Good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the March 19 meeting of the Chattam Finance Committee in the OBS Osprey observation subgroup. They've been spotted. Uh please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any
smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, including the US use of AI note-taking apps, please notify the chair there apparently being none. Pursuant to Governor Healey's signing of chapter two of the acts of 25 extending certain CO 19
measures and suspending certain provisions of the opening meeting law until June 3027. This meeting of the Chad and Finance Committee is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the
proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling 508-945-4410 945-4410 and enter conference ID 181231120 again 181231120
pound sign. Uh one may join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. We will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible. We are on the cusp of wrapping up our work on the
um FY27 budget and the f the calendar year 25 town meeting. We've got a couple of warrant articles that are submitted via uh citizen petition that we're going to tuck into today. Um and then we'll have a some conversation as well about a
report. Uh so with that said, let's do a little roll call. Tommy Don >> here. >> Barb Madison >> here. John Pepler is absent. I know. Joanna is absent. I know. Uh Andy Young >> here. >> Kristen Andres >> here. >> Tracy Shields >> here. >> Eric Whitley >> here.
>> Chair is here. We have a quorum. Um okay. Uh we are going to start with a petition article submitted by Seth Taylor uh with respect to uh
what I'm >> chapter 59. Thank you, Seth. Um, over to you, Mr. Taylor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, member of the finance committee. Um, for the record, Mr. Chairman, you said 2025 uh town meeting article, so you may want to amend the record.
>> Yes. Thank you. So noted. Thank you. Um folks, I uh as you will remember last year, uh took my first bite into uh chapters 59 and chapter 60, respectively, about the things that
maybe the town could be doing to um uh do a better job of helping our uh lower income folks. and in particular the opportunities that there were for us to help our low-income seniors. Uh I'm back
here today with a couple of um petitioned articles that if we think about them as we go through them as uh companion articles. uh they stand alone and independently they're going to be
helpful but together there's a multiplier effect that is like an extra kidney uh if you're in need of one. So I' I'd like you to think of that as as I talk and I'll try to reflect on the value of them being combined. The first
one is really very simple. Um we are we meaning the uh town meeting the voters of uh a town in chapter 59. Chapter 59 belongs to the assessor's
office. Chapter 60 belongs to the tax collector's office. What the tax assessor says somebody owes they send to the tax collector and the tax collector has no option but to collect what they say the assessor owes. It's that simple.
If you can't pay the taxes to the collector that the assessor says you owe, you are going to get put into tax title. That is simply a fancy way of a lean being placed against your property
for the debt, the tax debt you owe. And that's a tax title lean. And that comes out of the tax collector's office under chapter 59 which is I I I do not
encourage anyone to try to read through that whole law but that belongs to the assessor's offices and where all the options for abatements and reducing your taxes before they get sent to the tax assessor tax collector.
That's where the magic can happen on making you owe less money. It has to uh originate in the tax assessor's office. There is a provision for senior citizens, lowincome senior citizens
to have their taxes reduced and they can be reduced by $500 or a percentage of the value of the home, whichever is more. in Chattam, you might as well just say $500. So, a lowincome
senior with a $3,000 property tax uh uh obligation could ask because of their qualifying status as being the right income, the right age, the right uh occupancy in their home, u the the conditions that
are required of of chapter 59, they can get the $500 knocked off. But if they can't afford the $2,500, maybe they can only afford 2,000 bucks and they pay the $2,000. They got a $5,000 obligation.
But before that obligation moves to the tax collector, the assessor's office has the opportunity to create a different kind of a lean on the taxpayer and that's called a deferred tax lean because the
assessor's office can defer the taxes on qualifying individuals. So, a low-income senior citizen who can't afford to pay all of their taxes can ask the assessor's
office to defer the taxes they owe. But again, that creates a lean, and that's called a tax deferred lean, not a tax title lean. We actually have folks in town that have both tax title leans and
tax deferred leans on the same piece of property. I know that may seem bizarre, but under tax title again, chapter 60, the collector's office, prior to
November of 2024, the interest rate was 16% on any un unpaid balance. You missed payments on one year because you're having a hard time and you're a lowinccome person having a hard time at
16% interest. You never get caught up. You fall farther and farther behind and pretty soon you could be staring at $60,000 tax liability on a property where you may owe only $3,000 in annual taxes. And we actually have someone
that's in that situation. So the immediate matter before you where I'm asking us to adjust what town meeting can adjust in title 59 is the rate of interest that is statutoily
required as the law is written is 8% and this is for tax deferred leans right not tax title leans but tax deferred leans in the statute it says 8% %.
