• Local
  • Pittsfield, MA
  • more weather >
Heather Bellow
At the State Road Fire Station in Great Barrington a skeptical audience attends to the Finance Committee's deliberations and public hearing on a proposed graduated property tax.

Graduated property tax concept grilled at public hearing; Finance Committee votes to retain flat rate

More Info
By Saturday, Aug 22, 2015 News 9

Great Barrington — After the Finance Committee’s public hearing at the fire station Thursday (August 20), in which one speaker after another stood before an overflowing meeting room to decry and, at times, ridicule the idea of a residential property tax exemption and split tax rate, the committee voted 3-2 to keep a single rate for the fiscal year following this one.

Great Barrington Finance Committee, from left: Walter F. Atwood III< Thomas Blauvelt, Leigh Davis, Will Curletti and Michael Wise.

Great Barrington Finance Committee, from left: Walter F. Atwood III, Thomas Blauvelt, Leigh Davis, Will Curletti and Michael Wise. Photo: Heather Bellow

The hearing was intended, in part, to receive public comment on Finance Committee Chairman Michael Wise’s concept of a way to make property taxes more equitable by instituting a graduated rate, similar to the income tax, whereby more valuable real estate would be taxed at a higher rate. Wise has estimated that under this system 80 percent of taxpayers might possibly experience a decrease in annual property taxes.

It was a New England-style display of oratorical flair among a mostly older, polo shirt-clad, humorous, and articulate bunch. That they were preaching their objections — and often repeating them — to what was mostly the familiar choir, did not stop anyone from busting out their best moves to flatten the prospect of a “progressive” or graduated tax on homes –– up or down — depending on their value.

“It’s like using a machete to perform brain surgery,” declared Alford Road resident Chip Elitzer, to raucous laughter and applause. “There’s no chance of meeting your objective, and it’s likely you’ll kill the patient.”

Chip Elitzer addressing the hearing.

Chip Elitzer addressing the hearing. Photo: Heather Bellow

One reason for this, he said, is partly that renters, those who, in his opinion, most need financial help, could be victimized, as landlords — ineligible for the exemption unless they live in the building — pass tax hikes onto their tenants. Wise has always acknowledged this possibility. Housatonic, which he says would get the highest and most widespread savings with the exemption, has a good number of renters.

Elitzer got hold of this figure from the town’s Master Plan data: 43 percent of homes in Housatonic are “non-owner occupied.”

“Yes, we will pass along any real estate tax increase,” said rental unit developer and landlord Ron Blumenthal. “It’s a formula. It has to flow.”

Vivian Orlowski said that 61 percent of renters in Great Barrington are already paying more than 30 percent of their income for total housing costs. It’s not so easy for homeowners, either, she said. Between 2003 and 2013 the town’s home assessments have risen almost 50 percent.

George Klemp is selling his Hurlburt Road home so he can build a new one, he said. But he has lowered the sale price three times. “The realtor said, ‘it’s the taxes’. ”

If you don’t own your house and live in it year-round, you are not eligible for the exemption. Klemp said that raising property taxes on second homeowners, which he once was here, may drive that group to buy in outlying towns with lower taxes.

Ron Blumenthal, insisting that the Finance Committee tackle the school district assessment issue rather than residential exemption.

Ron Blumenthal, insisting that the Finance Committee tackle the school district assessment issue rather than residential exemption.

“There’s an even greater attraction to being near Great Barrington,” he said, adding that his own analysis of the exemption shows that while most homeowners in town will benefit, as Wise suggests, their savings would amount to somewhere between $150 and $475.

During a brief presentation by Wise at the start of the hearing, he said his updated analysis shows 83 percent of homeowners in town would be unaffected or see an 11 to 20 percent cut on their tax bill. The intent behind Wise’s proposal, which Elitzer said had “a good objective,” is that town has low median incomes compared to home values, making taxes “feel” high. Wise has searched for a way to manage this disparity, but last night’s hearing showed that the idea didn’t go over so well, at least with those who are informed and would see an increase in their taxes. They agree that taxes are a problem here, but want to use other approaches.

