Purpose of Outreach Sessions

1. Develop common understanding of facts as a basis for discussion and decisions on public policy for Williamstown

2. Outline Planning Board projects for 2008-2009

3. Solicit public input on both of the above

• We pay too much property tax– Local government and school spending are out of

line– We get too little state aid

• The best option to avoid tax increases is new growth, but protected land and onerous regulations stifle growth

Taxes and Growth:Conventional Wisdom

How do our property tax bills compare?

Measurement* Amount Rank

Avg. household property tax bill (2008) $4,635 87/3361

1 – In 1988 we ranked 20 places higher

* Values do not count Williams students in population figures

Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue bill08.xls

• One-in-six Williamstown property tax payers spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs in 1999

Source: 2000 US Census H97

For how many of us are property taxes a hardship?

For how many of us are property taxes a hardship?

• One-in-six Williamstown property tax payers spent 30% or more of their household income on housing costs in 1999

• Surprisingly, we ranked near the bottom – 329th out of 351 towns in Massachusetts – in this metric

Source: 2000 US Census H97

Property Taxes as Percentage of Household Income for Williamstown

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

1990 1999

$1,799 $42,926

$2,826$75,366

Sources Average Household Income 1999: US CensusAverage Household Income 1990: Estimated from US Census household income distribution dataAverage Household Property Tax Bills: Massachusetts Department of Revenue (no median tax bill data available)

Has there been any trend in property tax affordability?

Is spending for local government and schools out of line?

Measurement* Amount Rank

Municipal spending/resident (2007) $2,466 150/351

* Values do not count Williams students in population figures

Do we get too little state aid?

Measurement* Amount Rank

State aid/resident (2007) $432 122/351

* Values do not count Williams students in population figures

“The best option to avoid tax increases is new growth, but protected land and onerous regulations stifle growth”

• From a fiscal standpoint, how important is new growth? – What kind of new growth are we talking about?

• Do local regulations and our fondness for open space inhibit new growth (and thereby have a negative fiscal impact)?

New Growth and the BudgetBudget is initially proposed as revenue limited, not expense

driven. – Peter Fohlin

• Yearly expectation is that total municipal revenues will increase by about 3.5% - based in part on an annual increase in revenue from taxes on existing property that is at or near Proposition 2½ limits, and in part on an annual property tax revenue boost from “new growth”

• In recent years, the revenue from property taxes has been approaching $12M, increasing by around $480K per year. About $260K of that comes from what is allowed by Prop 2½, and another $220K comes from tax revenue on “new growth”

• To get that $220K boost from “new growth” requires around $15-19M of “new growth”, depending on tax rate

New growth revenue break-down

Sources of New Growth 2004-2008

Condominium conversion: $2K

Commercial & industrial: $9K

Construction of new homes:

$71K

Subdivision of land: $27K

Improvements to existing

homes: $94K

Personalproperty:

$20K

Source: Assessor’s new growth data and building permit data

Is subdivision and new home construction important?

• If all subdivision and new home construction ceased (and we increased taxes to make up for the lost tax revenue), our average property tax bill would increase by an additional $34 each year– From $190/year to $224/year

“… protected land and onerous regulations stifle growth”

• How much land do we have available for growth?

Open Space – NumbersTotal Williamstown acreage: 30,005

Protected Open Space: 11,6731

Upland Conservation District: 4,254 exclusive of the above2

15,927 acres, or 53% of land is formally or practically protected from development

1 - From MassGIS Open Space 2/08 data layer. This includes but is not limited to: Mount Greylock Reservation (3,518); Other State-Owned Land (2,730); Hopkins Forest (1,990); Conservation Commission (515); Rural Lands Foundation (454); Trustees of Reservations (430)

2 - The total area of the Upland Conservation District is 11,571 acres, but much of it overlaps with protected open space

Chapter 61, 61A and 61B lands not included

Chapter 61 forestry

2,870 acres

Chapter 61A agricultural

4,243 acres

Chapter 61B recreation lands

543 acres

Between 1997 and 2008, the fraction of the tax base shielded by Chapter 61 increased from 3.0% to 4.9%

Source: Assessor’s Chapter Land data

Not to be confused with…

With all that Open Space, is there any land left for people (and development)?