That's still a pretty big chunk, but the law actually says town meeting can reduce that interest rate to whatever they want it to be.
And if you have a copy of the petition article itself, um you'll see a a line underneath it and something says explanation. That's that's not really fairly an explanation. That's the the actual legal language
that allows us town meeting to reduce this. All right. So I'm asking it to be reduced to 510 of 1%. Because if somebody that is qualifying for a taxdeerred
uh lean to be placed on their house and it's a oneoff, you know, they had a bad year, something happened, they got sick, but they want to pay their taxes and they want to stay in their home, they can almost certainly catch up to a 510 of 1% rate of interest
as opposed to trying to catch up to a 16% rate of interest that was um compounding daily. So that's what that's trying to do to to
not put the town in the mortgage lending business or the credit card business, but in the business of trying to make sure we can keep people in their homes. Or better yet, and better put, simply, if they want to stay in their homes,
give them a chance to stay in their homes. A person is always going to have the right to sell their home if they're having a hard time and they just want to take out some equity. I mean, some of these people are sitting on a million-doll property and they can't pay
their taxes. As it is right now, they don't have any choice but to sell their home. It's a fire sale because especially when it was 16%, it's now 8% for the tax title as well. It it mirrors
uh tax deferred. But even at those rates, if you're low income, you're not going to catch up. So, if that's all you can do, most people are going to say, "I'm not going to give away all my money. I'm sorry, grandpa. I'm sorry,
Grandpa. Grandma, you know, I love you. I love the town. I love I love my ancestral home. I'd love to die in this house, but I'd just be stupid and I know you don't want me to be. God bless you. And, you know, go kiss their gravestones on the way out of town because one of
the big real estate interests comes up and knocks on your door, say, "Hey, you're going backwards every day. sell it to me or by the time tax time rolls around you're going to owe another 5,000 bucks. It we've been chasing
people out of town for years and I don't think any of us knew it or care well we all cared probably but we didn't understand the dynamic that was causing it. So anyway, the second article before you, which I
call it >> so let's just focus on the first for now. All right. I think you made a compelling argument. I would like to see if we can get Sharon Dr, the town treasurer up just to talk about kind of process. I realize that some of this is yours, some of this is the assessors, but if we could just get some edification from either Sharon or Carrie
on mechanics, mechanics, process, etc. Thank you, Seth. Hi, Sharon Drowner, treasur and tax collector. I'm actually glad to be here. It gives me an opportunity to kind of share with you um how things actually
run in the tax collector's office when we deal with tax title um and deferrals. Uh should the rate for deferral be decreased? Absolutely. Um, I think when my office surveyed some of the towns, we
were looking at three to 4%. Um, not the half a percent. Um, but that that is not up to me. That's just my my input on that. Yes, it should be reduced, but I don't necessarily believe that it should be reduced uh to that
drastic of a level um as far as uh tax title goes. So, um, the laws were pretty ancient. Uh, things changed dramatically in November of 2024. Um, the interest
rate was reduced from 16 to 8%. Um, unfortunately, I think when looking at the big picture, our government didn't look at the existing tax rate for delinquent real estate taxes, which is
at 14%. I think when changes were made, it should have been across the board. They should have started with the real estate, trickle it down to the tax title, which they did not do. So, by reducing the rate to 8%, yes, it
helps those individuals that are in tax title. Um, but it doesn't say much for those that are delinquent but not at the position of being placed into tax title at 14%. But that's a whole another
issue. Right now, um I have 13 tax title accounts of which five are under payment plan agreements faithfully making payments. Um three are
in with the land court for uh foreclosure and the others have other things going on. um meaning either there's title issues, there unknown properties that have to be uh removed from tax title because the
laws have changed. Um but for the most part, anybody that's in tax title, uh like I said, five of which are in uh payment plan agreements. uh one utilizing the um tax title uh the local
tax title um bylaw whereby 50% of the interest could be reduced with a 25% payment and a 5 to 10year payment plan agreement. Um that has been very helpful in um reducing the
tax title. Um so I think when we talk about it it's good to have a clear picture as to how many accounts are we really talking about. Um as far as deferral I have one deferral that one particular deferral is also in tax title
as well as Mr. Taylor has mentioned um we have no control over what happened in the past. um this particular taxpayer is now aware of deferral and qualifies for it. But the key component is that it must be filed for on an annual basis. If
you do not file for it, you do not qualify for it. Therefore, the tax rolls into the tax title versus the deferral. So, I think um it's good to have an understanding that there is some responsibility with respect to filing on
an annual basis. >> Okay. Thank you, Sharon. That's helpful. Um, all right. Questions for either Seth or Sharon. Tracy, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I apologize
for my ignorance about this, but with um either tax deferred or tax title, there is uh they it's not something that can go on until um the person is
deceased and then the home is sold. >> It can. >> So, they could stay and then it just is reduced from whatever the property profits after their death. Um, it could, but it's not required to. A
town may uh petition the land court to foreclose on any property that's in tax title. They may. Do they have to? No. But they may. Uh,
in one instance, um, the collector told me that she was not in the business of kicking people out of their homes. And I said, well, that's great. I said, in that instance, why
would I encourage any senior citizen who's basically living on canned dog food to continue to pay their taxes at all since they're already old and they're probably not going to live for another 10 or 15 years? why bother to pay at all if they're not going to
kicked out. The response was they certainly could be kicked out with the implication being that the final decision was not the tax collectors to make and the only way I can interpret that is that the final decision would be
made by the town manager who controls what is done within our administration. But we are now getting way off of the subject of these two petition articles because neither one of them has anything to do with tax title. They simply don't.
