Category Archives: Budgets

Your tax bill

The Division of Local Services (DLS) of the Massachusetts Department of Revenue sends me emails with lots of data.  I was especially interested to see our colleagues in pain on the attached chart of what towns pay for property taxes.  Look at it on-line here


This lists the towns paying the ten highest and lowest property taxes – we must be just off the high list:

tax bills-highest-2019

This was that same list from last year (which makes me wonder what sources of revenue Concord and Sudbury found to be able to lower their taxes):

tax bills-highest -fy18

Budgets are now online


Proposed Town Budgets are Online

This email yesterday from new Town Administrator, Kristine Trierweiler:


Subject: Proposed FY20 Budget Online


The Proposed Budgets are now online


Kristine Trierweiler

Town Administrator
Town of Medfield

459 Main Street
Medfield, MA 02052

CPA – town missing out

The letter below that I received this week from the Norfolk Register of Deeds highlights for Medfield how, as a town, we all pay in to the Massachusetts Community Preservation Act (CPA) fund ($44,250 last year), but we get none of the monies or benefits back because we have not adopted the CPA.

The CPA is a self-imposed additional tax of from 1-3%, in exchange for which the town get state matching monies.   CPA monies have to be spent on one of three areas:

  • historic preservation
  • affordable housing
  • open space and recreation

My analysis has always been that where we already spend on those three things anyway, that by not adopting the CPA that we are merely forgoing the state matching monies.

The one time the CPA went to the annual town meeting (ATM), about ten years ago, it was defeated.

WILLIAM P. ODONNELL REGISTER OF DEEDS ASSISTANT RECORDER OF THE LAND COURT Selectman Osler L. Peterson Medfield Board of Selectmen  0 Copperwood Road Medfield, MA 02052 Dear Selectman Peterson, COUNTY OF NORFOLK COUNTY OF PRESIDENTS REGISTRY OF DEEDS NORFOLK REGISTRY DISTRICT OF THE L AND C O URT January 18, 2019 The fees for the Community Preservation Act are set by the State Legislature on land documents recorded here at the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds. l thought the chart on the reverse side would be of interest to you. It provides an illustration of the funds generated by the Community Preservation Act (CPA) in your community based on recorded real estate filings during the 2018 calendar year. The Community Preservation Act was signed into law on September 14, 2000. Today there are 175 Massachusetts communities that have adopted the Community Preservation Act, including this year the town of Plainville in Norfolk County. Just over 2.1 billion dollars has been raised to date statewide. The Registry of Deeds, at no additional cost to the Commonwealth or local communities, collects these revenues for the state once a document is recorded. The monies are then forwarded to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue on a monthly basi s. The funds collected by the Commonwealth are then redistributed back to the communities that have adopted the CPA through a variety of formulas. The Norfolk County Registry of Deeds which is located at 649 High Street, Dedham, is the principal office for real property in Norfolk County. The Registry is a resource for homeowners, title examiners, mortgage lenders, genealogists, municipalities and others with a need for secure, accurate, accessible land record information. For assistance please contact our Customer Service Center at (781) 461-6101 , or visit our website at J hope you find this data to be timely, informative and useful. In the meantime, if I can be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me at 781-461-6116 or by email at I wish you a healthy New Year. WPO/aag Sincerely yours, "P~(}p~ William P. O'Donnell Norfolk County Register of Deeds 649 HIGH STREET. DEDHAM. MASSACHUSETTS 02026 TELEPH ONE : 781 ·46 I · 61 16 FAX 78 1 ·326·4246 EM A I L : www •~7SC ~ ~ YouiD Linked rm·County·Registry·Of·Deeds (.@) @NorfolkDeeds NORFOLK COUNTY REGISTRY OF DEEDS •I COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT (CPA) SURCHARGES BY TOWN FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2018 TOWN TOTAL AVON $1~,450 BF.I ,IJNGHAM $66,660 BRAINTREE $112,570 BROOKLINE $150,350 CANTON $86,090 COHASSET $39,420 DEDHAM $83,650 DOVER $23,650 , FOXBOROUGH $58,270 FRANKLIN $110,350 •( HOLBROOK . $40,100 MEDFIET,n $44,150 MEDWAY $47,000 MILLIS $31,420 MILTON $86,060 NEEDHAM $103,370 NORFOLK $40,980 NORWOOD $80,170 PLAINVILLE $29,560 QUINCY $244,110 RANDOLPH $100,420 SHARON $56,740 STOUGHTON $96,000 WALPOLE $88,710 WELLESLEY $87,090 WESTWOOD $51,890 WEYMOUTH $200,460 WRENTHAM $47,530 II :''20190118-norfolk register of deeds-ltr from-cpa figures for 2018_page_2

