Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 12/20/2018
LONGMEADOW – The Longmeadow Select Board hosted a Tax Classification Hearing at their Dec. 17 meeting, upon which time the Board of Assessors discussed the town’s tax rate, how it’s calculated, and more. Subsequently, the Select Board voted to continue the hearing to Dec. 19 at 6 p.m. to make their final decision on the tax rate.
Assistant Town Manager Paul Pasterczyk explained to the Board that they would not be closing the Tax Classification Hearing that evening due to evaluation services “putting them behind in the process.” This had caused the Board of Assessors (BOA) to not have a preliminary certification, and considering this, the hearing must be kept open until the board could meet again.
Moving forward with the meeting, the Board of Assessors explained that last year (Fiscal Year 2018) which ended on June 30, 2018, the Select Board had voted for a single tax rate for all classes of property, which was $24.34 per $1,000 of value. In Fiscal Year 2019, the tax levy increased to 3.6 percent, property values increased 4.67 percent, resulting in the “single” tax rate decreasing –1.03 percent or –.25 compared to last years rate, $24.34 vs. $24.09.
The Board of Assessors explained the impact of a split rate, stating that the total lev doesn’t change when the rate is shifted, it’s simply shifting the percentage between residential and institutional commercial properties.
“With each one percent shift there’s a one cent reduction in residential and a 24–cent increase in commercial,” a member of the Board of Assessors stated.
In summary, the Board of Assessors concluded that a single tax rate allows for all property owners to pay their proportionate share of the tax levy based on the value of their property. Splitting the tax rate does not change the amount of property tax revenue that can be collected.
Coming back to the Select Board, member Richard Foster stated that there are about 243 communities across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that have no split tax rate. He asked the BOA what “some of the ruling factors” that they would look at to decide whether or not to institute a split rate.
“Generally speaking I would look at if it’s a community that has maybe an 80 to 85 percent residential, that would maybe be the threshold, because then the shift provides a little more of what maybe the community is looking for. A little more benefit to the residential and not a significant impact to the commercial,” BOA member Carolyn Reed stated. Longmeadow is 94 percent residential property and 6 percent commercial property.
Lawrence Rubin, chair of the BOA, implied that if the tax rate in Longmeadow was split, the businesses that would be affected by the larger burden, the individual businesses costs would rise, therefore passing off the burden to the consumer.
“Either way, the resident will probably take the burden anyway,” Rubin said.
Select Board member Thomas Lachiusa explained why he was in favor of the single tax rate, stating that it was important to keep certain conveniences in town.
“I think that it’s really worth it for the town to have these kinds of resources in our community and not have to leave,” Lachiusa said.
Select Board Chair Mark Gold voiced his support for a split tax rate, which he noted, he has been long in favor of.
“In fact, my concern is not that it doesn’t make much of a difference because the homeowners are only going to save five or eight cents, I think it’s a matter of equity. If you put a $5 million dollar commercial building in Longmeadow versus just putting it over the line in Springfield, that owner is going to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes because in Springfield their tax rate is going to be twice the residential rate,” Gold explained. “One would argue that the medical office building that’s going in here in Longmeadow on Dwight Road may be going here in Longmeadow instead of Springfield because it is so tax advantageous to the contractor.”
At the close of the discussion, Gold stated that on Dec. 19 at 6 p.m. they would continue the hearing. Reminder Publishing could not include the discussion of the Dec. 19 meeting in this article as the meeting was held past press time.