Volunteering in Shutesbury is a Total Hassle

Courtesy of Clipart Library

Like many small towns, Shutesbury depends on a great many hard-working volunteers to keep our local government humming along. These people donate both their time and expertise to various town boards and committees–often, more than one. Currently, there are 32 boards, committees, and commissions listed on the Town of Shutesbury’s homepage. That’s a lot of free labor, folks.

Sometimes, boards and committees are forced to conduct business without a full complement of members. This becomes a problem when meetings are missed due to a lack of quorum, the minimum number of members necessary to hold a meeting. Knowing this, it would behoove our Selectboard and Moderator to make the path to volunteerism as smooth as possible for prospective board and committee members.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case here in Shutesbury.

Volunteering Can Be Easy

My first experience with volunteer work in Shutesbury was in the mid-1990s. Back then, residents discovered vacancies on board and committees primarily through the Our Town Newsletter and printed materials available at Annual Town Meeting. I filled out a questionnaire that asked which governmental body attracted my interest. Before I could put my paperwork in the collection box, the Administrative Assessor took me aside and asked me to consider their Board. I agreed and asked about the next steps. She told me to attend the next meeting–she’d take care of the rest. Easy, peasy.

But Not Always

Over the past year, town officials have often resisted appointing new committee members even when there is documented support from the incumbents of said committee. In some instances, such as the one presented below, town officials have launched personal attacks against prospective members in an open meeting. 

Here is one committee’s story.

Select Board Quashes Conservation Commission Appointment

On March 11, 2021, the Shutesbury Conservation Commission voted to recommend Don Wakoluk to fill the Commission’s vacancy. The members noted that Mr. Wakoluk, the town’s Tree Warden, had been consistently attending their meetings. The minutes of the March 25 meeting state that the Commission Chair sent an email to the Select Board on March 15 informing them of the vote, but that the issue was not placed on the Select Board agenda. In fact, the Commission’s request was placed on the Select Board agenda for the March 16 meeting and discussed at length. 

By April 8, the Select Board still had not acted on Mr. Wakoluk’s appointment, though the issue was on the agendas for the March 16 and March 30 meetings and was discussed at both meetings. The Conservation Commission minutes of April 22 note that the appointment was to be discussed again at the April 27 Select Board meeting. Commission members sent emails to the Select Board showing support for the appointment.

The discussions surrounding the requested appointment of Mr. Wakoluk at the March 16 and March 30 Select Board meetings revealed the consideration of unrelated and irrelevant issues. For instance, at the March 16 meeting, the opinion of the departing Commissioner (who was not present at the meeting) was brought into the conversation by the Town Administrator, who noted that person had “reservations” which were found to be based on a personal, not professional, bias. After the current Commissioners reiterated their support of the candidate, the Town Administrator continued questioning Mr. Wakoluk. The Select Board decided to postpone the vote per one Board member’s request for more time to make a decision, placing the matter on the March 30 Select Board agenda.

The March 30 meeting opened with public commentary denouncing the March 16 discussion of Mr. Wakoluk’s Commission appointment as inappropriate for an open, rather than executive, session. When asked, one Select Board member said the appointment had been postponed due to “the emotional content of the public response” following the March 16 meeting.

The vote took place on April 27. Once the vote was on the table, several people spoke in favor of the appointment, praising Mr. Wakoluk’s experience and qualifications. A former Select Board member also spoke, noting that the role of the Select Board is to appoint a candidate to a committee, particularly when there is unanimous agreement amongst committee members. Failure to do so, he opined, would unduly complicate the appointment process.

The vote to appoint failed with one “yes” vote, one “no” vote, and one recusal. The Select Board member voting against said her reasons included a possible conflict between the roles of Commissioner and Tree Warden; concerns about Mr. Wakoluk’s opposition to solar projects “in the past” and whatever “information” caused the recusal of the third Select Board member. None of these issues were expanded upon for the record.