Blumenthal said he was willing to pay more taxes “for a good reason, not just to keep the thing going the way it’s been going.”

That “thing” is what some speakers hinted at was a bloated town budget due to inefficiencies, and more importantly, said other speakers, the fact that Great Barrington pays disproportionately more for its school system, as one of three towns in the Berkshire Hills Regional School District.

“Your job is to work with the school board,” Blumenthal added, speaking directly to Wise and the committee.

Nick Stanton, arguing against the residential exemption.

Nick Stanton, arguing against the residential exemption.

Former Finance Committee Chair Sharon Gregory made a presentation with charts and graphs to illustrate that “we need to distribute the school assessment differently. That would make it more affordable.”

Orlowski said that the town should not make “the same mistake” as those who years ago signed the school district’s regional agreement that determined that the pie would be divided based on the number of students from each town.

“Why would someone buy a house in Great Barrington, when the school tax level is three times more than in Stockbridge and other towns,” said Nick Stanton. Almost $30 million, he added, has been “unfairly charged to our account…We pay 70 percent of the school bill. We should only be paying 50 percent…the residential exemption does not fix that at all.”

Other issues were raised. Seekonk Road resident Steve Picheny spoke of the detriment this policy might have on economic development in general, specifically in trying to pull young people into the Berkshires to live and start businesses. Gregory noted that taxes would eventually rise again without an increase to the tax base that such development would provide. There were concerns — which Wise has himself acknowledged — about seniors on fixed incomes trying to stay in high value homes. Dana Dapolito said the exemption would kill the incentive to renovate an old house like the one she fixed up in the The Castle Hill neighborhood where she lives.

And Michelle Loubert researched seven towns that had considered a residential exemption and decided against it. The town of Lexington, she said, rejected it “to avoid up-taxing” properties like rental buildings that are not “owner-occupied.”

Anthony Dapalito gestures during his remarks while Michael Wise listens. Photo: Heather Bellow

Anthony Dapalito gestures during his remarks while Michael Wise listens. Photo: Heather Bellow

“Be careful,” the Lexington assessor’s office wrote to Loubert, about disproportionally taxing “out-of-towners,” and possibly “discouraging future taxable development in Great Barrington.”

Anthony Dapolito ticked off a list of ways he thinks the town could ease the tax burden by cutting its own expenses, including time-clocking employees paid by the hour, incentives for early retirement, and fast checking deposits to increase interest.

The other part of Wise’s proposal, a split tax rate, one that would tax commercial, industrial and personal property (CIP) at what Wise suggested might be a 5 percent increase, was not a popular one with this crowd, either. Ron Banks, Tony Blair, Ray Almori and Richard Stanley of Egremont spoke to what they said are the dangers of hitting up owners of such property.

“I don’t even have to ask my tenant to pay it, it’s already in his lease,” said Stanley, who owns a considerable number of commercial and residential properties in town. “Do you really think that I’m going to sit still and absorb those increases? I need a return.”

Almori, owner of Plaza Package Store, spoke of his tight profit margin. Banks said that having a “dirt Main Street” during this summer’s construction was hard enough on businesses, which form an important “commercial hub” in South County. Blair spoke to the vibrancy of downtown compared to other nearby towns.

“It’s our golden goose,” Blair said. “Let’s not kill it.”

Real estate investor Richard Stanley argued against the split tax provision of the proposed property tax reform.

Real estate investor Richard Stanley argued against the split tax provision of the proposed property tax reform. Photo: Heather Bellow

With New England-style debate comes the occasional jab, and Wise met with the business end of Stanley’s knife when he accused Wise of presenting the proposal to the Selectboard–which alone makes the tax decision–before presenting it to his own committee.

