ALS costs

Posted on February 2, 2017 | Comments Off on ALS costs

Chief Kingsbury provided new figures for various permutations (use the link to get a copy with correct formatting):

ambulance

20170131-wk-advanced-life-support-for-the-town-of-medfield

 

Advanced Life Support for the Town Of Medfield

 

 

Total calls for service by the Medfield Fire Dept. was 1274 for 2016 of that 517 were for Emergency Medical Services.

 

 

Emergency Medical Services

 

517 Requests               257 BLS Transports                189 ALS Transports               71 Refusals

 

 

The 189 transports were accompanied by paramedics from Events EMS, Westwood FD, Walpole FD, Norfolk FD and Brewster EMS.

 

Events EMS ceased operations and Brewster as of now is not available.

 

The Problem? Who is going to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) for the almost 200 calls requiring Paramedic (Medic) intervention? What are our options?

 

  • If we do nothing.

 

We might be able to get away with it. It delays providing in-house ALS for a year if not more. It takes advantage of other communities ALS at their expense. We risk being shut off from their services as it is not mutual aid. A fellow chief who is struggling to staff his volunteer Fire Dept. and is using mutual aid excessively said it best,

 

“Mutual Aid is a network of sharing, with resources flowing back and forth across jurisdictional borders, and should not routinely benefit one partner in the form of subsidized services by the taxpayers of another community.”

 

  • Hire a Private Provider

 

Initial conversations with Millis & Medway resulted in a proposal from a private company for a dedicated ALS response truck to service the three communities it would be @ $600,000 per year and another $225.00 per intercept. Millis & Medway were not interested in pursuing further. On 01/19/17 as requested, I met with Chris DiBona of Brewster Ambulance to see if there was anything his company could do with either the three towns of Medfield, Dover and Sherborn or from their base in Norwood. Chris got back to me on 01/25/17 and said they were still working on it. I reached out to the Fire Chiefs in Sherborn and Dover, Sherborn expressed a little interest as they are struggling too and Dover does not appear to be interested.  I have not heard anymore as of yet. I will provide any info as soon as it’s available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Add Staffing (options)

 

  1. I met with the Fire Chiefs from Millis and Medway on 01/23/17 to further discuss what options we might have. Both of those towns are pursuing advancing to the ALS level through hiring and training, more so hiring. As a result of these discussions if we were to get to the level of at least four (4) Medics each we could seek permission from our Medical Directors to run at a Paramedic/Basic (P/B) level and when needed we would pull a second medic from a neighboring town to facilitate a two medic event.

 

Pro’s: It’s a start                                                       Con’s: 2nd Medic availability =

We would have 2 Medics 50% of the time     delayed response

Increased Revenue                                           Expense

 

Cost Estimate:  4 Staff @ $80,556 = $322,224

Startup                       $90,400

Est. Total                                           $412,224         

 

 B)If we were to hire six (6) additional Medics we would have adequate resources to staff the Ambulance at the ALS level 24/7/365. The additional staff would have two shifts with four (4) personnel and two shifts with three (3) personnel.

 

Pro’s: 24/7 coverage at the ALS level                  Con’s: Expense

Increased Revenue

Staffing to aid in medical calls

Staffing to respond to fire calls

 

 

Cost Estimate:  6 Staff @ $80,556 = $483,336

Startup                        $90,400

Est. Total                                            $573,336

 

  1. If we were to hire eight (8) additional Medics we would have adequate resources to staff the Ambulance at the ALS level 24/7/365. The additional staff would have all shifts with four (4) personnel. With the additional staff and by having a second ambulance, in the event of back to back medicals, we could staff it to respond at the Basic Life Support (BLS) level. Added Medic staff would be able to cover open shifts to maintain ALS staffing.

 

Pro’s: 24/7 coverage at the ALS level                  Con’s: Expense

Increased Revenue

Run a 2nd BLS ambulance

Staffing to aid in medical calls

Staffing to respond to fire calls

 

 

Cost Estimate:  8 Staff @ $80,556 = $644,451

Startup                        $90,400

Est. Total                                            $734,851

 

 

According to Joy Ricciuto our Town Accountant, the Ambulance service generated $439,644 for FY16. Although I do not want to predict how much in this volatile time in Healthcare, it is safe to say there will be an increase to our revenue stream by advancing to the ALS level of service. By keeping it in-house we will keep the $62,000 we paid for outside services. The likelihood of increased revenue by way of increased demand for ALS calls and being able to reciprocate with mutual aid does exist.

 

Hiring additional Staff to provide ALS

 

Pro’s:

 

By providing in-house ALS you get the needed resources to the patients side the fastest possible way. No delay with patient care by waiting for a regional or alternative ALS intercept service.

Patients deteriorate every minute you wait for intervention.

 

You have more control on direct patient care by managing ourselves. We can choose the equipment to use to provide services. You have the ability to participate with any project waivers when they are available.

 

We can control the training of in-house medics. Training is key to this type of operation.

 

We have the ability to schedule medics in teams to capitalize on their experiences and skill level to provide the best service for the town.

 

We will maintain our own local medical control MD that is knowledgeable of the region and will oversee our entire service.

 

Increased billing for services rendered at the ALS level will result in increased revenue.

 

Increased staffing could result in running a 2nd ambulance resulting in increased revenue.

 

Increased staffing will aid in responding to Fire related calls for service as well as the day to day operational activities that are done.

 

Con’s:

 

Delay in providing ALS intervention to patients in need. Our avg. response time is under five minutes; it is a fifteen minute response from Norwood if we were to use Brewster as an intercept.

 

The startup expense is a downside but will be offset by increased revenues that will be better determined after it is up and running.

 

Conclusion:

 

This is an issue that will not be going away. We as a community need to address it so that all our residents have the best medical resources available to them in their time of need. I believe this decision as to what level of care is acceptable to our taxpayers should be left up to them. I would recommend the hiring of six (6) Medics to properly cover at the ALS level 24/7/365.

