WESTFIELD – The City Council set the residential factor, again, Thursday night, modifying a vote taken on Nov. 17 that shifted the tax burden toward the residential property classification.
The residential factor results in a shift between residential property and the commercial, industrial and personal property classification. Residential property is the largest classification at 82.85 percent ($2,637,099,207) compared to 17.15 percent for commercial, industrial and personal property (CIP) classes. Commercial property comprised 10.61 percent ($337,822,066), industrial at 4.21 percent ($137,515,200) and personal property at 2.20 percent ($70,208,955).
Last year the council adopted a 1.64 shift, based upon a budget of $56 million, that resulted in a residential tax rate of $15.41 per $1,000 of value and a CIP rate of $29.13 per $1,000 of property value.
Several council members, including Ward 5 Councilor Richard E. Onofrey Jr., chairman of the Finance Committee, argued that adopting the same 1.64 shift this year would increase taxes by three (3) percent to all classes of property, raising the residential rate to $16.12 per $1,000 and the CIP rate to $30.47 per $1,000 of property value.
The council voted at the Nov. 17 meeting to approve the maximum 2 1/2 percent tax increase allowed under state law . That increase was predicated on accepting a 2012 fiscal year budget of $59,138,974, which was approved last June. The three percent increase is a combination of the 2 1/2 percent increase plus new growth, property constructed in the past year which was not included in the classification base numbers.
The council was required to revisit that Nov. 17 vote because the 6-5 vote to approve a residential factor of 72.0597, resulting in a shift of 1.63, while a majority of the 11 councilors present at that session, fell short of a seven-member majority of the 13 member council.
The city charter states that “a majority of the council (in the present council at least seven [7] members,) shall constitute a quorum, and the affirmative vote of the majority of all (13) members of the council shall be necessary to adopt any motion, resolution or ordinance.”
Thursday night the council reopened the debate, clearly divided into two camps, those who wanted to shift the burden away from the CIP classes and those who wanted to shift the burden away from the residential class.
Ward 2 Councilor James E. Brown Jr., argued that “homeowners cannot handle another increase. To shift this burden toward them in unconscionable, it will push some people over the edge. By no means do I want to see a shift that places more burden on residents.”
The debate resumed with the Finance Committee’s recommendation of adopting a shift of 1.61 as proposed by the Chamber of Commerce and supported by council members who feel that raising the CIP tax above $30 per $1,000 will impose an unfair burden of the business community, which uses far fewer city services than do residents. Those councilors noted that Westfield is one of the few communities in the state which has seen substantial commercial, industrial and personal property growth, growth that could be stalled by shifting the tax burden further onto the CIP class of property.
The 1.61 shift factor was quickly discarded by an amendment to consider the 1.64 shift, which was also approved by a 6-5 vote at the Nov. 17 session, but displaced by the 1.63 shift vote.
Council President Christopher Keefe had attempted to avoid amendments, requesting the councilors to vote “yea or nay” on each individual motion to avoid the confusion of two motions being approved, but was overruled by a 2-10 vote of the council.
The motion to adopt a 1.64 shift failed on a 6-6 vote.
Ward Councilor Peter J. Miller then made a motion to amend the shift to 1.63, to avoid going back to the original 1.61 shift motion. That amendment was approved by a 7-5 vote, but the final vote to set the residential shift failed on another 6-6 vote when Miller voted against his own amendment.
Miller said that he supported a 1.66 shift, which would have reduced the residential tax rate to $12.04 and increased the CIP rate to $30.85, but made the unpalatable 1.63 amendment to avoid a vote on the original 1.61 motion and to avoid gridlock in the council.
Had the council not approved a residential factor Thursday night, the city would have had to send out estimated tax bills, which residents are not obligated to pay. The city would have had to borrow money in anticipation of payment when the rate was finally set, incurring interest and fees associated with borrowing.
Onofrey offered a compromise to bring the two sides together, a shift of 1.635, half way between 1.63 and 1.64. The amendment and final vote were approved by 7-5 votes. That shift results in a residential tax rate of $16.14 per $1,000 of property value and a CIP rate of $30.38 per $1,000 of value.
Voting for the 1.635 compromise were: At-large Councilor Patti Andras; At-large Councilor John J. Beltrandi III; Ward 6 Councilor Christopher Crean; At-large Councilor David A. Flaherty; At-large Councilor Nicholas Morganelli; Ward 4 Councilor Mary O’Connell; and Onofrey.
Voting against the amendment were: At-large Councilor Brent B. Bean II; Brown; Keefe; Miller; and At-large Councilor Brian Sullivan.