MMA on Gov’s budget proposal

The Massachusetts Municipal Association sent out this email today on its analysis of the Governor’s budget proposal:







January 23, 2019

Dear Osler Peterson,

Earlier this afternoon, Gov. Charlie Baker submitted a $42.7 billion fiscal 2020 state budget plan with the Legislature, proposing a spending blueprint that would increase overall state expenditures by 1.5 percent, as the Administration deals with slow revenue growth by restraining most spending across the board and placing an estimated $297 million into the state’s rainy day fund. The budget relies on “significant” one-time revenues of at least $200 million from a “sales tax modernization proposal.”


As Gov. Baker pledged to local officials on Jan. 18 at the MMA’s Annual Meeting, his budget includes a $29.7 million increase in Unrestricted General Government Aid, tracking the expected 2.7% increase in state tax revenues.

Click here to see the Division of Local Services preliminary fiscal 2020 Cherry Sheet aid amounts for your community


The Governor filed separate legislation to amend the Chapter 70 school finance law, and provided a $200 million increase in school aid in his fiscal 2020 budget recommendation to fund the first year of what the Administration says is a seven-year plan to implement a number of changes to the current law, primarily in the areas recommended by the Foundation Budget Review Commission. An initial look at House 1 indicates that a large percentage of cities, towns and school districts would not benefit from the formula changes in fiscal 2020, and would remain minimum-aid-only. The budget plan sets the minimum aid increase at only $20-per-student, which would present large challenges for all of these communities. MMA members from across Massachusetts unanimously adopted a resolution calling for at least $100-per-student minimum aid at last week’s Annual Meeting.

Click here to see DESE’s calculation of fiscal 2020 Chapter 70 aid and Net School Spending requirements for your city, town, or regional school district, based on the Governor’s proposed budget and legislation


Further, the Administration is proposing a few changes to the Charter School Reimbursement Program, but this does not come close to achieving the permanent fix that is needed to repair the flawed charter school finance system. Current reimbursements this year are set at $90 million, $72 million below the full funding level of $162 million. The Governor’s budget would increase charter school reimbursements to $106 million, and would change the 6-year funding schedule of 100-25-25-25-25-25 to a new 3-year 100-60-40 schedule, phased in over 3 years, however the plan would also increase the facilities assessment payments to charter schools, and make other changes.

The MMA’s immediate analysis is that charter school reimbursements would continue to fall far short, and this restructuring would not fix the charter school finance system. This would continue to divert Chapter 70 funds away from municipally operated school districts, and place greater strain on the districts that serve 96% of public school children. No matter what changes are made to the Chapter 70 formula, major problems will continue unless a true resolution of the charter school funding problem is integrated into any reform or update of the school finance system.


The Governor’s budget would add $4.5 million to fund the Special Education Circuit Breaker program at $323.9 million, an increase of only 1.4%. Because special education costs are expected to rise in fiscal 2020, this means that the Governor’s budget substantially underfunds reimbursements. Today DESE officials said the House 1 appropriation would result in a 70% reimbursement, rather than the statutory 75%. This is a vital account that every city, town and school district relies on to fund state-mandated services. The MMA will again be asking lawmakers to ensure full funding in fiscal 2020.


Gov. Baker’s budget submission would level-fund regional transportation reimbursements at the $68.9 million amount. This will be a hardship for virtually all communities in regional districts. Reimbursements for transportation of out-of-district vocational students remains significantly underfunded at $250K. Increasing these accounts is a priority for cities and towns.


The Governor’s budget would level-fund reimbursements for the transportation of homeless students at $9.1 million. The impact of this funding level will vary from community-to-community depending on the number of homeless families that remain sheltered in local hotels and motels. The Administration has been successful in reducing the number of homeless students who are dislocated from their original district, but those communities that continue to provide transportation to many students may continue to see shortfalls.


The Governor’s budget would level fund PILOT payments at $28.48 million, Shannon anti-gang grants at $8 million, and fund library grant programs at $19.8 million.




