purpose of outreach sessions 1.develop common understanding of facts as a basis for discussion and...
Post on 26-Mar-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Purpose of Outreach Sessions
1. Develop common understanding of facts as a basis for discussion and decisions on public policy for Williamstown
2. Outline Planning Board projects for 2008-2009
3. Solicit public input on both of the above
• We pay too much property tax– Local government and school spending are out of
line– We get too little state aid
• The best option to avoid tax increases is new growth, but protected land and onerous regulations stifle growth
Taxes and Growth:Conventional Wisdom
How do our property tax bills compare?
Measurement* Amount Rank
Avg. household property tax bill (2008) $4,635 87/3361
1 – In 1988 we ranked 20 places higher
* Values do not count Williams students in population figures
Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue bill08.xls
• One-in-six Williamstown property tax payers spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs in 1999
Source: 2000 US Census H97
For how many of us are property taxes a hardship?
For how many of us are property taxes a hardship?
• One-in-six Williamstown property tax payers spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs in 1999
• Surprisingly, we ranked near the bottom – 329th out of 351 towns in Massachusetts – in this metric
Source: 2000 US Census H97
Property Taxes as Percentage of Household Income for Williamstown
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
1990 1999
$1,799 $42,926
$2,826$75,366
Sources Average Household Income 1999: US CensusAverage Household Income 1990: Estimated from US Census household income distribution dataAverage Household Property Tax Bills: Massachusetts Department of Revenue (no median tax bill data available)
Has there been any trend in property tax affordability?
Is spending for local government and schools out of line?
Measurement* Amount Rank
Municipal spending/resident (2007) $2,466 150/351
* Values do not count Williams students in population figures
Do we get too little state aid?
Measurement* Amount Rank
State aid/resident (2007) $432 122/351
* Values do not count Williams students in population figures
“The best option to avoid tax increases is new growth, but protected land and onerous regulations stifle growth”
• From a fiscal standpoint, how important is new growth? – What kind of new growth are we talking about?
• Do local regulations and our fondness for open space inhibit new growth (and thereby have a negative fiscal impact)?
New Growth and the BudgetBudget is initially proposed as revenue limited, not expense
driven. – Peter Fohlin
• Yearly expectation is that total municipal revenues will increase by about 3.5% - based in part on an annual increase in revenue from taxes on existing property that is at or near Proposition 2½ limits, and in part on an annual property tax revenue boost from “new growth”
• In recent years, the revenue from property taxes has been approaching $12M, increasing by around $480K per year. About $260K of that comes from what is allowed by Prop 2½, and another $220K comes from tax revenue on “new growth”
• To get that $220K boost from “new growth” requires around $15-19M of “new growth”, depending on tax rate
New growth revenue break-down
Sources of New Growth 2004-2008
Condominium conversion: $2K
Commercial & industrial: $9K
Construction of new homes:
$71K
Subdivision of land: $27K
Improvements to existing
homes: $94K
Personalproperty:
$20K
Source: Assessor’s new growth data and building permit data
Is subdivision and new home construction important?
• If all subdivision and new home construction ceased (and we increased taxes to make up for the lost tax revenue), our average property tax bill would increase by an additional $34 each year– From $190/year to $224/year
“… protected land and onerous regulations stifle growth”
• How much land do we have available for growth?
Open Space – NumbersTotal Williamstown acreage: 30,005
Protected Open Space: 11,6731
Upland Conservation District: 4,254 exclusive of the above2
15,927 acres, or 53% of land is formally or practically protected from development
1 - From MassGIS Open Space 2/08 data layer. This includes but is not limited to: Mount Greylock Reservation (3,518); Other State-Owned Land (2,730); Hopkins Forest (1,990); Conservation Commission (515); Rural Lands Foundation (454); Trustees of Reservations (430)
2 - The total area of the Upland Conservation District is 11,571 acres, but much of it overlaps with protected open space
Chapter 61, 61A and 61B lands not included
Chapter 61 forestry
2,870 acres
Chapter 61A agricultural
4,243 acres
Chapter 61B recreation lands
543 acres
Between 1997 and 2008, the fraction of the tax base shielded by Chapter 61 increased from 3.0% to 4.9%
Source: Assessor’s Chapter Land data
Not to be confused with…
With all that Open Space, is there any land left for people (and development)?
