City Council

HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 Hearing opened at 7:00 P.M. with Councillor Rosa, Chair of the Finance Committee, presiding. All members were present; Councillor Dombrowski and Freda arrived late. The following PETITION was the subject of the hearing. C-21 Relative to determining the factor to be used in setting the Fiscal Year 2007 tax rate. Chief Assessor, Walter Poirier, Assessors, Chris Paquette and Jim Dillon and City Comptroller, John Richard were all present. Mr. Poirier thanked the City Council for having this meeting as quickly as they did. He said it is very important to set this factor and that time is of the essence. Mr. Poirier said that classification deals with the ability of a community to shift the burden of taxes. He said you can either shift it to the Residential or you can shift it to Commercial, Industrial and Personal Property. Councillor Marchand said that the current trend in the real estate market is that values are starting to decrease. He asked Mr. Poirier if he anticipates any trouble next year, or the year after with the current system being the factor of “1”. Mr. Poirier said no, the drop is not that drastic, it is only about a 3% drop in valuation. Mr. Poirier said there is a lot of inventory on the market. He said these values were established using the calendar year of 2005 and they are always one to two years behind the market. Councillor Marchand asked Mr. Poirier how many applicants there are for abatements per year, excluding the statutory abatements, does he anticipate an increase in that amount. Councillor Marchand also asked how much is awarded on a yearly base. Mr. Poirier said when he first began working in Leominster, about nine years ago, we had about 350 abatement applications for over valuations. Mr. Poirier said that most of the time abatements are granted for data error and also if something has occurred externally to affect the value. Mr. Poirier said last year we only had 145 abatement applications. Mr. Poirier said that the 3.1 million dollars that the Council voted to be placed in the Stabilization Account is a result of the fact that abatements have dropped. He said the values are good and are adjusted every year. Councillor Nickel asked if Commercial values are still going down. Mr. Poirier said that Commercial if fairly stable, but Industrial is really hurting in this city. He said there are a lot of vacant Industrial buildings. Councillor Nickel asked why there was a drop in valuation for Target this year, which is only a year old. Mr. Poirier said there has been an adjustment in land values, which is how that dropped. He said Commercial is very healthy in this area and that is what we are living on. Councillor Rowlands asked if the housing market drops, does it take 18 months for that to show up on the assessed value. Mr. Poirier said yes, it does. Councillor Rowlands said if house prices go down we would have to adjust the tax rate to compensate for that loss of assessed value. Councillor Rowlands said the tax rate since 1995 has either stayed the same or gone down because assessed values have gone up. Councillor Rowlands asked if you have two buildings, identical, side by side and both do retail; one of the buildings is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and the other is only open 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., is there a difference in the assessed value of those buildings. Mr. Poirier said that they will be assessed the same, you cannot consider income coming in from a business. Councillor Rosa said he would like to point out a few important facts: Total Single Family parcels – 7,907, Commercial properties – 546 and Industrial properties – 375. He said there are over 800% more Single Family residential properties than there are combined Commercial and Industrial properties. Another interesting fact is the average Commercial property value is $776,379.00; the average Industrial property is $645,027.00; and the average Single Family is $3,300.00. He said the Commercial property owners pay in excess of 275% more than a Single Family owner of a residential property. The Industrial property owner pays 230% more than the Single Family owner of a residential property, and that is significant. Councillor Rosa said he feels the Commercial/Industrial property owners are paying their share. Councillor Rosa said there was a study done in 2000 that for every $1.00 in taxes that we took in from a single family homeowner it cost us $1.15 in services and for every $1.00 we took in from Commercial/Industrial property, services cost us $.85. Councillor Rosa said with the tax classification being a factor of “1” the City of Leominster has been very successful for the last two decades and that is why he has strongly been apposed to changing the tax classification of “1”. Philip Reddy, 79 Elm Street, said he submitted a written statement to the City Council regarding his position on the single tax rate and to support some of the arguments regarding the dual tax rate. Mr. Reddy said if the City Council decides tonight to continue the tax classification of “1” he thinks it is important to follow that vote with consideration of the tax relief that the city now provides to senior citizens. He said we should consider those who are on a fixed income or limited income or people with disability and are unable to