All I was trying to explain is that is that when we look at that that there are tax title accounts and tax deferred accounts, it moves us to the second petitioned article. >> I understand. And I think we all understand that
>> the first one is only about the the first one only relates to chapter 59 and the assessor's office. >> But even still with with the tax deferred situation as your treasur I'll answer the question. So
>> my response to Mr. Taylor was tailored along the line of I would not put somebody in a foreclosure situation if they lived in the home. That's just not something that should be done. No one should ever be faced with losing their
home because they owe taxes for however long. It is more advantageous to seek other avenues such as family members assisting, getting on a payment plan, moving things forward
rather than staying stagnant. Now, any properties that went into foreclosure are vacant land and um we have several owner unknown properties. Um so, anything that has gone through foreclosure or is in the process of is
vacant land. Uh I don't think it's a good practice to foreclose on uh a residence where someone actually lives there. Um I've been very successful in obtaining payment plans both in and out of tax title. Um always try the goal is
to get before anything goes into tax title is to establish a payment plan to keep them from having to go into if I have a established payment plan for example uh 2024 I have one account left that is not paid
in real estate. one account out of thousands and that individual is on a payment plan and that payment plan she's consistent with making her payments and that account will stay away from tax title as long as those payments are
adhered to. >> You mean a pay away from full foreclosure? >> So, no tax title. Um, so that is just I'm letting you know how we try to move forward in in our office is to avoid tax
title altogether whenever possible. It the goal is to get it paid and be reasonable rather than have somebody feel like there's no way of getting out or or paying the debt. >> You set it. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Andy, please. Seth, I this is in in looking at this article plus the next one. Um my question is how much latitude do you think the board of assessors has in approving
exemptions or deferrals? If an individual applies for a deferral and they qualify, there isn't any way that they can that that it can be discretionary. the law says who you are, what criteria you have
to meet, and if you meet those um there isn't anything says that the the assessors can ignore the law. So, I guess I don't understand your question, Andy. Well, it seems like, at least my impression, and I perhaps I'm wrong, but is that some of these provisions for
exemptions and deferrals actually give the assessors a fair amount of latitude to to decide whether or not >> as far as some of the other abatement options that are listed in chapter 59. Yeah. But if you very carefully read through the section that talks about tax
deferrals and who qualifies once you meet the qualification standards for a deferral, if you ask for a deferral, I mean you could you'd have to ask a lawyer because I don't see I mean I've spent a lot of time having to apply the law, Andy. I've never had to
specifically apply this one, but when the law says X, it means X and it's non-discretionary. Um, one of the things that we that I would like to see us get away from is where the government is in a position to
behave in a discretionary manner. um that we have any discretion that's left to how people address their own personal needs, provided that they are uh living up to what the town thinks they should on
taxes, that the discretion is theirs, that they're not forced to sell their home, but if they choose to, they can. >> But that's that's clearly something that's well beyond where we are right now. >> Right. And that's where I'm looking at. So, I wanted to just follow up with Andy and then rather than consult a lawyer,
um I wanted to consult a tax collector in town who just to verify the understanding. So, Andy, where where do you want to go? >> No, I I I think I'm I'm probably conflating both this article and the following article and sort of what the
provisions are, right? What what can the what my reading mind you it's a reading of a summary that was generated for the board the select board you know suggests that there there are areas where the U
assessors have a fair amount of latitude in things like an exemption. I mean to say that the hardship exemption allows the board of assessor to grant up to a full property exemption for taxpayers who are older, have an illness, disability, or
impairment or other reasons as determined by the board of assessors and are unable to contribute fully to their tax liability. I mean that seems to have quite a bit of latitude in it. I would say probably beneficially,
right? and because we cannot describe in great precision every circumstance that might arise. Um Sharon, you a comment on that? >> Well, with regard to exemptions and abatements, the law is pretty clear. Uh you have to meet certain specifications