State $ for FY20

The Governor’s budget gives Medfield a little more than last year:

fy20-gov budget

FY2020 Preliminary Cherry Sheet Estimates

The Division of Local Services has posted on its website preliminary cherry sheet estimates based on Governor Baker’s FY2020 budget recommendation (House 1), which was released today.
Municipal estimates receipts and charges
Regional school estimated receipts and charges
The House 1 budget proposal is based on An Act to Promote Equity and Excellence in Education, a comprehensive school finance bill filed by the Baker-Polito Administration. The bill implements the major recommendations of the Foundation Budget Review Commission (FBRC) and significantly increases the Foundation Budget over time, beginning in FY2020. In addition, H.1 and the accompanying legislation also incorporate other enhancements to the Commonwealth’s school funding framework.

The Administration is introducing a new three-year formula for reimbursing school districts for charter school tuition increases, putting the program on schedule for full funding within a three-year time frame. Once fully phased in, districts will be reimbursed 100% in year one, 60% in year two and 40% in year three. H.1 budget language also creates a Public School Improvement Trust Fund, funded with one-time revenue, to be used at the discretion of the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education to help accelerate improvement in low performing schools.

More detailed information regarding these and other school finance related initiatives contained in H.1 and the accompanying legislation can be found on the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) website at:  Information includes the Chapter 70 aid calculations, minimum contributions and net school spending requirements.

Specifically, House 1 recommends funding FY2020 Chapter 70 at $5.108 billion, or $200.3 million higher than the FY2019 GAA; increases Unrestricted General Government Aid (UGGA) by $29.7 million to $1.129 billion and increases Charter Tuition Assessment Reimbursements to $106.0 million, a $16.0 million increase over the FY2019 GAA; and level funding most other cherry sheet accounts at the FY2019 amounts.

Cherry sheet estimates for charter school tuition and reimbursements are based on estimated tuition rates and projected enrollments under charters previously issued by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Please be advised that charter school assessments and reimbursements will change as updated tuition rates and enrollments become available. Estimates for the school choice assessments may also change significantly when updated to reflect final tuition rates and enrollments.

Estimates for the State-owned land program reflect changes to both the valuation of state-owned land properties and the calculation of the reimbursement, based on the Municipal Modernization Act. For more information about the State-owned land program, please view the State-owned land FAQs found on the DLS website.  The FAQs and current State-owned land values can be found here. Local officials should note that these numbers are subject to both the legislative process as well as adjustments due to acquisitions and dispositions that have not been included in these values yet.

It is important for local officials to remember that these estimates are preliminary and are subject to change as the legislative process unfolds.

Please contact the DLS Municipal Databank at or (617) 626-2384 with any questions.

You are receiving this message through the Massachusetts Department of Revenue’s Division of Local Services DLS Alerts system. These periodic notices include our City & Town e-newsletter, IGRs, Bulletins, Cherry Sheets and other municipal finance-related information. To unsubscribe to DLS Alerts and the City & Town e-newsletter, please email

Plan to address our lack of a commercial tax base

I just responded to a great comment from Nic Scalfarotto, and since my general sense is that such comments and my replies are not likely seem by many, and sense Nic raised a big issue, I thought I would post both his comment and my reply here so more can see them.

Nic, I added a little more on as well.


Nic Scalfarotto

User Info

Accepting that developing differential tax rates would not provide benefit to home owners because there is a small industrial base, a plan to address the lack of such a base needs to be developed and communicated to residents.


Plan to address our lack of a commercial tax base

As a new selectman, my first search was for businesses that wanted to locate in town, and when that did not seem a likely result, I have turned to having a town policy of building housing that is revenue positive to the town.

We know that people want to live in town, but mainly not build businesses here. The can make tax money and reduce our current residents’ taxes by building the kind of housing that is more profitable, such as Old Village Square (42 units paying over $600K/year in taxes, with one school child the last time I heard) or the two Larkin brothers projects (Glover Place off North Street and Chapel Hill on Hospital Road, again, both with few school children).

See the analysis that Kathy McCabe, the consultant to the Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee, did of the potential taxes to the town from leasing the lot 3 land the town owns on Ice House Road to build 42 units of senior housing versus leasing to a commercial facility, and the town netted either more than double or more that triple the taxes from the residential use over the sports complex, depending on whether the  housing was either 100% or 25% affordable, respectively.  Those results were summarized in Steve Nolan’s 1/2/2018 memo to the Board of Selectmen available here –20180102-SN-Memo to MSHMPC re HinkleyIce House Road v2 – final sent to BoS and inserted below as well.