participate in the volunteer tax relief program which requires them to work for the city for $500.00 deduction in their tax. Mr. Reddy believes the amount budgeted for that tax relief is far too low and if the City continues with the single rate tax they should consider raising that amount. He said he feels that having only that work opportunity for the senior citizens who have limited income and/or disability, is discriminating to those who are physically unable to work. HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 Councillor Rosa said the Single Family homeowner in the City of Leominster pays $900.00 less than the state average and that is pretty significant. He said Leominster ranks 215th lowest tax payers out of 351 cities and towns. Councillor Nickel said the number of communities with a dual rate have gone up. Mr. Poirier said yes, the number of dual rate communities has gone up fairly steady over the last five years. He said those are the communities that don’t have the resources that this city has. Councillor Nickel asked how this has affected the communities. Mr. Poirier said he only knows that his community, Chelmsford, MA has been bouncing this around. They did have a split rate and now they have a flat rate. They decided this year they are not going to split their rate again. Councillor Rowlands said he was shocked to hear there has been so many communities rates going from single to dual and then changing back. He said he thought that was one of the problems that once you go to dual that you can’t go back to a single tax rate. Councillor Rosa said that he recommends that the Finance Committee determine that the factor to be used in setting the fiscal year 2007 tax rate be a factor of “1”. Councillor Nickel and Councillor Dombrowski agreed. HEARING ADJOURNED:7:35 P.M. Lynn A. Bouchard, City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 Meeting called to order at 7:40 P.M. Attendance was taken by a roll call vote; all members present. The following COMMUNICATION was received under Suspension of the Rules, referred to the FINANCE COMMITTEE and given REGULAR COURSE. Vt. 9/0. C-54 Dean J. Mazzarella: Request that the Snow and Ice Expense Account be authorized to incur liability and make expenditures in excess of appropriations up to an amount not to exceed $250,000.00 as authorized by Chapter 44, Section 31D of the Massachusetts General Laws. Upon recommendation of the FINANCE COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATION was GRANTED TO ADOPT A FACTOR OF “1”. Vt. 8 “yeas” and 1 “nay”; Councillor Rowlands opposed. C-21 Relative to determining the factor to be used in setting the Fiscal Year 2007 tax rate. Upon recommendation of the Majority vote of the FINANCE COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATION was GRANTED and ORDERED. Vt. 6 “yeas” and 3 “nays”; Councillors Rowlands, Dombrowski and Marchand opposed. A minority report for FURTHER TIME was defeated. Vt. 3 “yeas” and 6 “nays”; Councillors Tocci, Nickel, Freda, Lanciani, Rosa and Salvatelli opposed. C-35 Relative to the appropriation of $200,000.00 to the Police Department Capital Outlay Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. ORDERED: that the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) be appropriated to the Police Department Capital Outlay Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Excess and Deficiency Account. RE: These funds are requested for six (6) marked cars (approx. $168,000.00) and a radio link system ($25,000.00). Upon recommendation of the FINANCE COMMITTEE, the following COMMUNICATIONS were GRANTED and ORDERED. Vt. 9 “yeas.” C-41 Relative to the appropriation of $200,000.00 to the School Department Expense Account; same to be raised by FY 2007 Revenue. ORDERED: that the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) be appropriated to the School Department Expense Account; same to be raised by FY 2007 Revenue. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 30, 2006, continued. C-42 Relative to the appropriation of $30,000.00 to the Medicare Insurance Expense Account; same to be raised by FY 2007 Revenue. ORDERED: that the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) be appropriated to the Medicare Insurance Expense Account; same to be raised by FY 2007 Revenue. C-43 Relative to the appropriation of $20,000.00 to the Unemployment Expense Account; same to be raised by FY 2007 Revenue. ORDERED: that the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) be appropriated to the Unemployment Expense Account; same to be raised by FY 2007 Revenue. C-44 Relative to the appropriation of $30,000.00 to the Insurance Expense Account; same to be raised by FY 2007 Revenue. ORDERED: that the sum of Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) be appropriated to the Insurance Expense Account; same to be raised by FY 2007 Revenue. C-50 Relative to the appropriation of $125,000.00 to the Collective Bargaining Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Fiscal Year 2007 Revenue. ORDERED: that the sum of One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000.00) be appropriated to the Collective Bargaining Expense Account; same to be transferred from the Fiscal Year 2007 Revenue. Under Old Business and relative to the June 26, 2006 decision of the City Council to Deny a Special Permit Application to Susan M. Harding, the following motion was made and adopted. Vt. 9 “yeas.” MOVED THAT, in accordance with an agreed upon remand from the Land Court, the City Council make the following findings, based upon the information available during the public hearing on the Harding application: 1. The subject property is located in the Industrial District at the intersection of Mohawk Drive and Lock Drive. There is an exiting building on the subject property. 