Comments Off on ALS costs

Posted in Fire Department, Uncategorized

ATM warrant articles

Posted on February 1, 2017 | Comments Off on ATM warrant articles

These are the current drafts of the annual town meeting (ATM) warrant articles that have been proposed so far.  The warrant for the ATM closes at the next the Board of Selectmen meeting, so be sure to get any warrant articles in right away.

town meeting

 

 

DRAFT

 

TOWN OF MEDFIELD

WARRANT FOR THE ANNUAL TOWN MEETING

2017

 

On Monday, the twentieth-fourth day of April, A.D., 2017 commencing at 7:30 P.M. the following Articles will be acted on in the Amos Clark Kingsbury High School gymnasium, located at 88R South Street in said Medfield, viz

 

Article 2.  To see if the Town will vote to accept the reports of the several Town Officers for the past year.

 

The reports are contained in the Annual Report, which is available at Town Meeting

 

WARRANT COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS PASSAGE

 

Article 3.  To see if the Town will vote to accept the following named sums as Perpetual Trust Funds for the care of lots in the Vine Lake Cemetery, the interest thereof as may be necessary for said care, viz.

 

PERPETUAL CARE 2016

NAME                                           AMOUNT

Sullivan, Robert E.                             $   600.

Wilhelm, Nancy                                  $   750.

McNulty, James                                  $3,000.

Kennally, Paul                                    $3,000.

Baacke, Eric                                        $1,500.

Baker, Fredrick P.                               $3,000.

Nagle, James F.                                   $3,000.

Cote, Norman J.                                  $   750.

O’Donovan, Margaret M.                   $3,000.

Snipas, Norma R.                                $3,000.

Bratsos, Peter C.                                  $  750.

Tempel, Barbara S.                              $3,000.

Palladino, Peter                                   $   750.

Priest, Lisa M.                                     $3,000.

Anselme, J.P.                                      $   750.

Anselme, J.P.                                      $1,500.

Perrone, Roberta                                 $1,500.

Scecina, Margaret                               $3,000.

O’Rourke, JoAnn                                $   600.

Thompson, Diana                                $   600.

Thompson, Diana                                $   600.

MacLean, Mary                                  $1,500.

Godin, Elizabeth M.                           $3,000.

Orvedahl, Donna S.                            $1,500.

 

Total    $43,650.

 

Article 4.  To see if the Town will vote to amend the Code of the Town of Medfield, (M Cerel will write up article for revolving funds) (add authorization of a State Hospital Revolving Fund instead of Hospital Stabilization Fund per Joy and Kris)

 

Article 5.   To see if the Town will adopt the provisions of Mass G.L., Chapter 80, Section 13B,  Sewer Betterment Deferral and Recovery Agreements for Seniors and of Mass G.L.,  Chapter 83, Section 16G, Deferral of Sewer User Charges for Seniors, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Assessors)

 

Article 6.   To see if the Town will vote to supplement each prior vote of the Town that authorizes the borrowing of money to pay costs of capital projects to provide that, in accordance with Mass G.L., Chapter 44, Section 20, the premium received by the Town upon the sale of any bonds or notes thereunder, less any such premium applied to the payment of the costs of issuance of such bonds or nots, may be applied to pay project costs and the amound authorized to be borrowed for each such project shall be reduce d by the amount of any such premium so applied, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Treasurer/Collector)

 

(majority vote)

 

Article 7.   To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of paying a fy17 unpaid medical bill of the Police Department in the amount of $1,495, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Chief of Police)

 

(four-fifths vote required)

 

Article 8.   To see if the Town will vote to appropriate an additional sum of money to the fy17 Reserve Fund, 01-997-2, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Warrant Committee)

 

Article 9.  To see if the Town will vote to appropriate $70,000 from the Ambulance Revolving Fund, said funds to reimburse the General Fund Stabilization Fund for a temporary loan from said Stabilization Fund in fy17, to cover the purchase of a replacement ambulance for the Medfield Fire Department, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Town Administrator)

 

(Two-thirds vote required)

 

Article 10.  To see if the Town will vote to fix the salary and compensation of the following elected officers: Moderator, Town Clerk, Selectmen, Assessors, School Committee, Trustees of the Public Library, Park and Recreation Commissioners, Planning Board, Housing Authority and Trust Fund Commissioners, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

  Officer

Present Salary

W.C. Recommends
  Town Clerk $68,000 $     ,000
  Selectmen, Chairman        900         900
  Selectmen, Clerk        900         900
  Selectmen, Third Member        900         900
  Assessors, Chairman        900         900
  Assessors, Clerk        900         900
  Assessors, Third Member        900         900
  Moderator            0          0
  Housing Authority            0          0
  School Committee            0          0
  Library Trustees            0          0
  Planning Board            0          0
  Park & Recreation Commissioner            0          0
  Trust Fund Commissioner            0          0

 

(Board of Selectmen)

 

Section 9.3 of the Town Charter reads as follows: “Elected officers shall be compensated in an amount authorized by Town Meeting and provided for by a Town Meeting Appropriation”.

 

Article 11. To see if the Town will vote to amend the PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION PLAN and CLASSIFICATION OF POSITIONS AND PAY SCHEDULE, effective July 1, 2017, as set out in the warrant, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

                                                                                                (Personnel Board)

 

Article 12.  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate and/or transfer from available funds sums of money requested by the Selectmen or any other Town Officer, Board, Commission or Committee to defray operating expenses of the Town for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2017, or such other sums as the Town may determine, as required by General Laws, Chapter 41, Section 108, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen)

 

Article 13.   To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate from the Fiscal 2018 Tax Levy and or transfer from available funds and/or borrow for Capital Expenditures, including the following:

 

FY18 CAPITAL BUDGET
RECOMMENDATIONS
     
DEPARTMENT PROJECT REQUEST
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

 

(Capital Budget Committee)

 

 

 

       Article 14.   To see if the Town will vote to Amend the Code of Medfield Regulation by adding a new section establishing the Medfield Affordable Housing Trust and authorize the Trust to accept funds from the Medfield Community Development Corporation, or do or act anything in relation thereto. (Kris will forward wording of article)

(Board of Selectmen)

 

 Article 15.  To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of providing ongoing maintenance and security at the site of the former state hospital, or do or take any action in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen)

 

 

Article 16.  To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of hiring consultants, engineers and/or attorneys to assist the Town with ongoing preparation of a master plan for reuse of the former hospital and surrounding areas and to advise the Town on matters concerning the site’s disposition, reuse and environmental remediation, said funds to be expended under the direction of the Board of Selectmen, with the understanding that the Board of Selectmen may authorize any other Town board, commission, committee or department to expend a portion of said funds for such purposes, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

                                                                                          (Board of Selectmen)

 

Article 17.  To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to lease space on the Hospital Water Tower for the location of cellular antennae, or do or act anything  in relation thereto.