I think that many of the friendly 40B projects that we are currently allowing in order to be in safe harbor, will be revenue positive. Statistically, we are told that we will likely average about 1.5 school children per in single family houses, while we will likely average 0.15 school children per unit in multifamily housing. So multifamily housing may well be revenue positive for the town, even if not age restricted.

Additionally, the town is already mainly single family homes, so we really do not need any more single family homes options, while we do not have a sufficient variety of other housing opportunities for residents, especially for seniors. Current proposals in the pipeline will assist at filling in that gap:
8 units on North Street (two developments)
36 units on Dale Street
16 units on Adams Street, age restricted
42 units at the Rosebay, age restricted
56 units (from memory) at The Legion site

However, such diversification of the tax base can only accomplish so much with respect to reducing our individual tax bills. The other issue with which we need to deal is the town’s willing to spend, witness our vote at the last annual town meeting (ATM) to increase our tax bills by about 10%, over the objections of the Board of Selectmen and the Warrant Committee.


MEMORANDUM TO: Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee FROM: Stephen M. Nolan, Chair Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee RE: Hinkley Property and Lot 3, Ice House Road DATE: January 2, 2018 The original charge from the Board of Selectmen to the Medfield State Hospital Master Planning Committee (the "Committee") included Lot 3 on Ice House Road (“Lot 3”) and the adjacent Hinkley property (the “Hinkley Property”). It was our understanding that we were to take a fresh look at Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property in order to decide the most appropriate use for each parcel and how they might best be coordinated with the re-use plan for the Medfield State Hospital (“MSH”) core campus. It has since become clear that at least one of member of the Board of Selectmen believes that the best use for Lot 3 is an indoor sports facility, so that preference should be accommodated if possible in our final plan. A. Possible Uses of Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property. The consensus that has emerged from our public sessions, our meetings with the Council on Aging and the Senior Housing Study Committee and Committee deliberations is that the most desirable use for Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property is senior housing. The principal reasons for this are twofold: access to The Center and the possibility that a senior housing development could happen on a more expedited basis than the re-development of the MSH core campus because infrastructure is more readily available and the properties could be disposed of on an expedited track. The Council on Aging has expressed potential willingness to cede a small portion of the land at the corner of The Center adjacent to the Hinkley Property for purposes of enhancing the development potential of the Hinkley Property. The possible use of Lot 3 as an indoor sports facility on the other hand would respect a past Town Meeting vote to devote Lot 3 to an indoor sports facility and would increase the commercial tax base of the Town. On the latter point, our consultant, Kathy McCabe, did some research on the likely tax revenue from such a facility. Since the developable area of Lot 3 is only approximately 4.8 acres, the lot cannot support a large facility. Based on a survey of indoor sports facilities in MetroWest, it appears that a site of approximately 5 acres can likely support a facility of 100,000 square feet or less. The Forekicks facility in Norfolk is approximately 83,000 square feet and has a tax valuation of $5,000,000. Using that valuation as a basis for comparison, a 100,000 square foot facility would have a valuation of approximately $6,000,000, which would produce annual tax revenue of approximately $100,000. Kathy McCabe estimates that a 100% affordable senior rental housing project with 42 units would produce annual tax revenue of approximately $240,000 and the same project with only 25% of the units affordable (which would still qualify as 42 affordable units on DHCD’s Subsidized Housing Inventory) would produce annual tax revenue of approximately $320,000. So the revenue to the Town from a senior housing project would likely be significantly greater than the tax revenue of an indoor sports complex. This revenue must be off-set, however, by municipal expenses, which for 42 units of housing would be approximately $108,000 (assuming no school children). We have not been able to quantify the additional municipal services (traffic control, emergency services, road maintenance, snow-plowing) from a sports facility, but they should be factored into the cost-benefit analysis at some point. Even ignoring those costs, the net impact of a 100% affordable senior rental project would be at least $30,000 greater than an indoor sports facility while a 25% affordable senior rental project would be at least $110,000 more favorable to the Town budget than an indoor sports complex. Other possible impacts to be considered include traffic. Our consultant has advised that a sports facility on Lot 3 would create considerably greater traffic and possible over-flow parking than a 42-unit senior rental housing project, which could negatively impact The Center and a possible senior-appropriate homeownership development at the Hinkley Property. For example, parking at Forekicks in Norfolk requires about 1.7 acres, roughly equivalent to the size of the facility itself. Ingress and egress to and from the Norfolk Forekicks parking lots is a very serious problem during