• Williamstown ranks 116th out of 351 towns in the amount of non-protected land per-capita*: 2.2 acres

* Williams College student population excluded

Source: MassGIS OpenSpace datalayer, February 2008

(Hopkins Forest and Clark Art Institute were added to Williamstown measure)

Are regulations stifling growth?

• You need to ask: In comparison to what?– Williamstown’s regulations and enforcement

don’t seem to be unusual (with the possible exception of the Upland Conservation District)

• One investigation* suggests that…– Regulations may inhibit subdivision of land– Found no evidence that they inhibit home

building

* Patrick Dunlavey, Presented to the Williamstown Planning Board, July 2008

Why do we rank high on average household tax bill?

Measurement* Amount RankAvg. household property tax bill (2008) $4,635 86/3011

1 – In 1988 we ranked 20 places higher

* Values do not count Williams students in population figures

Commercial pulls its weight

Williamstown 88% vs. 12%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

Residential

Com

merc

ial

Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue lvcl08.xls

• Williamstown ranks 148th out of 313 towns in proportion of revenue contributed by commercial, industrial and personal property taxes

• Among small towns (>4,000 & <12,000 population), we rank 34/97

Tax-Exempt Stands Out

Williamstown62.1% vs. 8.5%

29.4% tax-exempt

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95%

Residential

Com

merc

ial

Source: Massachusetts Department of Revenue propertyvalues08.xls

With 29.4% tax-exempt property, Williamstown ranks 3rd highest out of 313 towns

Top Ten Tax-Exempt Valuations

Municipality % of TotalHUNTINGTON 42.0%MOUNT WASHINGTON 32.9%WILLIAMSTOWN 29.4%DEERFIELD 25.9%PETERSHAM 25.5%CHELSEA 24.0%BOSTON 23.9%CAMBRIDGE 22.5%LINCOLN 22.1%NEW SALEM 21.1%

Summing up

• Our taxes are somewhat higher than expected– they’re more affordable to us than most towns– they’re not affordable to a significant minority

• ‘Growth imperative’ may be overrated

• Regulation and protected land are probably not significantly inhibiting growth

• Tax-exempt property probably explains high tax bills

It’s not all about money

• Demographics– We’re moving to an older, less diverse population– Declining school enrollments could continue

• Community Values & Vision– See Williamstown Master Plan, Open Space Plan,

etc.

Planning Board Projects for 2008-2009

Review of Village Business District

Current Village Business District (VBD) is comprised of two non-contiguous areas - one generally comprised of Spring Street, the other by upper Water Street

Current purpose is to accommodate a broad mixture of uses in a compact pedestrian-oriented environment

Master plan calls for promoting growth in downtown core

Recent permitting for Spring Street project identified several obstacles to growth

Village Business District (cont)

Goal of VBD review is to see if acceptable development can be facilitated

Under consideration:

• Review amount of set-back from residential uses

• Adding special permit authority to increase building heights above 35 feet

• Review requirement for on-site stormwater recharge if storm sewer is available

• Need for more off-street parking for Water and Spring

• Possible linkage of VBD between Spring Street and Water Street

The Village Business District

Planning Board Projects for 2008-2009

Low Impact Development

Perennial problem of flooding – damage to homes and property, erosion, damage to water resources

New developments may increase flooding if not planned properly

Low Impact Development (LID) is an approach to stormwater management that relies on low-tech controls at the source

Goal is to ensure that flood control after development is better than or equal to pre-development conditions

Low Impact Development (cont)

Goal is to control stormwater at the source through small-scale management techniques, rather than just pipe all water to a low point and discharge.

Key elements include the practice of reducing impervious cover, and using green space and natural areas to allow control of flow and to promote percolation

Use of permeable pavements, rain gardens, grassed swales

Part of effort is to reduce the building envelope to what is needed, so that other permeable areas allow for infiltration

Less reliance on large structures like detention basins, catch basins and and pipes