to qualify for them. So, I think um I I really don't know how much leeway they have. you'd have to ask um I think you should maybe ask Candace, our assessor. I know that it's not a one decision. It's a board decision. So, um
it might be worthy of of asking the question uh to either Candace or someone who's on the board of assessors. >> Okay. All right. No, thank you. That's fine. Okay. Terrific. Um Eric, please. >> Thank you. Um, so I just want to
understand a little bit more clearly the the deferral process and sounds like, you know, we've part of part of what I was going to ask is is answered, but um it's a fairly limited uh scope and group that
>> um >> yeah, senior citizens, low-inccome senior citizens, >> right? So they they have to hit those those categories. Yeah, you have to touch all of the bases. >> And then based on um what we've what we've learned here, there's there's only
one person current one taxpayer currently that's that's um applied for that and been >> Oh, that's not true. There's you were asking the tax collector about tax title. >> The excuse me,
>> tax deferrals are in the assessor's office. >> Yeah, excuse me. Excuse me. But the answer we got was that there is one person, one taxpayer that's that's in the deferral category. There are a group of five that are in payment plans and and land unknown and all those all those
kind of things that are bring it up to the the huge number of 14 or 15 or whatever it is. So I think there's it's accurate to say that there's only one per one taxpayer that that really at
currently would be touched by by this bylaw. Is that accurate? >> That is correct. Um, and then, um, I guess I'm scared to ask this question, but how did you come up with the the
interest rate as opposed to the three or four that seems to be more standard in other towns? >> I don't really care what another town chooses to do, Eric. Um, and I don't think another town has to set the standard for us doing what we can to
help the poorest of the poor. at 510 of 1% the the poorest person that we have that could wind up in this sort of a situation. If we want to help them dig out from under, then reducing the interest rate to the lowest
possible denominator is going to give them that opportunity without us really um causing the town any great loss. When we look at the total number of people that this may affect now or in the
future, all it does is creates a a a paper accounting problem because if they're not paying their taxes, that's money that's not coming in at all. But when they die or before that property can be sold, the leans have to be
satisfied, right? So, if there's a lean that's sitting there and we're helping the person pay it off at 510 or 1% because they had a bump in a bad year and they can get ahead of it really quickly, then they're back on paying
their taxes a routine ba basis without any large loss of money. It it's just >> they may or they may not be. I mean, >> right. Ultimately, what happens is a person gets the choice of whether they want to live in their home
as opposed to being forced out of their home. And and this allows the person to make that choice. And to me, I don't care if it's 1 2 3 4 5. We can't predict what's going to happen in the future, Eric. But I'm looking to the
possibility that what we have is a system that is as compassionate as it can be to the poorest of the poor without really putting any sort of a dent in the town of Cadam that's going to leave a a gaping u fiscal hole. Eric,
this isn't going to do that. But it is going to help one two three four people. You know, we got 14 billion dollars of assessed value in this town right now. something like that. Um, close. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, I think I think we got
the point. I think we got the magnitude. >> You're good. All right. Tracy, I'm sorry, Barbara and then Tracy, please. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Seth, if this Well, or Sharon, if this um is approved at town meeting, does that rate go back? Does it in to all of the pass through
taxes or is it only from now going forward? >> Be retroactive? >> No, it'll go forward. >> Okay. Okay. It doesn't have any retroactivity attached to it. It'll be going forward. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, whatever balance is there, 8%'s not going to get stamped onto it. Um, it'll
be 510 or 1% on the balance going forward. >> So, when it's switched down also from 16 to 8, same thing. >> 16 was on tax title. It what was 16? Correct me if I'm wrong. Do you still charge 16 on that balance?
>> I can speak to that. So anything um subsequent to 2024 would be 8%. Anything that was prior to 2024 when the changes occurred would be 16%. So our accounting system
was changed to allow for that. So if you've got a balance of 50 grand and 40,000 of that is pre2024, you're paying 16% on that and 8% of whatever's uh acred since that period of
time. It's enormous money that poor people can't get out from under. >> Yeah. So that's the point I'm getting at is there if we wanted to help poor people, is there nothing we can do going back? >> Well, let's talk about the second petitioned article, Barbara, because that's what that does. >> Okay. >> Okay. So let's do that in a second. Tracy, please.
