Writing about Lancaster, Massachusetts

  Photo by Josh Appel on Unsplash For January, everyone in Lancaster will receive a Quarter 3 Real Estate Tax bill that reflects your reassessed property value and a finalized FY2023 real estate tax rate.   Before that bill goes out the Select Board will need to hold a "Tax Classification Hearing" where they will approve a "CIP Shift" ratio that could shift the tax burden away from residential property. Historically Lancaster has approved a "CIP Shift" ratio of 1.0 -- the effective tax rate for all property classes is the same.   The state would allow us to approve a "CIP Shift" as high as 1.5. How would the average residential tax burden be affected if the Select Board approved a higher CIP Shift?  Using our town's tax data for FY2022, which was the fiscal year that ended in June, I reproduced what the owner of a $350K residential property actually paid with a CIP Shift of 1.0, and what they would have paid with the maximum CIP shift ratio

  The meeting ended at midnight; over 800 people attended filling the Luther Burbank auditorium with overflow in the cafeteria and gym. Article 3, the 40R district, won handily.   It required only a majority vote, as one of the types of housing articles exempted from requiring a supermajority by a law adopted in January, 2020. Article 4, the enterprise rezone, was narrowly defeated.  The meeting concluded just before midnight.

Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash The Massachusetts Department of Revenue collects data on the percentage of each town's annual tax levy that comes from each real estate tax class (Residential, Commercial, Industrial) and from personal property tax. The state refers to the percentage of the tax levy derived from Commericial, Industrial and Personal Property Tax as the "CIP Percentage." Contrary to what you might intuit (or maybe have been told) Lancaster is not lacking for Commerical, Industrial and Personal Property Tax Revenue.      In fiscal year 2022, 14.34% of our levy revenue came from these sources. In that regard, Lancaster leads Sterling (a surprise to many people), Lunenburg, Stow, Bolton, and many other area towns. The visualization compares the CIP Percentage in abutting towns, members of our school district, and some other Montachusett region towns.

Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash Every five years Lancaster re-tabulates the assessed value of all the properties in town to more accurately reflect comparable sales over recent years:  this is re-tabulation year:  "The  2023 Quinquennial Revaluation" Last week the town published a list of the newly assessed values that have been approved by the state. That webpage has contact information for the Assessor's Office: if you have questions or concerns, or want to challenge the new valuation, you should get in touch with them. The new assessed values won't necessarily impact your taxes:  based on the new assessed values, which are generally higher, the town will calculate a new tax rate to achieve the levy authorized by Town Meeting.   I would guess that the tax rate will decrease substantially...maybe $17 and change? If your assessed value increased more than the average, and some valuations increased substantially, your annual taxes will increase.   Some valuat

  Image by cookie_studio on Freepik With time running out until Special Town Meeting on Monday, the town is unprepared in several ways.      No "Vote Clickers" for Monday's Special Town Meeting The town invested a lot in an electronic voting system for use at town meetings:  we used them at the outdoor Annual town meeting in 2021 and the indoor meeting in May.   They seem to have been well received despite some questionable results in May . The number of votes collected varied by 10% or 20% from one voice to the next. Unfortunately, now won't be available for use on Monday because the town won't have someone trained and available to operate it.   Town Administrator Kate Hodges made the announcement at the Select Board's meeting on October 31st.   It wasn't totally clear to me what the issue was...something about training that would cost $5,000.   No answers on what happened with the Election Warrant in May Question 2 on Monday will ask for permission to as

  First, the most interesting numbers. A more realistic projection of the annual benefit from the “Yes” and “No” votes on zoning on Monday is: Yes   $3,908,770 net benefit No    $2,209,937 net benefit This is a far cry from what’s presented in the table being distributed by the Capital Group, which says “Yes” votes would lead to $3,553,668 in revenue, and “No” would lead to $734,426 in annual costs. Even then, it’s very much a best-case scenario guess.   I've tried to put together an overview of the table that you've seen, how it was calculated, and where it went off the rails a bit. “Logistics/Commercial/Industrial Tax Revenue” The author took a Capital Group master plan and worked out the square footage of the industrial buildings for the "Yes" and "No" scenarios.  They valued it at $85/square foot, which is a figure that they pulled from the RKG Associates "Financial Impact Analysis" last fall.  They then calculated the revenue we'd

  Select Board Member Jason Allison took to the keyboard this afternoon, and may wake up tomorrow wishing he had gone for a walk instead. Allison logged onto the "Lancaster MA, Mass, Massachusetts" resident-hosted board this afternoon and was inspired to take some residents to task over citing that the Capital Group's proposed development would add 7000 trips per day to Lunenburg Road.   Allison then turned to math, but probably should have turned off the computer.   "7000/day would be ~300/hr which would be ~4/min which would be 1 approx every 12 seconds."     "The 7000 number would create an infinite backup where trucks would never enter or exit.   Thus business would not be able to operate." Unfortunately for Allison, the "7000 number" is actually less than the actual weekday projection from the Vanesse & Associates traffic study coordinated by the Economic Development Committee last fall. From page 10 of the study It's actually 7,

  Photo by Hilbert Hill on Unsplash On Monday, the Select Board took their last look at the "Memorandum of Agreement" with the Capital Group, it was still incomplete.   At one point the MOA Committee committed to having it "complete in February."   In April, we were told it could be ready before the May town meeting.   On September 12th, we were told it would be ready "next week."   With barely any time left, it may still be unsigned at Town Meeting. Bob needs a new car.  He has his wife drop him off at the dealership, waves goodbye, and tells her "I'll drive myself home in my new car before lunch!" Bob is wearing the manufacturer's logo on his t-shirt. Bob printed out the listing for the car he wants, and asks the manager to snap a picture of him in front of it on the lot, "so I can put it on my Facebook!   Where do you think we should drive it on vacation this weekend?" Bob notices that every salesman at the dealership is sud

Photo by Alexander Schimmeck on Unsplash   Starting in December,  residents enrolled in Lancaster's municipal electrical aggregation program will see an increase in their electric "supply" rate.  The supply rate will increase from 14.974 cents/kWh to 29.984 cents/kWh.      Thank you to Jean Syria, who relayed that information from town finance director Cheryl Gariepy in one of the unofficial town Facebook groups. The Municipal Aggregation Program supply rate will change again in July: the town has a second contract for July through December. Dec 2022 – June 2023: 0.29984 per kWh July 2023 – Dec 2023:  0.14781 per kWh As a caveat, I have not heard this information relayed officially, nor do I see it posted on the town website.    If you're weighing a life-changing decision involving your electric supply rate...maybe call town hall first. If you're using National Grid's default supplier, their rate is 33.8 cents/kWh through April.  The aggregation program will

Photo by Severin Höin on Unsplash I grew up thinking that Ronald Reagan coined the phrase "Trust, but Verify."  A few years ago I learned from the HBO Series "Chernobyl" that it's an old Russian Proverb that rhymes in Russian:   Doveryay, no proveryay.   As Reagan began interacting with Russian officials an advisor taught him some Russian Proverbs, and he adopted that proverb to use in nuclear disarmament discussions. Even if we believe that the other party is completely trustworthy, we verify things anyway:  check your bank statement, and Google the story your uncle told you about the president.  Verification has gotten a lot easier since the 80's when peers that I've retroactively learned were untrustworthy convinced me that Mr. Rodgers was a former Army sniper and that Mikey from the cereal commercials lost his life to a tragic combination of soda and "pop rocks" candy. With the internet at our disposal, there's just no excuse not to ch