pay a little bit less and people whose home values are more than 700,000 should pay more? That's basically the decision at the end of the day.
[Ellen Brideau]: It's absolutely, within the residential class, that's what happens. And when you look at page six to Councilor Mark's question, that three family is gonna pay more in taxes because the average three family is close to 900,000. Right. Even though they're living in one of the units, they're gonna get an exemption because they qualify, but the rate is pushing their value, their tax bill up.
[Bears]: And then they could choose to distribute that exemption, the break. They could say, we're gonna keep, you know, we're gonna pay this amount of taxes and not that even these decisions really happen this way, but we're gonna pay this amount and the renters are gonna pay this amount and that distribution would be up to the property owner. I mean, they end up paying the city the same thing, but yeah.
[Ellen Brideau]: That's a whole business decision for the rent.
[Bears]: Right, all right, that really helped me to fully grasp what this means, so thank you.
[Ellen Brideau]: You're very welcome.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Any further questions, Rowan? Hearing and seeing none. So the first question. would be selection of a minimum residential factor. Motion to adopt the lowest residential factor. I'm sorry? Motion to adopt the lowest residential factor. Okay, on the motion by Vice President Haynes to vote for the lowest residential factor, which would be a factor of 9148, yields a split tax rate of 902 for residential, and 1726 for commercial, industrial, and personal property. Second. Seconded by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. To accept the 9-1-4-8 yield. Seconded by Councilor Bears.
[Hurtubise]: Here comes the roll call. Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes. Semi-affirmative. Motion passes. Number two, vote on whether to adopt a residential exemption. Motion? Good evening. Name and address of the record, sir.
[Castagnetti]: Yes. Andrew Castagnetti, Cushion Street Method Mass. I want to read some brief points, if I may. This is probably my 19th time here for this matter in December. My only agenda is to save the majority of owner-occupied homeowners some serious money in their tax bills. By the way, this report is incomplete. Was it a mistake or was it on purpose? Imagine even the state politicians felt the pain of the unoccupied homeowners and passed a law, Mass General Law, Chapter 59, Section 5C in 1998, 23 years ago. And it was adopted in Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Cambridge, and all of Boston. Even Senator Kerry gets it at 28 Lewisburg Square on Beacon Hill. If, according to the IRS, that's his legal address. Unless he's on his yacht, tax-free yacht in Rhode Island, I don't know. There must be a damn good deal for the majority of homeowners because the proof is They're still doing it and they have not dropped out of this wonderful program. So why not here in Medford? We've been losing out since 1998. If it's adopted, over 80% of the unoccupied homes, homeowners would see savings. And the actual average of savings would be $2,000 per year, every year, and increase in the following years, according to this outrageous inflation. State tax bill, real dollars. Our savings would simply be added to all of the absentee owners' real estate tax bills, meaning the city still gets the whole tax levy wanted. Also, if your home is in a trust, you will also get the exemption slash savings provided the trust is still in the owner's name, period. Also, thus our exemption does not affect the commercial entities at all. So in the name of fairness and justice, why not we give them, us, this real estate tax decrease to the homeowners who supported and carried our fair city of Medford for many, many, many decades. So why not here, please? It's long overdue. In closing, I'm asking, requesting all seven of you honorable city councilors, if you are for or against this Mass General Lobb Chapter 59 Section 5C slash owner-occupied real estate tax exemption. in Medford and why? If anyone wants to answer my questions, I appreciate it.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, sir.
[Castagnetti]: Your silence is deafening. Thank you for listening.