This is only one committee’s experience dealing with abusive behavior and interference by the Select Board and Town Administrator. These actions complicate committees’ efforts to fill vacancies, achieve a quorum, and conduct business while needlessly causing volunteers undue and unnecessary stress. Next time I will share similar experiences from other boards and committees and examine the lack of procedure and subjective criteria used by town officials when appointing volunteers.

Weekly Factoids:

 

The hourly dollar value of volunteer labor in 2019: $25.43 

 

In 2021: $28.54

 

Sources: 

ICMA Blog: Volunteerism by the Numbers: The Value of a Volunteer

 

Independent Sector: Value of Volunteer Time

What We Love About Shutesbury (and What We Don’t) 😍 💕 💓 💘 💞 💗

Brook in Winter, Shutesbury (2022)

Americans are embracing the rural lifestyle. According to a CBS News poll of 1,006 randomly chosen U.S. adults in July 2021, 52% of those living in small towns and rural communities would stay put if offered the choice to live anywhere they pleased. Of respondents living in the suburbs, almost 50% said they would prefer to live in the country. Overall, 45% of respondents chose country living compared to 28% who choose the suburbs or the 25% who preferred city life.

The pandemic has influenced Americans’ lifestyle choices, resulting in more people moving to rural areas. A poll cited in a January 2022 article on the Association of Equipment Manufacturers website revealed the following motivations for such a move:

➤More space/land;

➤Low population density;

➤Lower property prices;

➤A safe environment/clean air and water;

➤Less traffic;

➤Reduced cost of living.

After reading these articles, I wondered how the residents of Shutesbury would respond to the question, “Why do you love living in Shutesbury?” 

Luckily, I was able to find a handful of surveys on Shutesbury.org asking a host of questions regarding the way residents feel about Shutesbury. Although all the surveys were conducted prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the attitudes align closely to the national, mid-pandemic surveys mentioned above.

2000:  Shutesbury Survey Highlights The Town Plan Committee and

Responses to Survey Questions. 26% response rate (1275 surveys mailed, 331 returned)

2004:  Shutesbury Master Plan

2006:  Shutesbury 2006 Open Space and Recreation Plan Survey Results 33% response rate (549 surveys distributed, 185 responses)

2016:  First Community Survey Responses for Update to Master Plan(Shutesbury Community Vision Report). 33% response rate (187 responses)

2022:  Open Space and Recreation Plan Survey Draft Plan Section 7: Analysis of Needs (168 responses)

Though a minority of residents filled out each survey, I believe the number of surveys conducted over 21 years presents a fair representation of what attracted residents to Shutesbury in the first place, and what keeps them here.

Peace and Quiet/Rural Character

This sentiment is the most commonly cited reason residents value Shutesbury. In 2000, 85% of respondents cited peace and quiet as the most important reason they live here. When asked about the Town’s rural character, 80% again cited quiet as being very important.

In 2006, A majority of respondents again noted the importance of peace and quiet in their decision to reside in Shutesbury, with the Town’s rural/small-town character running a close second. When asked how important it was to protect the peace and quiet of the Town, respondents indicated it was very important.

Ten years later, in 2016, residents were again asked about what they valued most about living in Shutesbury during a survey meant to inform the updating of the Shutesbury Master Plan. When I searched the free-form responses from that open-ended survey, the word quiet was mentioned 41 times, peace or peaceful 20 times, and rural 70 times (an average of 127 responses were recorded for each of six questions).

Clean Air and Water

Clean air and drinking water in Shutesbury are highly valued. The 2000 survey found 92%  and 90% of respondents stated, respectively, that clean water and clean air are both very important.

The 2006 Open Space survey also received responses denoting air and water quality as very important or important, while considering the protection of those resources very important.

In 2016, the superior quality of the air and water was mentioned in free-form responses 18 and 27 times, respectively.

The 2022 Open Space and Recreation Survey shows that the quality of the Town’s drinking water and air quality is highly valued by Shutesbury residents, with well over 90% of 168 respondents agreeing that protection of these resources is very important. 