>> I guess my question is if it doesn't sound like anyone's been forced out of their home, but I don't understand why the if if someone's in a home that's a multi-million dollar home, I understand that life can have changes and and they
don't have income and and whatnot. And so if they're not going to be forced out of their home, why should the town of Chadam suffer when that home is sold and then it goes, you know, into a trust or other people inherit that? I understand
that. Um, you know, not wanting to compound so much interest, but I would think you'd want to at least have enough interest to keep up with inflation. Otherwise, the town is taking a loss. So, can I can I speak to that?
>> Yeah, please. >> Okay. So, this is why we work communicating with taxpayers that need help to avoid these circumstances where there is such a deep hole that you cannot get
out. Now, years ago when a good handful of the tax title accounts um there's probably maybe two or three remaining um that was not the goal. I can personally tell you that we send letters out, we
communicate. Um I do receive a lot of calls from people who fall into hard times. What can I do? How can you help? Um which I think is great. I would much rather have somebody reach out to me and say, "I can't do this right now. What can we do?" Um, so I think all in all,
the town is is really um well educated to what its residents needs with respect to assistance um and communicating as well. Does that help? >> I think so. >> Okay. >> With all due respect, I got to tell you
something. you haven't been in town all that long. And I can tell you that Tommy Don and Andy, if they put their mind to it, could point their finger at people that got into difficulty because they
had uh a chunk of land that their home was on that all of a sudden aren't around anymore. And if you look to see who it was that wound up with that land when those people disappeared, it would be pretty clear to you that they was a
knock on their door and they were politely explained what happens when you continue to go backwards in taxes and what it means to lose equity. I can guarantee you, I'm not going to name names sitting up here, but I promise you
>> I'm not going to do it. There are people that were chased out of their homes because they looked at the numbers and said, "I'm going backwards. I need to sell or I'm going to have nothing." >> As far as us from a legal standpoint, it sounds like that is not what is
happening. >> It is happening today. It is happening today. >> Okay. So, so hold on because I think that's not what we're hearing from the treasure collector. >> No. So you can't change what happened in the past, right? >> You can fix it.
>> So exactly. And you can um you can educate and you can work with people. And that's what it's about. It's not about going back and pointing fingers at people. It's what can we do here and now. And um I I would like to think I
would like to think that um we've all had a part in that. Uh, I know when I first started back in 2017, the tax title list was quite extensive. Um, and I don't I'm not patting myself on the back. I'm just saying times have
changed and to be able to reach out to people and and work with people instead of um, you know, sending demand notices and letting it go at that. Too bad. You'll go in tax title. I don't need to talk to you any further. That's not how it's done anymore. >> So, Sharon, sorry, Tracy, please.
>> Yeah. And I I guess my my my think what I the way my brain works on it is if you are now sitting on a property that is worth 3 million, yes, your taxes have now
become cumbersome, but you're probably also able to take out some equity from that property, you know, to cover that because you've had the windfall of the property. increasing in value and it to
me whoever inherits that property shouldn't benefit should they shouldn't benefit from the person's inability to pay. >> That's being overly simplistic because we're not talking about those situations. We're talking about people
who have properties that are on the lower spectrum of value in the town. Um where the real estate may have significant value, but the home on it isn't worth the amount of money that it would cost you to get into the movie theater. Um that's what we're talking about. >> The land is
>> the land is. Yeah, that sure is. And what happens is in those instances on the bottom tier of this, you're looking at people that are going to get chased out of their home. And some of them it's they may look at it and say, "Yeah, this
property is worth a million dollars. Let's just make that number up." And they choose to sell that property, take a million bucks, and move to Florida and live in a trailer. But that's their choice, right? Because it's given to them. But if that's their only choice,
then they don't get a chance to say, "I want to die in my family home." >> Why would Why couldn't they take >> You don't think people should have that, right? >> Why wouldn't they have the choice to take out a second mortgage or take out equity from that house to their debt?
>> They may not have enough income to to qualify. >> I mean, this is >> So, all right. So, I wanna I want to calm this down. I would like to calm this down. We've had a lot of information exchange. I think we're tending to go in circles a little bit. The question I have for Sharon and then
I'm going to take a motion uh for a vote uh unless there's something that we really have not touched on before. But my question for Sharon is historically, so we've got one now. I understand there's nothing we can do about the past, but has there been a pattern in
the town of Chadam over the last 20 years of quoteunquote chasing people out of their homes? >> No. >> Okay. Um, I also fully understand and respect what Tracy's saying. I'm sympathetic to this thing. Uh, as a general principle,
it sounds like with one property, you know, we're not there's not a to Mr. Taylor's point, there's not a lot of tax exposure or financial exposure to the town of Chadam. >> Correct. It means not >> my my inclination would be that it should be something more approximating the rate of inflation but
uh rather than basically becoming a subsidy from the town of Chadam to the property owner. Um so last call. Any further comments or questions? >> May I inquire? >> Let's finish with the committee first. >> In general I support this. I I think a
half of 1% on an annual basis is tiny in comparison >> and you know there ought to be able to sum there should be some number that's higher than that less than five somewhere around there and and just but I think it's a great idea. I think it's
a great idea to do this. I think it's a great idea to do the second article. All right. Because it's definitely going to help some people that could otherwise run into the wall of too high tax. >> Yeah. I don't disagree. Mr. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir.