 

(Board of Selectmen)

 

 

Article  18.  To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of making improvements to the downtown, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Board of Selectmen)

 

Article 19. To see if the Town will vote to transfer $163.549 from sewer betterments paid-in-advance to the Sewer Stabilization Fund, established under Article 31 of the 2004 ATM in accordance with the provisions of G.L., Chapter 40, Section 5B    as amended by Chapter 46 of the Acts of 2003, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Town Accountant)

 

Article 20. To see of the Town will vote to transfer $41,299 from the fy17 County Retirement Contribution Budget, account 01-911-2, to the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust, and appropriate to said Trust from the fy18 tax levy, free cash or other sources, such other sum(s), as the Town deems appropriate for the purpose of setting aside monies to cover the unfunded retiree health insurance costs in accordance with the provisions of G.L., Chapter 40 Section 5B, or do or act anything in relation thereto.  ????  Is this the correct chapter now that we have a Trust instead of a Stabilization Fund?                                                                              

                                                                                           (Town Administrator)

 

Article 21.    To see if the Town will vote to increase the maximum annual payment under the senior tax work-off program from $500 to $1,000 or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Council on Aging)

 

 

Article 22.    To hear the report of the Senior Housing Study Committee, appointed under Article 38 of the 21016 Annual Town Meeting, and to see if the Town will appropriate a sum of money and determine how said sum shall be raised for the purposes of implementing the recommendations of its reports, and to see if the Town will transfer the care custody and control of a 9.1 acre parcel of land identified on the Board of Assessors’ maps as Lot 1, Map 64 to provide for the construction of appropriate moderate priced housing for Medfield Seniors, who would like to remain in the Town, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Senior Housing Study Committee)

 

Article 23.    To see if the Town will vote to accept as a public way a portion of the following street:

 

Vinald Road from Station            to Station

 

As laid out by the Board of Selectmen and as shown on a plan referred to in the Order of Layout on file with the Town Clerk’s office and to authorize the Board of Selectmen to acquire by eminent domain or otherwise, such rights, titles and easements, including drainage easements, as may be necessary to accomplish such purposes, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Planning Board)

 

Article 24.   To see if the Town will vote to name the bridge crossing Mill Brook at Elm Street the “Colonel Douglas C. MacKeachie Bridge, and to appropriate a sum of money to fund a sign designating this bridge as such and to fund appropriate ceremonies in recognition of the occasion, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Committee to Study Memorials)

 

Article 25.   To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of hiring, training and equipping Advanced Life Support employees and/or contracting with a private firm to provide such services, provided that all appropriations authorized under this article be contingent upon approval of a so-called Proposition 2½ operating override in accordance with Chapter 59, Section 21C of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Fire Chief Board of Selectmen or Citizen petition???)

 

(Citizen Petition)

 

Article 26   To see if the Town will vote to appropriate $1 million and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of acquiring land and/or property, designing and/or constructing a group home within the Town, said sum to be expended under the jurisdiction of the Medfield Affordable Housing Trust; and to authorize the Treasurer/Collector, with the approval of the Board of Selectmen, to borrow in accordance with the provisions of Mass G.L., Chapter 44, Section7, Paragraph 3 or such other authorizing statute as may be appropriate, and to authorize the Medfield Affordable Housing Trust to expend said funds, to enter into contracts with federal, state and/or private parties, and to apply for and accept federal, state and/or private grants to accomplish said purposes, provided that all appropriations authorized under this article be contingent upon approval of a so-called Proposition 2 ½ debt exclusion, in accordance with chapter 59, Section 21C of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Citizen Petition)

 

 

Article 27.  To see if the Town will vote to appropriate $10,000 for the purpose of making repairs and improvements to the Dwight-Derby House, said sum to be expended under the direction of the Facilities Manager, in consultation with the Friends of the Dwight-Derby House, Inc., or do or take anything in relation thereto.

(Citizen Petition)

 

Article 28.   To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum money for the purpose of purchasing environmental liability insurance and/or constructing a rail trail on an unused rail bed leased to the                        Rail Trail, running from Ice House Road to the Dover town line, or do or take anything in relation thereto.

(Medfield Rail Trail Committee)

 

Article 29.   To see if the Town will vote to purchase the existing the street lights, brackets and other associated fixtures and equipment located in the public ways of the Town from Boston Edison, Co. and to appropriate a sum of money for said purchase and for the purchase and installation of LED streetlights, said lights, brackets and other associated fixtures and equipment, to be owned and maintained by the Town of Medfield, and further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen to enter into a contract/contracts with Boston Edison, Eversource, or their successor entities; and to enter into contracts and to accept grants, loans or gifts from private contractors, state, federal and or private parties  to accomplish said purposes and to effectuate the transfer of ownership, or do or take anything in relation thereto.

 

(Medfield Energy Committee)

 

Article 30.   To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the design and construction of a Park & Recreation Facility, including the hiring of a project manager and architect(s), preparation of construction plans and bid documents, site work, landscaping and utilities, and to authorize the Treasurer/Collector, with the approval of the Board of Selectmen, to borrow in accordance with the provisions of Mass G.L., Chapter 44, Section7, Paragraph 3 or such other authorizing statute as may be appropriate, and to authorize the Permanent Planning and Building Committee to expend said funds, to enter into contracts with federal, state and/or private parties, and to apply for and accept federal, state and/or private grants to accomplish said purposes, provided that all appropriations authorized under this article be contingent upon approval of a so-called Proposition 2 ½ debt exclusion, in accordance with chapter 59, Section 21C of the General Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Park & Recreation Commission)

 

Article 31.  To see if the Town will vote to amend the Code of the Town of Medfield Division 2: Regulations, 270 Water, by adding a new section                         ,        , which would authorize the Medfield Water and Sewerage Commissioners and/or their designees to enter upon private property for the purpose of inspecting, installing, repairing, replacing or upgrading water meters and to establish procedures, timelines and or penalties to inform and assist property owners in accomplishing these tasks, said bylaw to read as follows:

 

(Mark Cerel will prepare. Will Check with Water & Sewerage                           Commission to see if it wants to put on warrant).