• Williamstown ranks 116th out of 351 towns in the amount of non-protected land per-capita*: 2.2 acres
* Williams College student population excluded
Source: MassGIS OpenSpace datalayer, February 2008
(Hopkins Forest and Clark Art Institute were added to Williamstown measure)
Are regulations stifling growth?
• You need to ask: In comparison to what?– Williamstown’s regulations and enforcement
don’t seem to be unusual (with the possible exception of the Upland Conservation District)
• One investigation* suggests that…– Regulations may inhibit subdivision of land– Found no evidence that they inhibit home
building
* Patrick Dunlavey, Presented to the Williamstown Planning Board, July 2008
Why do we rank high on average household tax bill?
Measurement* Amount RankAvg. household property tax bill (2008) $4,635 86/3011
1 – In 1988 we ranked 20 places higher
* Values do not count Williams students in population figures
Commercial pulls its weight
Williamstown 88% vs. 12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%
Residential
Com
merc
ial
Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue lvcl08.xls
• Williamstown ranks 148th out of 313 towns in proportion of revenue contributed by commercial, industrial and personal property taxes
• Among small towns (>4,000 & <12,000 population), we rank 34/97
Tax-Exempt Stands Out
Williamstown62.1% vs. 8.5%
29.4% tax-exempt
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%
Residential
Com
merc
ial
Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue propertyvalues08.xls
With 29.4% tax-exempt property, Williamstown ranks 3rd highest out of 313 towns
Top Ten Tax-Exempt Valuations
Municipality % of TotalHUNTINGTON 42.0%MOUNT WASHINGTON 32.9%WILLIAMSTOWN 29.4%DEERFIELD 25.9%PETERSHAM 25.5%CHELSEA 24.0%BOSTON 23.9%CAMBRIDGE 22.5%LINCOLN 22.1%NEW SALEM 21.1%
Summing up
• Our taxes are somewhat higher than expected– they’re more affordable to us than most towns– they’re not affordable to a significant minority
• ‘Growth imperative’ may be overrated
• Regulation and protected land are probably not significantly inhibiting growth
• Tax-exempt property probably explains high tax bills
It’s not all about money
• Demographics– We’re moving to an older, less diverse population– Declining school enrollments could continue
• Community Values & Vision– See Williamstown Master Plan, Open Space Plan,
etc.
Planning Board Projects for 2008-2009
Review of Village Business District
Current Village Business District (VBD) is comprised of two non-contiguous areas - one generally comprised of Spring Street, the other by upper Water Street
Current purpose is to accommodate a broad mixture of uses in a compact pedestrian-oriented environment
Master plan calls for promoting growth in downtown core
Recent permitting for Spring Street project identified several obstacles to growth
Village Business District (cont)
Goal of VBD review is to see if acceptable development can be facilitated
Under consideration:
• Review amount of set-back from residential uses
• Adding special permit authority to increase building heights above 35 feet
• Review requirement for on-site stormwater recharge if storm sewer is available
• Need for more off-street parking for Water and Spring
• Possible linkage of VBD between Spring Street and Water Street
The Village Business District
Planning Board Projects for 2008-2009
Low Impact Development
Perennial problem of flooding – damage to homes and property, erosion, damage to water resources
New developments may increase flooding if not planned properly
Low Impact Development (LID) is an approach to stormwater management that relies on low-tech controls at the source
Goal is to ensure that flood control after development is better than or equal to pre-development conditions
Low Impact Development (cont)
Goal is to control stormwater at the source through small-scale management techniques, rather than just pipe all water to a low point and discharge.
Key elements include the practice of reducing impervious cover, and using green space and natural areas to allow control of flow and to promote percolation
Use of permeable pavements, rain gardens, grassed swales
Part of effort is to reduce the building envelope to what is needed, so that other permeable areas allow for infiltration
Less reliance on large structures like detention basins, catch basins and and pipes
top related