change-over times when cars are both entering and exiting the facility. In inclement weather conditions with snow and ice the traffic impacts are even worse. One other factor to be considered in deciding the possible use of Lot 3 is the Town’s disposition process. The difficulty in disposing of Lot 3 for a sports facility is that the Kingsbury Club has a provision in its lease that prohibits the Town from allowing a sports facility at Lot 3 without the consent of the Kingsbury Club. The Kingsbury Club has announced its interest in developing a sports facility on Lot 3, which suggests that the Kingsbury Club might use its consent right to thwart other possible developers interested in developing Lot 3 for a recreational facility. This needs to be factored into any possible disposition strategy for Lot 3. B. Rezoning. Lot 3 is already zoned to permit an indoor sports facility. The proposed overlay zoning being considered by the Committee would allow the development of both parcels for housing. The disposition process, described below, would need to control the use of each parcel. By using an overlay district, the underlying zoning of Lot 3 can be left intact, thus allowing for either housing or an indoor sports facility on Lot 3, depending on the Town’s preferences. If Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property are zoned for as-of-right housing under the Committee’s overlay zoning, a developer could start the development process as soon as disposition were completed, avoiding the process for obtaining a comprehensive permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, a process that can be time-consuming and expensive. We should consider whether to exempt the houses on the Hinkley Property from the Town’s inclusionary housing bylaw in order to allow more flexibility in providing as many dwellings as possible at a moderate (although not 40B compliant) price-point. We should also consider including duplexes, at least for the moderately-priced units, in order to further reduce prices. C. Potential Disposition Process and Timing. The disposition process for Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property should be handled by either the Affordable Housing Trust or the Affordable Housing Committee if they are to be developed as housing or, in the case of Lot 3, by another committee, such as the Economic Development Committee, if it is to be developed as an indoor sports facility. The Selectmen should decide on the appropriate body to handle the dispositions so that they can be placed on the market as soon as possible to address the desire for senior housing. The Selectmen and the Affordable Housing Trust will also need to decide on whether to provide a subsidy to developers in order to encourage moderate sales prices on the homeownership units to be constructed at the Hinkley Property. That decision is a complicated one because the seniors who would likely purchase the units are not likely to qualify under any governmental program providing subsidies for affordable housing creation and the units would not qualify for the Subsidized Housing Inventory. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the price of new single-family homes, even those of smaller size and senior-appropriate design are likely to exceed $750,000. The Senior Study Committee has requested that homes be priced in the area of $400,000. Such a price-point would likely require a subsidy even beyond free land, so the Selectmen or the Affordable Housing Trust would need to decide to whether to provide an additional cash subsidy or allow developers to compete based on the number of units to be made available at the $400,000 price point. In other words, developers would bid not based on price, but rather on the number of units to be sold to seniors at $400,000. This would be a complicated disposition because some minimum specifications for the moderately-priced units would need to be incorporated, as would a local preference for those units. In addition, this decision must consider the equity and fairness in providing implicit or direct subsidies (through low or zero land values or cash subsidies) for one selected group -- such as senior citizens -- and not other worthy groups such as returning veterans or persons with physical or developmental disabilities. The selection of potential buyers of moderately-priced homes is also a matter that must be decided. Given that the Town would be providing a subsidy in the form of free land, questions will arise as to whether purchasers should be means tested or otherwise selected based on need. That is another issue that the Selectmen will need to resolve. Because Lot 3 and the Hinkley Property are not located at the MSH core campus and will have separate infrastructure needs, there appears to be no reason why the Town should not proceed to prepare a disposition RFP that would allow for selection of a preferred developer promptly after Special Town Meeting approval of the re-zoning. The 42-unit rental project on Lot 3, if initiated promptly, could help provide the Town with a two-year extension of the 40B safe harbor that is currently in effect.20180102-SN-Memo to MSHMPC re HinkleyIce House Road v2 - final sent to BoS_Page_220180102-SN-Memo to MSHMPC re HinkleyIce House Road v2 - final sent to BoS_Page_320180102-SN-Memo to MSHMPC re HinkleyIce House Road v2 - final sent to BoS_Page_4

Assessors tax classification hearing

The Board of Selectmen received the report below today from the Assessors for the tax classification hearing that will occur this evening as part of the select board meeting.  Towns in Massachusetts are permitted to charge the commercial and industrial taxpayers property taxes at a rate up to 50% higher than the residential rate (called a split tax rate), but Medfield never has.