 

, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Water & Sewerage Commissioners)

 

Article 32.   To see if the Town will vote to amend the Code of the Town of Medfield, 2: Regulations, 270 Water, by adding a new section                         ,        , which would Regulations by adding a new section               , which would authorize Medfield Water and Sewerage Commissioners to implement water restriction regulations, and to establish measures and/or fines non-compliance, for the purpose of  placing private, semi-private and or public water wells  under the same restrictions as other public water customers of the Town of Medfield Water Department, said bylaw to read as follows:

 

(Mark Cerel will prepare. Will Check with Water & Sewerage                           Commission to see if it wants to put on warrant).

 

, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Water & Sewerage Commissioners)

 

Article 33.  To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money, said sum to be transferred from the Water Enterprise Fund, Unreserved Fund Balance, for the purpose of designing an Iron/Manganese Treatment facility for wells three, four and/or five of the Town’s water supply system and preparing construction plans and bid documents for such, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Water & Sewerage Commissioners)

 

Article 34. To see if the Town will  amend the Code of the Town of Medfield  Division 1: Bylaws, Part II General Legislation, Regulations,      by adding the following sections:

Illicit discharge Detection & Elimination (IDDE)

Construction/Erosion and Sediment Control

Post-Construction Stormwater Management

In order to achieve compliance with the 2003 National Polluant Discharge and

Emissions System (NPDES) 2003 General Permit.

 

(Director of Public Works)

 

(Moe will provide wording)

 

 

Article 35.   To see if the Town will appropriate the sum of $5,000 for the purpose of trapping beavers and removing beaver dams throughout the Town, said sum to be expended under the jurisdiction of the Town Administrator, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Town Administrator)

 

Article 36.   To see if the Town will amend the Code of the Town of Medfield  Division 1: Bylaws, Part II General Legislation, 300 Zoning to provide for inclusionary Zoning (Mark Cerel & Sarah Raposa working on)

 

Articles 37. through 39. To see if the Town will amend the Code of the Town of Medfield,  Division 1: Bylaws, Part II General Legislation, 300 Zoning to:

  • Mitigate the impact of large single-family structures
  • Mitigate the impact of large two-story structures
  • Mitigate the impact of large multi-story structures

 

 

 

Article 40.   To see if the Town will amend the Code of the Town of Medfield,  Division 1: Bylaws, Part II General Legislation, 300 Zoning to amend the Tale of Area Regulation to provide for retail sales of recreational marijuana (Mark Cerel & Sarah Raposa working on).

 

 

Article41.   To see if the Town will amend the Code of the Town of Medfield,  Division 1: Bylaws, Part II General Legislation, 300 Zoning to add a new section regulating and/or taxing recreational marijuana. (Mark Cerel & Sarah Raposa working on).

 

Article 42.   To see if the Town will vote to amend to Code of the Town of Medfield, Division 1: Bylaws, Part II General Legislation, 300 Zoning to add a new section  Temporary Moratorium on the Sale and Distribution of Recreationl Marijuana, effective from May 1, 2017through June 30, 2018. (What about manufacture or growing?) (Carol Read  Mark Cerel?).

 

Article 43.   To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money for the purpose of preparing a Phase II Parking Study, said funds to be expended under the direction of the Economic Development Committee, and that said Committee be authorized to apply for and accept grants, loans or gifts from the state and federal government or private agencies and to enter into contracts with such, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Economic Development Committee)

 

Article 44.   To see if the Town will vote to appropriate a sum of money and determine in what manner said sum shall be raised for the purpose of making improvements to the traffic flow at the intersections of Spring and South Streets and South and High Streets, said funds to be expended under the direction of the Board of Selectmen and that Selectmen be authorized to apply for and accept grants, loans or gifts from the state and federal government or private agencies and to enter into contracts with such,  or do or act anything in relation thereto.

(Board of Selectmen)

 

Article 45.   To see if the Town will vote to accept as public ways all or a portion of the following streets:

 

Quarry Road from Station 8+88.09 to Station 16+97.87

Erik Road from Station 0+00.00 to Station 9+00.00

 

As laid out by the Board of Selectmen and as shown on a plan referred to in the Order of Layout on file with the Town Clerk’s office and to authorize the Board of Selectmen to acquire by eminent domain or otherwise, such rights, titles and easements, including drainage easements, as may be necessary to accomplish such purposes, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Board of Selectmen)

 

 

 

Article 46.  To see if the Town will authorize the board of Assessors to use a sum of money from free cash in the Treasury for the reduction of the tax rate for the fiscal year 2018, or do or act anything in relation thereto.

 

(Board of Assessors)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on ATM warrant articles

Posted in Budgets, Town Meeting

MMA’s agenda

Posted on February 1, 2017 | Comments Off on MMA’s agenda

MMA

This from the Massachusetts Municipal Association this week with its agenda items:

January 30, 2017
MMA FILES LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE

PLEASE ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TO BE CO-SPONSORS

The Deadline for Signing is Friday, February 3, at 5 p.m.

The MMA has filed 19 local government bills approved by the Board of Directors for consideration by the Legislature in the new 2017-2018 legislative session.

The bills have been filed by lead sponsors in the House and Senate and now are available to be signed by legislators wishing to be co-sponsors. Co-sponsors are important. Please ask your legislators to sign on to these municipal bills. House and Senate members can sign on and co- sponsor bills that have been filed in either branch. The deadline is Friday, February 3, at 5 p.m. If your legislators are lead sponsors, please tell them thank you.

Many of the MMA’s proposals are continued priorities from previous sessions, and eight are new measures, including legislation to provide cities and towns with new local-option tax options, and a bill to increase municipal authority over utility companies’ use of city and town roadways. Among the refiled petitions are bills that would reform parts of Civil Service, allow cities and towns to set the number of local liquor licenses in their communities, and provide marketing assistance for local economic development campaigns.

