Agenda Text
title
Chief Assessor responding to this Board's request for additional information regarding the November 23 Classification Hearing.
body
Official Text
To the Honorable Board:
As a result of the classification hearing held on 11/23/2010, there were a number of requests made by Aldermen for additional information on a range of subjects. Alderman Heuston asked about foreclosure numbers in other communities and Alderman Trane requested information about the number of owner-occupied foreclosed properties. Alderman White wanted to know about the number of sales in each use category for calendar years 2007 thru 2010 year to date as presented in the Assessor's written report to the BOA for the 11/23/2010 hearing. The response to these 3 questions can be found in the first attachment to this communication entitled "foreclosures."
Alderman Taylor requested information about "affordable" housing properties and specifically what taxes we now receive, if any and what the taxes would be if these properties were taxable or fully taxed as market properties. I separated this information into 2 attachments. The first attachment, "2011 exempt owners values-housing" contains a list of all tax exempt housing properties. Although not "affordable," I included dormitories owned by Tufts and rectory and parsonage housing. Some exempt properties make a "payment in lieu of taxes." The last column, "difference," is the difference between what we would collect, if taxable minus what we do receive, (see total at end of column). The next attachment, "taxableafford," provides a list of all the affordable but taxable properties in the City, all privately held. Information shows what is now collected as well as what we would collect if fully taxable. The last column provides the difference between taxes at market minus taxes at the affordable status.
Alderman Pero requested information regarding the qualification for tax exempt property. The exact legal language can be found in MGL Chapter 59, section 5, clause first thru fifty-sixth plus. However, I've provided a summary reprint from the Department of Revenue course 101, "Assessment Administration." Please open the "PDF" attachment to access, (KMBT etc.)
Finally, Alderman White was looking for an explanation as to why the average 9+ family assessment dropped from $2,381,800 in FY2010 to $2,311,100 in FY2011. In fact, there was no market adjustment on this use for FY2011 as values remained flat. Please understand that the calculation simply shows the total assessed value for the particular fiscal year divided by the parcel count for that year. As a result, it includes all the parcels that increased in value due to growth, (not market changes) as well as those that were reduced in value due to demolition or partial construction completion. It also includes parcels that may have been added as a 9+ family property or eliminates those no longer classified as 9+ for FY2011. In this particular instance, the FY2011 average assessment appears lower due to the fact that we had 2 large scale developments at 301-303 Lowell St. and 80 Webster Ave. that were classified as 9+ families in FY2010 but were reclassified as condominiums for FY2011.
I hope I have addressed all the questions and did not omit any items. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions and thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marc Levye
Chief Assessor