Other Highly-Valued Amenities in Shutesbury

The 2022 Open Space survey highlighted how much residents appreciate the natural world. Over 80% of respondents found the protection of lakes, streams, ponds, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and migration corridors to be very important. Large blocks of forested land were also considered a vital resource.

These priorities have changed little since the 2000 survey, where nearly 84% of respondents indicated the importance of protecting lakes and streams, as well as forests (79%) and wildlife habitat (78%).

I also found a high number of responses in the free-form survey comments in the 2016 survey that mentioned community–a total of 137 mentions from a survey that returned 187 responses. Despite some commentary about the divisions that exist in town, it is obvious that residents consider a strong sense of community to be integral to their life in Shutesbury.

Shutesbury Residents Agree: They Don’t Love Taxes

To find out how Shutesbury residents feel about property taxes in town, I examined the responses from the original Master Plan Survey in 2000 and the free-form comments from the 2016 Community Survey for the Master Plan update, i.e., the Shutesbury Community Vision Report. These two surveys were the only ones that contained specific questions regarding taxes or comments related to taxation.

The results of the 2000 survey have  a section entitled, Are you willing to have taxes increase to pay for these capital improvements? Some of the 27 possibilities listed included a 24-hour police department, a new/expanded library, a full-time fire department, and high-speed internet access. None of the survey respondents indicated a willingness to raise taxes for any of the 27 items listed in the survey question.

The free-form commentary collected for the 2016 survey contained 101 negative mentions concerning Shutesbury’s high taxes, occasionally more than once in the same comment. A few noted their concern about themselves or others being priced out of town by high taxes.

What About the Library?

The 2016 free-form survey had 121 comments with at least one mention of the word “library” used in several different contexts: 

➤72 comments expressed the desire for a new or bigger library; many were tied in with the idea of a library as a community center or a library with a separate space for community gatherings;

➤34 liked the library and its services in their current forms;

➤10 commented on the divisions caused by the 2010 - 2011 library campaign;

➤ 5  comments mentioned parking, decreasing the library budget, a lack of diversity in town, and getting a new library for free or with no increase in taxes.

If I had to tease out from this free-form survey the one thing Shutesbury residents value the most, it would be the sense of or the longing for community. Considering its popularity and low cost, fostering this concept–using town infrastructure we already possess–should be a no-brainer for Shutesbury.

What Do Shutesburians Have In Common?

What three things do you love the most about living in Shutesbury? Post your answers here: NextDoor: What We Love About Shutesbury.

 

Weekly Factoids:

 

U.S. state with the highest in-migration in 2021: Vermont (74%)

 

U.S. state with the highest out-migration in 2021: New Jersey (71%)

 

Percentages for Massachusetts: Inbound = 42.4%  Outbound = 57.6%

 

Source: United Van Lines 2021 National Movers Study

Homeowners Pay More as Public Companies Contest Property Taxes

 

Across the United States, publicly-held, multi-billion dollar corporations contest local personal property and real estate taxes as they battle municipalities over their share of local taxes. Over the past decade, wins at tax appeal boards and the courts have reduced big-box store assessments by millions of dollars. Electric utility Eversource has withheld half of its tax payments as annual abatements and appeals wend their way through the legal system.

Meanwhile, cities and towns are squeezed by the drop in tax revenue–a difference that is levied to homeowners and small business owners.

Eversource Energy Pays Reduced Tax Bill as Legal Fight Continues

Eversource Energy (ES) is a public utility holding company valued at nearly $30 billion, doing business in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. For the last 10 years, Eversource has been challenging personal property tax bills on the equipment it owns in 87 communities around the state of Massachusetts. According to a letter sent by the Massachusetts Municipal Association (MMA) and the Massachusetts Collectors and Treasurers Association (MCTA) to Eversource in March 2021, the company owes those municipalities more than $47 million. 

The biggest chunk, $44 million, is owed to the City of Springfield. Meanwhile, Springfield is charging close to $9,500 in interest every day.