>> Can you or anybody on the finance committee tell me how many tens of millions of dollars this town has dedicated to lowincome to affordable housing? >> Well, it's going to be >> Can you Can you even come close? >> Not Not a lot. Right. We have, as you as
you well know, we sorry rattlesnake. Uh as you well know, uh we have a con a uh a history in this town of confusing motion with progress on the topic of affordable and attainable housing. >> But the reality is >> now making strides. The short answer to your question is not a lot.
>> Right. In in reality, we're what I'm asking is that we do what we can to keep every citizen of the town of Chadam in their home
it that we make the home that they've lived in that they want to continue to live in affordable. That's what I'm talking about. >> I think we fully understand that and the evidence suggests to me is the Treasury Collector's Office has been working in that direction. uh with the town of Chadam is evidenced by the fact we have
one property in deferral. We have 7,500 homes in this town. >> With due respect, Mr. Chairman, you asked the you asked the collector, how many people have we, meaning the town of Chadam, forced out of their homes? And the answer is we the town have forced
none of them because what's forced them out is the loss of equity on their home as they continue not to be able to meet their obligations. The town doesn't act directly to do that. But the OB and it's the state that made this happen with the
rate of interest, not the town, not the tax collector. But what happens with that perpetual loss of equity? The individual looks at and says, I am losing all this money. That's what chases them out of the home, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, I get it. This is a pretty bright group of people. Y
>> you've made your point over and over and over and over again. Okay, we get it. I think if I read the room, everybody is supportive of this initiative. If I further read the room, the only question that's come up is
whether or not half of 1% is an appropriate level of interest. And I'm seeing everybody in this table nodding their heads right now. So I don't know what if there's anything you'd like to do or how mechanically. My guess is if it's a half one%, you're not
going to get a lot of support. If there's a way to adjust that half one% prior to town meeting, my guess is you'd have an unanimous support. I'm just looking at people nodding their heads. >> Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, sir. >> The article, the warrant article is as it is before you at the rate that
appears before you. The only mechanism that there is to adjust that would be to amend it on the floor of town meeting. And I can tell you right now, I'm not going to be the person to do that. Okay? >> Because so that's >> you've heard why. >> I got it, >> Tracy. I think setting I mean I
understand that it's only one property right now but setting it as a precedent and locking it in at this well below inflation rate seems like you know tempting fate for someone to take advantage of it in some way and to
handicap the town say you know given the economic uncertainty it does become a lot more properties so I am inclined not to vote for at this >> well we do M Mr. detail is correct. We do have a uh a proposal to uh amend the
language in chapter 59 section 5 clause 41A paragraph 3 item number one uh from the current 8% as I understand it to 0.5% on a going forward basis. Is there a motion to support? >> So moved.
>> Thank you Barbara. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you Andy. All right. Support Tommy. No >> Barbara. >> No. >> Uh, John is not here. Joanne's not here. Andy, >> no. >> Kristen, >> no. >> Tracy, >> no.
>> Eric, >> no. >> And the chair is not in favor. I will quickly add though that the chair would be in favor of this with a slightly higher interest rate. So, all right. So, to uh number two,
sorry, that's the other one. All right. So, this is the petition from Mr. Taylor to grant the town of Chadam authority to consolidate tax title accounts into tax deferred accounts where both accounts exist in force against the same parcel of residential property.
