Over 100 residents turn out for tax bill hearing
*

By David R. Smith

“I thought it was big mistake when I got my bill,” Edna Murphy told the Board of Aldermen Finance Committee, and she was not alone.

The dozens of speakers, representing just a portion of the approximately 100 people who came to City Hall last Tuesday evening, shared the 55-year resident’s sentiments about the spike in property tax bills following the city’s recent triennial revaluation of Somerville’s 16,000 properties as required by the state Department of Revenue (DOR).

“I’d like to stay in Somerville, but common sense tells you you’re going to drive out the people if you keep this up,” she said.

The meeting in the Alderman’s Chambers was held Tuesday, Feb. 4, a day after the deadline to file an appeal for an abatement with the assessing department.

And while little could be done at that point to assist anyone who didn’t seek an abatement, the Finance Committee’s public hearing gave residents a chance to vent their anger, ask questions and understand what options may be available to them moving forward. The committee members also had a chance to question Chief Assessor Marc Levye and brainstorm possible ways to reduce future property tax bills, or at least give residents more warning when such increases are coming.

Hathorn Street resident Edmund Robbins, who described himself as a third-generation Somerville resident, called the hike in valuations a “back-door tax,” skirting the constraints of Proposition 2 ½ that limits cities and towns from raising the tax rate by more than 2.5 percent from one year to the next. He questioned whether more could be done to cut the city’s budget in order to reduce the amount needed to be raised from property taxes.

“I haven’t had a raise in three years,” he said, “so why does the city get a raise? You’re making it so people can’t afford to live here.”

Even those who did receive an abatement, such as Belmont Place resident John O’Brien, felt the amount was still too small. He said the abatement meant his bill went from going up by 45 percent to a little over 40. He also noted the increased valuations worked as a disincentive to improving properties one doesn’t plan to sell. He told the committee the increases are more than just emotionless calculations.

“It’s not a spreadsheet,” he said. “It’s individual people trying to contend with these increases.”

The property tax is obviously not the only way the city collects from residents, as resident Lou Morales noted. Water bills, the meals tax and the Community Preservation Act surcharge, which many residents in attendance felt was written in a deliberately confusing way when presented to voters at the polls, were a few of the examples he offered.

“You just can’t keep pulling it out of people’s pockets when they’re empty,” he said.

Levye did note, though, that CPA exemptions are available based on age and income guidelines.

Many residents, including Belmont Street resident Edward Fay, used the forum as a chance to express his frustration over feeling that the increase in the bills isn’t leading to an increased quality of life in the city.

“My (bill) went up over 40 percent over the last year,” he said. “Where’s the additional 40 percent in city services I’ll be getting for that increase?”

When all the residents who had signed up to comment had their say, and after a few more who didn’t but still wanted to speak had stepped up to the microphone, the assessing department’s Levye offered an explanation of why the valuations took place, why they were required and how the assessments were reached. He had offered the same explanation in two previous public forums last month.

“It’s buyers and sellers; that’s what makes the market,” he said, adding that it’s his department’s job to then interpret that data in valuing properties. He explained that his department, by state law, cannot assess a property for less than 90 percent of its actual sale history. As an example, he noted a house that recently sold for $400,000 could not be assessed by his department for any less than $360,000.

He also noted the percentage of property owners who appeal their assessment is often less than 3 percent, and that his department received 419 appeals for fiscal 2014, representing 2.6 percent of the 16,000 properties assessed.  He further noted his department actually received more appeals -458- for fiscal 2010.

In response to criticism that the assessments came without warning, Levye countered that all legal notification requirements had been followed, adding that his department cannot release the figures until the state concludes its preliminary certification of the assessment, which did not happen until this past November.

A new communication plan was mentioned but not discussed in any detail. Still, Levye said his department would do what it could to bring residential and commercial property owners into the loop to provide as much transparency as possible.

“Clearly, if there’s an opportunity to do more to get the word out, we’ll do it,” he said.

He also noted that some confusion comes from issuing quarterly tax bills, saying the first two quarters are based on the previous year’s figures, while the third and fourth reflect the balance due under the current fiscal year’s figures.

Despite his pledge to notify residents as early as possible, some aldermen were still not satisfied.

“To have it happen after the fact is what I find so troubling,” Ward 6 Aldermen Rebeka Gewitz said. “All people want here is some predictability in the way this happens.”

“We can do better, and we will,” Levye said.

He went on to note that some of the “hot spots,” in places such as Inner Belt, Davis Square and Assembly Square, did not have across-the-board doubling of assessed values. He said 35 of the 16,000 properties saw an increase of 100 percent or more. Of those, 21 were on properties that had pulled building permits.

Mayor Joseph Curtatone defended the department.

“This is not an assessing problem,” he said.

Curtatone also defended the charge the city was spending too much, noting that 82 percent of the city’s budget is fixed costs and saying the city spends less per capita than two-thirds of other cities and towns in the state. He also noted the longstanding drop in state aid and the fact that the city has never sought a Prop 2 ½ override.

Finance Committee member and Board of Aldermen President Bill White, in response to many comments by residents, suggested the BOA look into increasing the residential exemption, which less than a dozen cities and towns in the state offer. The move would require a home rule petition with approval by the state Legislature. The idea was also floated of creating a similar exemption for resident-owned businesses in town.

That increase couldn’t come enough for 73-year-old resident David Benson, who said rising property tax bills “just about ate up the residential exemption long ago.”

Increasing the exemption and/or creating a new one would require the city to shift the tax burden elsewhere, and how that would happen and who would be hit remains unanswered.

“The pie is only so big,” Alderman at Large Dennis Sullivan said.

Ward 2 Alderman Maryann Heuston suggested the city consider entering into PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreements with tax-exempt properties. She also asked Levye to provide information on the number of such properties in the city. Cities and towns enter into PILOT agreements to help cover the cost of municipal services rendered to tax-exempt properties and their tenants.

And while the attendees and speakers represented a range of ages and life situations, much of the concern was for seniors, particularly as large jumps in assessments could potentially disqualify some seniors for the state’s Circuit Breaker tax credit, which, among other eligibility criteria, applies to homes assessed at under $700,000.

Levye did note, however, that while the deadline for filing for an abatement and the residential exemption may have passed, the deadline to apply for statutory exemptions for seniors, veterans and widows/widowers, among others, is not until April 1.

Finance Committee Chairman and Ward 4 Alderman Tony Lafuente said he felt properties that were similar to each other in size, condition and use were being assessed differently, and sometimes those properties were in the same neighborhood. Levye, however, said he could not discuss any specific properties, as their owners may or may not have filed an appeal.

The meeting wound down with far fewer people in attendance at the outset and with city officials stating they would pursue many of the ideas discussed that evening.

“Whatever makes sense, we’ll take it,” Curtatone said.