Below is a list of the MMA legislative package with brief description of each, and the House and Senate docket numbers along with the names of the lead sponsors. A more detailed description of each bill is on the MMA website at the following link: http://www.mma.org/advocacy/mma-legislative-package. These measures are stand-alone proposals; the MMA’s entire legislative agenda is much broader, and includes dozens of priorities in the annual state budget bill, and work with the Legislature to support or oppose hundreds of other bills during the session.

Please note that each bill listed below has a temporary docket number that will be changed to a more formal bill number when referred to a legislative committee over the next few weeks.

Local-option excise on alcohol for substance abuse prevention and public health programs
Senate docket 484, Senator Cynthia Creem
This bill would allow cities and towns, upon local vote, to adopt a tax of up to 2 percent on the retail sale of alcoholic beverages, including sales in bars, restaurants, package stores and other non-pouring establishments. The revenue would be dedicated to help pay for local substance abuse and other public health programs.

Payments in lieu of taxation
House docket 1362, Rep. Stephen Kulik
This bill would allow cities and towns, upon local vote, to require certain tax-exempt charitable organizations to make payments in lieu of taxation to host cities and towns equal to 25 percent of what they would pay if the property were not exempt. The bill would require cities and towns to adopt bylaws or ordinances to provide for agreements between the municipality and organizations that may provide for exemptions from payment, consideration of community benefits as payment, and administration of payments.

Local-option fuel excise for transportation and stormwater infrastructure programs
House docket 1109, Rep. William “Smitty” Pignatelli
This bill would allow cities and towns to adopt a local-option tax on the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel of up to 5 cents per gallon that would be collected in the same manner as the state excise. The revenue would be dedicated to help pay for local transportation programs (infrastructure and services) and stormwater programs.

Local-option meals tax
Senate docket 586, Senator Jason Lewis
The MMA bill would increase the maximum local-option sales tax on meals from 0.75 percent to 1.5 percent.

Identifying financial impacts of proposed environmental regulations
House docket 1384, Rep. Jeffrey Roy
Senate docket 49, Senator Michael Moore
This bill would establish a mechanism for identifying and describing the costs, benefits and financial impacts of proposed environmental rules and regulations before they take effect.

Sustainable water resource funds
House docket 2403, Rep. Carolyn Dykema
Senate docket 393, Senator Jamie Eldridge
This bill would clarify and strengthen the authority of cities and towns to establish water, stormwater, and wastewater utility fees in order to protect municipal public health and meet federal Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act requirements and other state and federal environmental requirements.

Minimum reliability contributions from net metering recipients
Senate docket 1334, Senator Anne Gobi
This bill would exempt municipalities that receive renewable energy net metering credits, low- income and community solar ratepayers from any monthly minimum reliability contribution.

Municipal control of liquor licenses
House docket 561, Rep. Denise Provost
Senate docket 354, Senator Jamie Eldridge
This bill would give the municipal legislative body the authority to set the number of liquor licenses available in the municipality.

Commission to study the administration of veterans’ benefits
House docket 1635, Rep. Stephen Kulik
This bill would create a special commission to study the administration of benefits offered to veterans under Chapter 115 of the General Laws, including which benefits are offered, how they are administered, and the role of local veterans’ service officers.

Marketing prioritized development sites
Senate docket 193, Senator Lewis
This bill would require the Massachusetts Office of Business Development to create and maintain, either independently or through a partnership with an external entity, a statewide searchable database of developable land and vacant sites, with listings submitted at no cost by local officials.

Promoting local economic development
Senate docket 191, Senator Jason Lewis
This bill would create a program to provide funding or other opportunities, such as technical assistance, to municipalities or regions that maximize opportunities for economic development planning and growth by meeting a series of criteria.

Local impacts of enacted legislation
House docket 154, Rep. James Cantwell
Senate docket 336, Senator Anne Gobi
This bill would require the Executive Office, upon signing legislation, to attach a fiscal note specifying the local impacts of the legislation.

Retiree Benefits Trust Fund
House docket 2249, Rep. Alice Peisch
This bill would add two seats to the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund Board, one municipal seat and one “schools” seat. This proposal would ensure the municipal and regional school district perspectives are recognized on the SRBTF Board.

Civil service reform
House docket 1364, Rep. Stephen Kulik
This bill would allow cities and towns to exit Civil Service at local option without approval by the Legislature. The bill would require the city or town to provide documentation that outlines the local policy or policies that would replace the Civil Service statute.

Municipal unemployment insurance reforms
Senate docket 271, Senator Cynthia Creem
This bill would extend “reasonable assurance” to employees who work on behalf of the school system but are paid through the municipal budget. This would ensure that employees couldn’t collect unemployment insurance benefits when school is not in session. This bill would also address the issue of retirees collecting both unemployment benefits and a pension from the same public or private employer, by reducing unemployment benefits by an amount equal to 65 percent of the employee’s weekly pension.

Structure of the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board
House docket 336, Rep. Aaron Vega
This bill would modify the membership of the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board to require that the three members include a management representative, a labor representative, and a neutral party.

Municipal authority in public rights of way
House docket 2265, Rep. Stephen Kulik
This bill would give municipalities increased authority over utilities that operate in the public right of way. The bill would specify that, if utilities delay in relocating poles and wires, municipalities have the authority to move poles and wires, and may charge utilities for non-performance. It would give municipalities the authority to adopt bylaws and ordinances related to imposing fees and fines, assessing taxes, and licensing and permitting of utility companies that operate in the public right of way.

Municipal purchase of utility poles
House docket 2279, Rep. Stephen Kulik
This bill would give municipalities and public utilities the right to purchase utility poles from investor-owned utilities at a price that takes into account depreciation in value of the utility poles.

Seat belts on school buses
House docket 1973, Rep. Joseph McGonagle
This bill would require that all school buses in the Commonwealth be equipped with seat belts within five years.

PLEASE ASK YOUR LEGISLATORS TO BE CO-SPONSORS

Thank You!