[Marks]: Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Mr. Castagnetti. He's been consistent over the past 19 years about bringing this residential exemption forward, Mr. President. And I want to thank him because I think I'll speak just for myself. I won't speak for anyone else behind the real. I think the intention of this particular general law has great merit. However, in our community at this particular point, due to the breakeven point, it leaves thousands of people that live in owner-occupied property to pay a higher tax. And I just find that unfair. And even though it benefits the majority, which Mr. Cassidy is correct, it may benefit the 80% that will receive a property reduction, tax reduction, I am concerned equally about the 20% that live in their property that may be property rich because they bought their home 40 years ago and their assessed value is over the $705,000. However, they're going to pay a higher tax because of that. You know, so I still have a concern with that. The numbers, if we were talking, you know, a handful of people that were above the threshold, it would make that decision much easier for me. But when you're talking thousands of people in the community, that are above the threshold will pay a higher amount, I have a problem with that. And I hope Mr. Cassidy can understand that. And I'm hoping someday I'll be joining him on the other side of the real advocating for this and pushing for this at the right time. And, you know, so I want to thank him for his advocacy. Anything that helps seniors and people on fixed incomes, I think is a worthy cause. And I know this is why Mr. Castagnetti has pushed this for many, many years. So I just wanted to thank him, but that is my reasoning, Mr. Castagnetti, that I will not be supporting this tonight because it leaves out far too many residents that I think are in the same boat, that deserve some tax relief, and that will only experience a tax increase with this change. And I'm not willing to do that at this point. But I thank you for your advocacy. Thank you, Councilmember Max.
[Castagnetti]: Please. I want to thank Councilor Marks for using common sense again. I appreciate it. I'm going to try to simplify what this means in net net. I have like 16,000 residential units. In reality, over 10, 11, 12,000 are going to save. And it's calculated differently. if you don't understand. Yes, the present tax rate proposed is $9.02. And yes, if we go with the full 35% exemption, which I would like, the tax rate would go up. However, what you do is, even if you live in a three family or a five family house, you will get it, but you get a dollar amount. In other words, at 35% shift, they take 35% of the value of your house, let's say it's a million, they take off 350, so that leaves 650, and then they calculate that at a higher rate. But in over 85% of the cases, you're saving money.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. All right, number two, we need to vote on whether to adopt a residential exemption. Chair awaits a motion. The motion by Vice President Knight, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: This is to reject the residential exemption.
[Caraviello]: That is correct.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes. Seven in affirmative, motion passes. Number three, vote on whether to adopt a small commercial exemption. The motion by Vice President Nate not to adopt the small commission has been seconded by Councilor Falco. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears. Yes. Councilor Falco. Yes. Vice President Knight. Councilor Marks. Yes. Councilor Morell. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. President Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Yes, affirmative motion passes. And the last one to select an open space discount. Motion by Vice President not to adopt that seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Kerbeil?
[Caraviello]: Yes, I move the affirmative. Motion passes. Ellen, thank you very much.
[Gale]: Thank you, Your Honor.
[Caraviello]: Good all day to you. I think that is it. Is anything under public participation? I think I'm the public participation this week.
[Castagnetti]: Public participation, may I? Good evening and hope you all have a merry Christmas and happy holidays. We will see you next week. I'm not sure if I'm still gonna be around. And to all else, a happy New Year's. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Okay, anything else before we go to the records? Okay, the table of records of November 30th were passed to Councilor Morell. Councilor Morell, how did you find those records?
[Morell]: I found them to be in order and move approval.
[Caraviello]: The motion by Councilor Morell, seconded by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes, I'm in favor of the motion passed. The records of the meeting of December 7th, 2021 were passed to Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli, how did you find those records?
[Hurtubise]: I found the records in order to move through.
[Caraviello]: I move the motion by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Martins? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Skerr? Yes. President Caraviello?
[Caraviello]: Yes. Any further business before we adjourn? Second. On the motion by Vice President Knight to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Bears. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Bears? Yes. Councilor Falco? Yes. Vice President Knight? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Morell? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Kiribayama? Yes. I move to adjourn with the motion passes. Meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 6.71 minutes total words: 753 |
total time: 2.24 minutes total words: 410 |
total time: 0.7 minutes total words: 145 |
total time: 1.01 minutes total words: 189 |
|
total time: 5.56 minutes total words: 785 |
|||