Wise “for the record,” said that his committee had, indeed, been presented with these tax options for consideration, and that it had been brought to the Selectboard “to remind them that this [hearing] was coming up.”

Wise had first brought the idea to the committee last October, and again in June. Yet Wise does not appear to be wedded to it. “If the costs exceed the benefits then the town shouldn’t do it,” he said.

Wise took the two and a half hours of criticism –– a marathon of 17 speakers –– with New England-style forbearance, and in the end, committee member Walter “Buddy” Atwood made the motion to keep a single tax rate for the following fiscal year (FY17). Committee member Leigh Davis said she had been swayed by what she had just heard. Thomas Blauvelt also said yes to a single rate. Will Curletti and Wise voted no, both saying they wanted to give the exemption more consideration.

And where were the supporters of this proposed tax reform? Elitzer had earlier asked for a show of hands, revealing three.

Wise was one of them, and only he had dared to speak.

To read Wise’s proposal, click here.

To watch the hearing on CTSB-TV, click here.

More by »

9 Comments   Add Comment

  1. Bruce Firger says:

    I commend the Edge for your coverage of the Finance Committee’s public hearing on Thursday, 8/20/2015.
    For the record, would the Edge please follow up with a list of the current select-board members who attended the public hearing.
    Since the select-board, and they alone, have the final responsibility to vote on this change to our towns property tax system, it might be helpful to the tax payers of the town to know which members were present.
    Thank you.

    1. Bill Cooke says:

      Hi Bruce,
      In addition to myself, I saw Ed Abrahams and Dan Bailly there. Steve and Sean may have attended, but I didn’t see them.

      1. Michael Wise says:

        I know Steve couldn’t make it because the School Committee meeting was going on at the same time.

  2. Patrick Fennell says:

    Until the school issues are solved and the FC and SB look to make budget cuts the tax problem will always exist. We have given ideas and have been ignored. Hopefully the three SB members were listening during the hearing this time.

  3. GMHeller says:

    Excellent reporting, Bellow!
    GB residents have just been confronted with the consequences of electing Socialists and Leftists to town boards.
    Look how close the Finance Committee actually came to passing Mr. Wise’s confiscatory tax proposal despite the presence at the meeting of an overflow crowd strongly opposed to the idea.
    Even with Mr. Wise the only attendee to speak in favor, nonetheless the board still voted three to two!
    Heck, that vote should have been 4-1 or even 5-0 against once Mr. Wise heard just how much opposition his proposal engendered.
    It’s no wonder GB’s spending is out of control with taxes so high when this Left-weighted Finance Committee plainly does not have the political will to tackle the job of cost-slashing and line-item cutting in any serious way.
    The lesson in all this: Elections have consequences.

    1. Carl Stewart says:

      I’m curious about which members of the Finance Committee and the Selectboard are Socialists. [Not sure that this should be capitalized. Do we have a political party in Great Barrington with that denomination?] Are they self-declared as such or is the claim based on other evidence. If the latter, what is the basis of deciding that they are socialists?

      1. GMHeller says:

        Good questions, Carl!
        Suggest you address them to members of the Finance Committee and to the GB Selectboard.
        A good indicator of the degree to which the Left, Socialists (or socialists), and so-called Progressives hold sway in Great Barrington will be the upcoming Democrat Presidential Primary.
        If Bernie Sanders carries Great Barrington over Hillary, Biden, Warren, Gore, et al. then it’s a sure bet the activists of the Left are also dominating local town boards and GB politics.
        Do you disagree?

      2. Matthew P says:

        So, no real answer.

        GM Heller: the Sean Hannity of Berkshire County message boards. Whatever he says, you can be assured he is wrong.

  4. Susan says:

    On point, GMHeller. Thankyou.

What's your opinion?

We welcome your comments and appreciate your respect for others. We kindly ask you to keep your comments as civil and focused as possible. If this is your first time leaving a comment on our website we will send you an email confirmation to validate your identity.