Comments Off on MMA’s agenda

Posted in Legislature, Massachusetts Municipal Association, Uncategorized

MassHousing’s Mega-denial

Posted on February 1, 2017 | Comments Off on MassHousing’s Mega-denial

flll• 11 ~OUSlNG Massachusetts Housing Rnancc Agency One Beacon Street. Boston, MA 02108 TEL: 617.854.1000 I FAX: 617.854.1091 VP: 866.758.1435 www.masshousing.com January 31, 2017 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Medfield Meadows LLC 18 Forest Street Dover, MA 02052 Attention: John Kelly, Principal RE: Medfield Meadows Medfield, MA (MH# 873) Project Eligibility (Site Approval) Application Dear Mr. Kelly: This letter is in response to your application for a determination of Project Eligibility ("Site Approval") pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B ("Chapter 40B"), 760 Cfv1R 56.00 and the Comprehensive Permit Guidelines issued by the Department of Housing and Community Development ("DHCD") (the "Guidelines" and, collectively, the "Comprehensive Permit Rules"), under the following program (the "Program"): • New England Fund (''NEF") Program of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston. The original application proposed to build two hundred (200) units of rental housing in two (2) buildings on individual parcels separated by North Meadow Road (Route 27) (the "Project") at 39-41 Dale Street and 49 Dale Street (the "Site") in Medfield, Massachusetts (the "Municipality"). Subsequent to an initial review of the Site and the proposed plans and comments from the Municipality regarding the site plan, MassHousing requested that the applicant reconsider the Project and its compatibility with adjacent uses and compliance with 760 CMR 56.04(4)(c), the applicable regulations that govern the design elements of a 40B proposal. On January 5, 2017 the Applicant submitted a revised proposal to MassHousing that purported to respond to concerns regarding the original site plan, reduced the proposed height of the buildings and the number of units from two hundred (200) to one hundred eighty two (182) rental · apartments units in three separate three and four-story buildings on a total of 6.24 acres of land, which only reduced the density from 32 units per acre to 29.17 units per acre on the Site. Charles D. Baker, Governor I Michael J. Dirrane, Chairman I Timothy C. Sullivan, Executive Director Karyn E. Polito, Lt. Governor Ping Yin Chai, Vice Chair Karen E. Kelleher, Deputy Director MassHousing staff has performed an on-site inspection of the Site, which local boards and officials were invited to attend, then revised the Site in connection with the revised application, and has reviewed the pertinent information from both the original and the revised applications for the Project submitted by the Applicant, and comments submitted by the Municipality and others in accordance with the Comprehensive Permit Rules. As a result ofMassHousing's evaluation of the information that was presented, and the Agency's evaluation of the Site, MassHousing is unable to approve your application for a determination of Project Eligibility. While it is expected that a Project proposal submitted in accordance with the zoning and regulatory relief available under Chapter 40B will differ from the surrounding context in many fundamental ways, the Subsidizing Agency must also address matters regarding the Project's relationship to existing development patterns in the surrounding area. This Site appears to be generally appropriate for residential development and while municipal actions to date have not yet resulted in the production of housing required, "to meet the municipality's need for affordable housing as measured by the Statutory Minima"; nevertheless MassHousing has determined that the conceptual project design for the proposed development is not appropriate for this Site. The reasons for MassHousing's denial of your applications are as follows: MassHousing considers the design of the building and the proposed site layout to be inconsistent with the design requirements outlined in 760 CMR 56.04(4)(c) and the related Guidelines dated May, 2013. Specifically: • The proposed apartment structure is inconsistent with nearby existing residential building typology. This is particularly true for the rear portion of the north parcel and the proposed building's relationship to the existing neighborhoods closest to the Site along Joseph Pace Road, John Crowder Road and Dale Street. The applicant's revised site plans do not adequately mitigate the impact of the proposed building's connection to the existing neighborhood from the initial proposal; the Project still fails to make a reasonable transition to this well established residential neighborhood. • The proposed three to four-story apartment structures are not compatible with nearby structures in terms of height, mass and scale. Building elevations indicate that the proposed buildings (the three proposed buildings range in height from 60' to 77.5' tall depending on the topography of the Site) are at least triple the height of most surrounding 1-2 story structures. The building massing in the original submission was entirely inappropriate for both the Site and its relationship to the adjacent residential neighborhood. While the revised site plan, particularly that of the north parcel, has addressed some of the most glaring impacts to its closest abutters, the overall perception of the massing has not been adequately reduced to make the findings required under the regulations. The proposed massing on the south parcel is not significantly improved by the revised site plans and the presence of wetlands on that portion of the overall development Site is a constraint to a more logical relationship to the Grove Street neighborhood. 2 • Appropriate density of residential development depends on a number of different factors, and must be reviewed on a case by case basis. In this case, however, it appears that the Project is simply too dense for the lot on which it is located; nearly the entire Site is occupied by the proposed building program and the limited areas for open space are not sufficient to mitigate the project's effective density. While there are no maximum density thresholds, it is advisable to develop at a density that takes some cues from the existing community context. The nearest rental development is the Pare at Medfield which has a considerably lower density of approximately 10 units/acre as compared to the almost 30 units/acre proposed for this Project. • The site plan does not provide a satisfactory design treatment of the edge between the Site and the surrounding streetscape and does little to enhance the visual quality of the streetscape. The northern and southern building facades face Route 27, which is the principal access to downtown Medfield, and create a poor visual relationship to this adjacent roadway. In MassHousing's review of any application for Site Approval under Chapter 40B, the Agency does not consider any one factor in isolation. Rather, the site as a whole is considered as well as whether the development proposal is consistent with applicable Regulations and Guidelines. After a thorough review of your application, MassHousing does not find that your proposal is able to meet all of the required findings. Therefore, your application is denied. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Greg Watson, Manager of Comprehensive Permit Programs, at 617-854-1880. Sincerely, Timo y C. Sullivan Executive Director cc: Chrystal Kornegay, Undersecretary, Department of Housing and Community Development The Honorable James Timilty The Honorable Denise C. Garlick The Honorable Shawn Dooley Mark L. Fisher, Chairman, Medfield Board of Selectmen Michael J. Sullivan, Medfield Town Administrator/ Sarah Raposa, Medfield Town Planner 320170131-masshousing-ltr-from_page_220170131-masshousing-ltr-from_page_3