Such consideration shall only be granted to the taxpayers of record of the property under consideration provided that at least one resident is 65 years of age or disabled. The household income for all residents there and is not more than $50,000 from all sources and the taxpayer liable for payment of the
accounts has maintained the property as their primary residence for a minimum 5 years. Is that correct, >> Mr. Taylor? >> Almost. Almost >> because we're not asking the town. >> Over to you. >> We're not asking the town to vote for this. We're asking the town to uh send a request for a special act to the
legislature. The town cannot take this action unilaterally. This action is can only be taken by the great and general court of the commonwealth and it means that the voters wish to send this
forward to the state legislature to get them to opine on it to see if they're willing to do it. I can tell you that the current administration of Mora Healey and the people that are currently sitting on Beacon Hill are the first group of people who have done anything
to even look at chapters 60 and 59 and that they are the ones that tried to do something against the chapter 50 tax title thing and they as the tax collector said it would have been great if they'd got it right. They didn't. But
I think that this sort of thing is going to be receptive. on the uh on Beacon Hill and it has a very good chance of being approved. And what it does is it although it may in the immediate instance act on one or two people at
most not no fooling around that's the most people it can probably impact right here and now. But to Michelle's point about her belief that things can be manipulated. You can't manipulate the statute that says you have to be a
certain age, you have to be a certain income, you have to have residency requires. Those things can't be manipulated. So the possibility of manipulation isn't there. But let's assume the people that we say we want to have in town, the middle income people,
they have a bad illness and they're not yet qualifying for the senior um provisions of chapter 59. and they get behind in their taxes badly, one or two years, cancer,
something that's and they don't have insurance, something like that, and they get behind on their taxes, that's going to put them in Sharon's office where that is going to continue to grow at 8% if they can't catch up to
it. So, low and moderate income people are going to have a hard time catching up to that tax title. And maybe they can get caught up to it under a payment plan, maybe they can't. Who knows? Because we're not going to anticipate all of the financial possibilities that
are out there. But when they get to be qualifying senior citizens, that have the right income and residency requirements, that tax title that has been accumulating
could be moved under the law. if legislature approves it over into a tax deferred account status where all of the laws and rules of tax deferral kick in which if we adopt the low rate of
interest of 510 of 1% they can now jump all over it and stay in their home and pay this thing off over a payment plan that actually results in payoff. We have uh one taxpayer right now that is paying
off uh their obligations under tax title to the amount of $7,400 a year on what amounts to about a $2,500 annual tax bill with an income of 15 grand.
Okay, >> you guys got it. >> I think we got to go to Andy. >> I'm sorry, but hearing it endlessly isn't helping it any. I I think this is a fine article, right? I'm hoping that the legislature will go along with that. My only question has to do with, you know, you put in a fixed number of
$50,000 for income. Okay. I think that's great for now, but some future year, I'm sure we're going to want to have that adjusted. All right. >> I can answer that. >> Huh? >> I can answer that. >> Well, okay. But I mean, I'm, you know, I'm happy with it the way it is. >> Those numbers don't mean anything when
it gets to the legislature, Andy. They can rewrite it in any way that they that they think makes more sense. >> I understand they've done that to other things. >> Yeah, you know that. I do too. >> But I'm I'm Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I'm I'm willing to vote or pardon me to move
that we recommend approval of this. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Uh I think there's more comments or questions. Uh let me go to Eric first. >> Um quick question. So if with with um the without the benefit of the previous
article that we just discussed, is it correct that anything that's post 2024 both in the deferral category and the tax title category are at 8%. >> No. What would happen, Eric, is because
money that was accumulating 16% prior to November 2024 and is still acrewing uh a compounded daily interest rate of 16% is going to remain that way at infant item. But if it were rolled over into the tax
deferred account, uh without the first item, which you guys didn't choose to support, even without that, that balance would now all of it be at 8%. So it would functionally serve to reduce the rate of interest, take that 16% rate of
interest, throw it away and put it under 8%. Um I I that's how it would work. >> Okay. I just >> I'm sorry. I note that um the collectors approached the mic. Um any observations, comments, questions? Chair? >> Yes. So I am not really as as the
treasurer not in support of this article and for several reasons. First of all, I think there's um it's warranted that we need to make changes and it's it's warranted that we need to help um senior citizens, but we're not looking at the
younger people. So this particular article puts an age limit on that rollover to a reduced uh deferral rate if you will and is not helpful for anybody that does not meet that
criteria. Um so that that for that reason I I just that's one reason why I don't um I don't know I have a list. Well, what Jamie mean walk us through it quickly and briefly or otherwise, but let's I
mean this is your chance as treasur to edify us on the >> So, my notation would be um you know, we have tax deferral programs for reason. It's um as relief tools for qualifying taxpayers, not as a retroactive remedy for delinquent accounts. So, that is one
of um that's one of the things that I see here is that we're looking at trying to help rectify something that was in the past which I don't I don't think is something that should necessarily happen but again that's just my opinion. I think
reclassifying tax title balances uh creates inequities among taxpayers particularly those who have met their obligations in a timely manner. Um again feel very strongly about that. I don't I I don't think it's um universal. I don't
think it's uh fair for um all the taxpayers. Um and it just it's something that just doesn't sit well with me. I think we should be looking at um assistance globally, not just at one particular age bracket.