Medfield’s reality is that because so little of our tax base is other than residential, even if we were to opt for the 50% higher tax rate on commercial and industrial properties, while the commercial and industrial properties taxes would go up by a lot (50%), the home owner would see little change – scant benefit to homeowners, while strong fiscal policy discouragement for any commercial/industrial uses.  For that reason Medfield has always kept a single tax rate.  See a PDF of the analysis here – 20181127-Assessors-tax classification hearing analysis

BOARD OF ASSESSORS Fiscal 2019 Classification Hearing Purpose The purpose of the classification hearing is for the Board of Selectmen to determine the allocation of the local property tax to be borne by the four classes of real property and personal property for Fiscal Year 2019. It is the responsibility of the Selectmen to adopt a residential factor. The residential factor is used to determine the percentage of the tax levy that is applied to each class of real and personal property. The Board of Assessors than applies these percentages to each property class (M.G.L. Chapter 40, section 56). It is the responsibility of the Assessors to provide the Selectmen with relevant information and to discuss the fiscal effects of possible alternatives. Tax Rate The tax rate is the tax levy divided by the town's taxable valuation. This is known as the Uniform Tax Rate. Under this rate each class of property pays a share of the tax levy equal to its share of the total town value. A. Residential Factor Adopting a residential factor of "1" will result in the taxation of all property at the same rate. However, the law allows the Commercial/Industrial/Personal Property, tax rate for the Town to be as high as 50% above the uniform ratei and the Residential/Open Space, R/O, to be as low as 65% of the uniform rate. B. Analysis of surrounding cities' and towns' FY18 tax rates: Town Res. Rate CIP Rate Residential% Dover 12.84 12.84 97.0783 Norfolk 18.62 18.62 92.2049 Millis 18.02 18.02 89.988 Sherborn 19.30 19.30 95.4188 Walpole 15.27 20.33 83.0286 Westwood 15.09 29.30 74.3145 Medfield 17.03 17.03 94.3434 C. History of differential tax rates in Medfield Historically Medfield has always maintained a single tax rate. Shifting the tax onto the Commercial, Industrial and Personal properties would create a tax burden for those properties, while the Residential properties would only benefit from a small savings. E. F. D. Tax Rate Scenarios Overall Scenario Commercial/Industrial/Personal Properties projected share of the tax levy: $2,621A38 Last Year's CIP share= $2,487,906 With a 10% shift With a 25% shift With a 50% shift $2,883,582 $3,276,798 $3,932,157 tax dollars would be paid by CIP tax dollars would be paid by CIP tax dollars would be paid by CIP Individual Scenario For a $600,000 home & commercial property based on an estimated tax rate of $17.87, Residential Commercial $600,000 $600,000 Single rate $10,722 $10,722 10% shift $10,660 $11,794 Difference ($62) +$1,072 25% shift $10,567 $13,403 Difference ($155) +$2,681 50% shift $10,412 $16,083 Difference ($310) +$5,361 Historical Commercial/ Industrial/ Personal Data: Year CIP% Tax Dollars Tax Le~ Tax Rate 2014 5.6966 $2,099,404 36,853,583 16.12 2015 5.4819 $2,100,312 38,320,353 16.04 2016 5.4950 $2,287,440 41,627,344 16.75 2017 5.4753 $2,339,247 42,723,595 16.89 2018 5.6566 $2,487,906 43,982,483 17.03 2019 5.4694 $2,621,438 47,928,863 17.87 Residential Category Single Family Averages Year SPA Value Tax$ 2014 569,600 9,182 2015 595,600 9,553 2016 615,600 10,311 2017 623,400 10,530 2018 634,700 10,809 2019 658,400 11,766 Please note: For purposes of this hearing the tax rate is an example only. The final rate will be determined after the Department of Revenue has approved the Tax Recap. I ~ ! ri I r20181127-Assessors-tax classification hearing analysis_Page_220181127-Assessors-tax classification hearing analysis_Page_3