Comments Off on MassHousing’s Mega-denial

Posted in Affordable housing / 40B, Uncategorized

BCRT

Posted on January 31, 2017 | Comments Off on BCRT

bcrt-logo

Christian Donner provided the following links to data about the Bay Colony Rail Trail, and he also seems to maintain the website.   –
Medfield

The Study Report:
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTh2qKB7lfonO0cgFF

Medfield Parking Concepts (by Jeremy Marsette)
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiBUiUONWsUXHWyoT

Misc Documents

Bay Colony Railroad – Modified Rail Certificate
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiBuJn9Pqi6DbD2cP
(this is basis for bypassing the abandonment process)

MBTA Lease Agreement – Template
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiBm9QQNUlvc0eylc

BRAC Program Brochure, with contact info of brokerages
https://1drv.ms/w/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiAGQheMAwHtsDEAT

Needham

Needham Rail Trail Cost Breakdown (actuals)
https://1drv.ms/x/s!At7W7NFH9EnThzsZhkfEOk7QAJnA

Needham IFB Phase 1 (removal of rails and ties)
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnThz_lMGpuyZE8XCH9
(includes the MBTA lease and other documents)

Needham Phase 1 Bid Sheet – Results
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnThz1BVNE65bqnk2Dn
(comparison of bid submissions and cost breakdown)

Needham IFB Phase 2 (finishing surface)
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTh0FBT520acg0nd7C

Needham Phase 2 Bid Sheet – Results
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnThzk-CFWV4-dFqGpb

Needham Warrant with lease and insurance article (pages 5 and 6)
http://www.needhamma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1130

Needham Study RFP
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiBNBhkGmJOa3lsLL

Dover

Dover – Memorandum from Law firm Anderson Kreiger regarding lease terms and environmental issues
http://www.doverma.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Bay-Colony-Rail-Trail-First-Supplement-to-KDB-Memorandum-.pdf

Newton

Newton Legal Department – Opinion on 99 year lease
https://1drv.ms/b/s!At7W7NFH9EnTiBfEmMKL6U13EFQE

Comments Off on BCRT

Posted in Uncategorized

Mega-death

Posted on January 31, 2017 | 1 comment

Mike Sullivan just called to relate that Representative Denise Garlick reported to him that she was informed by MassHousing at her meeting with MassHousing this morning that MassHousing is denying the Mega-B.  The denial is reportedly based on the original proposal not being appropriate for the site, and the revised proposal still not being appropriate for the site.  Mike says that at this point MassHousing will require any revision to start from scratch.

20170105-mega-b

Representative Denise Garlick will attempt to attend the Board of Selectmen meeting this evening at 7PM to personally deliver the word to the town – any weather cancellations will be post here.

1 Comment

Posted in State

Nominations close today

Posted on January 31, 2017 | Comments Off on Nominations close today

Today is the last day to put your volunteer in the next photo – these were the 2014 honorees.  Get the Medfield Foundation nomination form here.

VOTYs - Colleen Sullivanvoty-20140227-poster-nominees

Comments Off on Nominations close today

Posted in Uncategorized, Volunteers

Nominations close tomorrow

Posted on January 30, 2017 | Comments Off on Nominations close tomorrow

Put your favorite volunteer in the next Medfield Foundation volunteer awards photo – these stalwart Medfield volunteers were suggested in 2015.

2015-voty-nominees

The Medfield Foundation (MFi) annually fetes at its Volunteer Awards those individuals, suggested by fellow residents, whose extraordinary efforts and activities have made a special marked difference in the quality of life in Medfield.

At a reception at 3PM on March 19  at The Center the town will celebrate all the individual nominated this year, and the MFi will name its Volunteer of the Year, Youth Volunteer of the Year, and Lifetime Achievement Award recipients.

The Volunteers Awards are based entirely on nominations submitted by the public, and solely on the information submitted.  Give recognition to your special volunteer by submitting your nomination before January 31 on the form found at www.medfieldfoundation.org.

Brothers Marketplace generously sponsors the MFi Volunteer Awards, and support is also received from The Rockland Trust Charitable Foundation.

Comments Off on Nominations close tomorrow

Posted in Medfield Foundation, Volunteers

Last call for MFi volunteer nominations – due 1/31

Posted on January 28, 2017 | Comments Off on Last call for MFi volunteer nominations – due 1/31

mfi-volunteer-awards

EXTRAORDINARY VOLUNTEERS RECOGNIZED

The Medfield Foundation (MFi) annually fetes at its Volunteer Awards those individuals, suggested by fellow residents, whose extraordinary efforts and activities have made a special marked difference in the quality of life in Medfield.

At a reception at 3PM on March 19  at The Center the town will celebrate all the individual nominated this year, and the MFi will name its Volunteer of the Year, Youth Volunteer of the Year, and Lifetime Achievement Award recipients.

The Volunteers Awards are based entirely on nominations submitted by the public, and solely on the information submitted.  Give recognition to your special volunteer by submitting your nomination before January 31 on the form found at www.medfieldfoundation.org.

Brothers Marketplace generously sponsors the MFi Volunteer Awards, and support is also received from The Rockland Trust Charitable Foundation.

 

These were the people suggested in 2013:

voty-2013-all

Comments Off on Last call for MFi volunteer nominations – due 1/31

Posted in Medfield Foundation, Uncategorized, Volunteers

State property taxes

Posted on January 28, 2017 | Comments Off on State property taxes

This article was circulated with the DOR’s Division of Local Services newsletter I get.  I did not include all its charts, hence the holes you will see.   I thought the two maps were the most interesting.  Medfield is part of the over $10K/year tax belt of red in MetroWest.-

FY2017 Single-Family Residential Tax Bill Andrew Nelson, Supervisor, Bureau of Accounts (BOA) Tony Rassias, Deputy Director, BOA

The State Total single-family residential tax bill for FY2017 is $5,621, an increase of $202 or 3.7 percent from FY2016, according to data captured from 332 of the Commonwealth’s 351 cities and towns in the DLS Muncipal Databank.