>> Okay. Was that everything, Sharon? >> Um well, >> it's open mic night at the finance committee. >> I know. I don't think you want to hear what I have to say. >> No, abs. Absolutely. >> So >> yes. Yeah. That's that's the whole point of us being here. >> Okay. The the other the other item I
have here is um it has to deal with the financial implications. So anytime we make a change to reducing fees or reducing interest rates, there's a financial impact. So by reducing the rates to we'll say
the half percent um in the end once a deferral is redeemed um you're looking at a lower interest. It's it's like having a bank loan, right? So you go to the bank, you get a loan.
At a half a percent, the town is losing its revenue on interest that helps the town function with general services. We're not talking about making a profit as Mr. Taylor has put. The town is not in the business of making a profit. It's
sustaining so that we can function um both in general services and in keeping uh programs available. Um that's another point that I wanted to make. Um and right now I think there's
not a clear understanding that right now if a property is in tax title and then also is in deferral those are they're they're under the same parcel but they are accounted separately. So if I ran a report on this one individual whose
account is in both you would see tax title tax title deferral deferral. So you're you're getting a big picture under that parcel. Um so I wanted to clarify that too because I think that's part of the in in the article. Um as
merging them as one. Um I just don't think merging tax title into deferral under the same interest rate is is something that should be done. But again that's not up to me. >> Mr. Chairman. Okay. >> Thank you. Hold. Let me show any more
comments or questions for the treasure collector. Seth. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Um I I I didn't anticipate that I was going to come to a platform of debate with the um tax
collector. I thought I would be um speaking to um educated members of the finance committee with whom I could speak and uh address my points without having to enter a debate stage. But what has happened is now you've created the
debate stage and you know whether or not some latitude to debate what I just heard. >> Let's not do this. So if you don't >> I didn't think you wanted to but created that. >> Let me finish. >> Yep. >> Uh
I think you actually entered the debate stage by talking over the treasury collector by disputing the facts that she was saying. We are here. We're not experts in all this stuff. We're independent assessors of the articles that come before us and we're working to
educate ourselves. So, if you have a problem with that process and my management of it, we can talk later or you can file a complaint or whatever. But this is my committee. This is my meeting and I want to I'm going to take input from the professionals of the town staff.
So, that said, we've got a motion to support the second article. We have a second. Any more comments or questions? No. >> Okay. I'm going to take a vote. Tommy, support, >> yes. >> Barbara, >> yes. >> Uh, John, Joanne, Andy, >> yes.
>> Kristen, >> no. >> Tracy, >> no. >> Eric, >> no. >> And I'm going to support it. So, that's one, two, three, four to three. Support.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Chairman, members, please. >> Thank you. All right. Uh, what else we got? Um, discuss. Hello, John. Right on time. >> Uh, discussion of report to ATM.
>> Mr. Mr. Chair, I was I was concerned for a moment that our tax collector was being harassed, but it appears that that has resolved. >> All right. Thank you, Tracy. I'm sorry I didn't catch that, Sharon. Thank you.
Um, you shouldn't have to be harassed, especially at a meeting that I chair. And I'm sorry I missed that. That kind of behavior is not acceptable um here or 549 or anywhere else, frankly, in town property. Um, so, um,
discussion of report to ATM warrant. I know you guys are tired of hearing me about this, but, um, I'm plugging away. I've got input from a number of people. Thank you for that. I, my hope, maybe somewhat aspirational, is to get a draft for consideration on Monday. Um, I've
got to finish something else up this afternoon regarding balloon launches at the airport. Um, and then I'm really gonna try to totally focus. I've got to be at Dana Farber tomorrow. Unfortunately, all day, but Saturday and Sunday, hopefully it will be days for progress in this thing. So, I uh that's
the plan. And again, it may be aspirational, but I'll I'll keep working on it. Anything else that comes up in the meantime, um let you know, send me a note, give me a call, whatever. And otherwise, I think we're good other than other comments or questions. >> I'm after midday. I won't be here on
Monday. I'll be gone through the week next weekend. Okay, >> just so you know. >> Yeah, got email. >> I do. >> I'll see I'll send it to you. Okay. Uh >> I will get on the stick and submit my my
>> I'm not No, I'm not I'm not I'm not No, I'm not calling anybody out. I'm just, you know, I'm not looking at anybody. Uh I will however take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> John, >> that's right. I'm not recognizing for
the purpose of this meeting. He >> um All right. Thank you. All in favor? Tracy, >> I. >> Kristen, >> yes. >> Andy, >> I. >> Tommy, >> I. >> Barbara, yes. >> Chair supports. Eric, >> yes. >> All right. We're dismissed.