2. The subject property was previously used for a long distance trucking facility. 3. The applicant does not own the subject property. 4. The applicant seeks to move her existing business, Trade One Auto Auction, from its present location in Worcester to the subject property. 5. The vehicles to be auctioned would be stored outside the existing building. 6. The vehicles to be auctioned would include cars, suvs, and trucks in the F150 and F450 size range. 7. The auction sales would involve the brokering of vehicle sales between licensed dealers, with 30-35 dealers participating at each auction. 8. The vehicles for auction could be stored on the property for up to two weeks. 9. Neither “Wholesale Auto Sales” nor “Auto Auction” are specifically listed in the Section 22-26 Table of Uses for Business uses as being a use permitted either by right or by special permit in any of the Residence, Business, Commercial or Industrial Districts. 10. Section 22-16.10 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the City Council to grant a special permit to allow the use of an existing building in an Industrial or Commercial District for a use not otherwise permitted in the district in which the building is located, but only for a use which is one of the specific uses itemized in the Table of Uses for Business Uses as being permitted by right or as being allowed subject to a special permit. 11. Section 22-16.10 also requires that, in granting a special permit under that section, the City Council must find (a) that the proposed use is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than the prior use, and (b) that no reasonable industrial alternative is available to the applicant. 12. The applicant here did not provide information to the Council demonstrating the lack of a reasonable alternative industrial use of the building. Rather, the information provided to the Council indicated that the applicant (who does not own the property) simply wishes to relocate her auto auction business to the property. 13. The proposed use of the property may not be authorized under Section 22-16.10 for the following reasons: (a) The proposed use is not among those specifically listed in the Table of Uses as being allowed by right or with a special permit in the Residence, Business, Commercial or Industrial Districts; (b) The proposed use would be conducted substantially outside the existing building, an is, therefore, not within the intent and scope of Section 22-16.10 which only authorizes a special permit for the use of an existing building; SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 30, 2006, continued. (c) The applicant presented no evidence to enable the Council to find that there is no reasonable alternative industrial use of the building available. To the contrary, the property is located in a viable industrial park, where all other tenants use their properties for industrial uses as qualified by the existing industrial tenants who spoke. (d) The proposed use would be substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood than any prior uses because of the increased amount of consumer traffic in an industrial park. Under Old Business Councillor Tocci wanted to let the Councillors know that they are voting on the best Christmas tree and that Joseph’s Jewelers and Sun in the City have trees upstairs in the auditorium and said she would like everybody to go vote. Councillor Tocci said there is also the first annual Holiday Stroll on December 9, 2006 from 4 P.M. to 7 P.M. She said the streets downtown will be closed and there will be elves, grinches, hayrides, ice sculptures and a lot more and she hopes that everyone goes and brings their children and grandchildren. Under New Business Councillor Marchand said that he wants to have a Legal Affairs Subcommittee meeting on December 7, 2006, at 7:15 P.M. and that it will be at least a couple hours. Councillor Marchand said he would also like to have Mr. Brooks and Mr. LaPointe come down to the subcommittee meeting to discuss the Water and Sewer rates and also the Intermunicipal Agreement with Lancaster. He said he feels they could get a lot of that worked out for the December 11, 2006 meeting. Councillor Tocci said she will not be able to attend the subcommittee meeting. Councillor Freda said she will not be able to make it to the subcommittee meeting that night, either. She said they thought they were going to have a joint meeting between the Ways & Means Committee and Legal Affairs Committee. Councillor Freda said she will just have to meet with her committee, the Ways & Means Committee if she cannot make that meeting. Councillor Salvatelli said we could push the Intermunicipal Agreement until the beginning of next year. A motion was made to request Mr. Brooks and Mr. LaPointe attend the Legal Affairs subcommittee meeting on December 7, 2006. Vt. 9/0. MEETING ADJOURNED: 9:10 P.M. ___________________________________________ Lynn A. Bouchard, City Clerk and Clerk of the City Council