In addition, the average value of a single-family residential home was $399,413, the highest value since the FY2008 average value of $403,705, which was set as values were starting to drop in the real estate market.

So far in FY2017, with 345 communities reporting valuation data to the Division of Local Services (DLS), single-family residential parcels statewide represent:

  • 66% of all residential class property assessed values;
  • 54% of all property assessed values;
  • 64% of all residential class parcels; and
  • 56% of all class parcels and articles of personal property

Analysis of data for this article is limited to single-family residential parcels, class code 101, and does not include condominiums, multifamily homes or apartment buildings.

This analysis and all charts and graphs included with the exception of Chart 5 do not include communities for which a residential exemption was adopted in any fiscal year, but later in this article presents the impact on their average bill if the property was eligible for the exemption For FY2017 only, the analysis does not include data for six communities for which no tax rate has yet to be certified by the Bureau of Accounts.

This article begins with a review of the State Total single-family residential property tax bill, a calculation performed by DLS for many years. The article then continues with a review of the statewide median of community averages since FY2008 followed by community averages. The article then reviews how both the State Total and statewide median of community averages have fared over time relative to inflation and finally takes a special look at the residential exemption’s impact on the 13 communities that had it in FY2017.

The State Total

Calculation of the State Total presumes that Massachusetts is one local governmental entity for which such a bill would be determined.  While not a median of all community averages, the State Total is presented and may be measured against itself from a prior fiscal year.

Chart 1 presents the calculation of the State Total from FY2008 to FY2017. Note that the State Total has annually increased over this period of time, yet not by more than 4%.

In addition, Chart 1 presents the average value for all single-family residential properties.  The average value decreased from FY2008 to FY2013 by 12.2%, but from FY2013 to FY2017 increased 12.7%.  Overall for the time period shown, the average value decreased by 1%.

Chart 1

 

 

The Median of Community Averages

Chart 2 shows the median or midpoint of all community averages for each fiscal year since FY2008.  For FY2017, this median tax bill of $4,745 represents an increase over FY2016’s by $202 or 4.4%

 

 

Note: For the six communities without an FY2017 tax rate and not represented in Chart 2, five have historically averaged below and one above the $4,745 median tax bill shown above. If history proves true once again for these communities, the FY2017 median amount shown would drop by less than $50.

The Average by Community

DLS calculates a community’s average single-family residential property tax bill by:

  • dividing the total class code 101 assessed property values in the community by the number of parcels in that community’s class code to establish an average property value for the class; and
  • multiplying that average property value by the community’s residential class tax rate as certified by the Bureau of Accounts for that fiscal year.

The following color-coded maps provide visual representations of the FY2017 community averages around the State as well as their dollar changes from FY2016.

fy17-dor-average-tax-bill-map

 

This map shows how most of the communities in the western and central parts of Massachusetts have average tax bills at or less than the median of community averages, $4,745. The map also shows a cluster of communities with average tax bills over $10,000 just to the west of Boston.

For a larger version of this map, including community names, click here.

 

fy17-DOT-tax change map of Massachusetts.jpg

This map, in conjunction with the previous map, shows that although many communities in the western and central parts of Massachusetts had lesser than median average tax bills, a number of them had greater than median average increases from FY2016. The median for all communities that increased their average tax bill was $174.

Statewide, 311 communities increased their average tax bill from FY2016 ranging from $1 in Hampden to $998 in Winchester.

Also seen is that a number of communities actually decreased their average tax bill from FY2016. Statewide, 21 communities did so, ranging from $2 in Sheffield to $305 in Peru. The median for all communities that decreased their average tax bill was $43.

For a larger version of this map, including community names, click here. 

 

 The Range of Averages

Graph 1 shows that more communities (81) have FY2017 community average single-family property tax bills in the $3,000 to $3,999 range followed by 78 in the $4,000 to $4,999 range category.

 

 

Graph 2 shows the number of communities increasing and decreasing their average tax bills from FY2016 to FY2017 on a percentage basis. For example, seven communities decreased their average bill anywhere from greater than1% to 2%. Also, 84 communities increased their average bill anywhere from greater than3% to 4%.

For the 21 communities that decreased their bill, their median percentage decrease was 1.1%. For the 311 communities that increased their average bill, their median percentage increase was 3.5%.

Communities that decreased their average bill ranged from .05% in Sheffield to 8.4% in Peru.  Communities that increased their average bill ranged from .02% in Hampden to 24.4% in Hancock

 

 

 The Highest and Lowest Averages

Chart 3 shows the communities having the 10 highest and lowest FY2017 average bills in descending order.

 

 

The Statewide Trend in Current and Constant Dollars

Chart 4 shows the State Total and Median of Community Averages in current dollars as presented earlier in this article in relation to a constant dollar, which controls for inflation.

The Chart shows that both the State Total and the Median of Community Averages dollar amounts have outpaced the rate of inflation over the time period shown.

For example, the Median of Community Averages FY2008 current dollar figure of $3,470 adjusted for inflation represents a constant dollar figure of $3,900 in FY2017.  FY2017 in current dollars is $4,745. As of FY2017 then, the current dollar figure has outpaced the constant dollar figure by $845 or 18%.

Note that the State Total is always in excess of the Median. As was stated earlier in this article, these two dollar amounts may be compared to themselves from a prior fiscal year but are not comparable to each other.

 

 

The Residential Exemption Communities

Thirteen communities that adopted a residential exemption are not included in either the State Total or Median Averages as the Bureau of Accounts does not receive sufficient information as to how many class code 101 residential properties are eligible for the exemption in those communities.

For those 13 communities, however, Chart 5 shows the FY2017 dollar impact of the residential exemption on single-family residential properties (1) assessed at the community’s median value and (2) deemed qualified to receive the exemption.  More information on this exemption can be found in the October 16, 2014 edition of City & Town.

 

 

For More Information

For more information on the State Total, Average Bills for Communities and Statewide Rankings, please visit the DLS Databank.

The authors would like to thank Theo Kalivas of DLS’ Technical Assistance Bureau for his assistance in creating the color-coded maps used in this analysis.

Comments Off on State property taxes

Posted in Financial, State, Uncategorized