In April of 2021, Worcester reached an $8 million settlement with Eversource for several years of unpaid personal property taxes in the interests of “a better working environment for the future”.

Last November, the City Council of Pittsfield denied a request by Eversource for a new utility pole, to be co-owned with Verizon, over unpaid property taxes. Eversource owes the city approximately $4.6 million in back taxes plus interest.

Towns are not immune. Montague is owed nearly $700,000, with daily interest accruing to the tune of $235. At Shelburne’s October 13, 2021, Select Board meeting, a Board member expressed concern over the “non-payment of personal property taxes by Eversource”. 

The letter to Eversource Energy management by the MMA/MCTA points out the utility has not prevailed at any point in its decade-long quest to lower its local tax burden. Further, the authors note the company itself characterizes its pursuit of legal redress in the courts as “futile” in a filing with the Department of Public Utilities.

Why then does Eversource continue its fight against paying its full share of local personal property taxes, even as large fines accrue? According to state law, appeals of personal property taxes require payment of “at least one-half” of the tax bill, giving Eversource a hefty discount as long as the appeals process lasts. Perhaps, as the above-referenced letter suggests, the utility hopes to pressure communities into settling for a reduced amount and, possibly, settlement language that favors the utility in future tax years.    

“Dark Store” Theory Enables Big-Box Retailers to Score Deep Property Tax Discounts

Another phenomenon that has gained momentum nationally over the past decade is the emergence of a “dark store” theory of property valuation used heavily by big-box retailers like Lowes (LOW), Home Depot (HD), Walmart (WMT), and Target (TGT). Repeated tax appeals on these properties have cost many communities millions of dollars in revenue in states such as Michigan and Indiana. According to Bloomberg CityLab, this technique has been utilized by these and other multi-billion dollar corporations in a minimum of 21 states over the past 10 years–including Massachusetts.

Dark Store Theory, Explained

In 2010, Michael Shapiro, a tax attorney from Detroit, blazed the trail for dark store appeals by winning a 50% valuation reduction for the mega-retailer Target Corporation. Shopping center closures during the Great Recession fueled a downward spiral of property values that bolstered the dark store theory. As the economy recovered, big retailers abandoned closed stores, opting to build new ones–a situation that further depressed values.

The essence of dark store theory is the premise that an active, profitable store should be assessed the same as an abandoned store. The closed store, the argument goes, should be the basis for assessment based on comparable real estate sales. Often, these companies ask for a valuation reduction of 50% or more on their operative stores, which are generally assessed at several million dollars. 

Corporate rules are often cited by these retail behemoths who sometimes use both sides of the argument in defense of their position. For example, deed restrictions placed on the properties by the owners limit the sale of the property to buyers that do not compete with the seller. This depresses sale prices, the argument goes, as well as the valuation of active stores with the same restriction. When assessors note this artifice has the effect of lowering sale prices, the big-box owners claim it has little impact on resale values.

Communities Fight Back, but the Problem Still Smolders

While there is nothing wrong with individuals or businesses appealing their tax assessments, dark store theory’s one major weakness is highlighted in a Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board (ATB) case brought by Lowes against the Town of Dartmouth. The Board ruled against the retailer for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 noting that often stores are closed due to poor performance in a certain location or because of corporate downsizing. When the original owner, a first-generation retailer, abandons the store, it becomes a second-generation site and is subsequently inhabited by entities like church groups and flea markets. Often, this situation is due to deed restrictions placed on the property by the original owner or the obsolescence of the abandoned building, making it a poor comparable for a new and profitable retail store. 

Some states have passed legislation to limit the effects of dark store appeals. New York State passed a law in 2020 tightening assessment guidelines and Maine was considering language to require stores over 20,000 square feet to be assessed using their current usage. Michigan, Indiana, North Carolina, and Wisconsin are proposing similar legislation.

A mini-industry has sprung up among those representing big companies in these appeals cases. The Institute for Professionals in Taxation, a non-profit educational association for tax professionals representing business interests in the U.S. and Canada, offers yearly workshops on various tax subjects in collaboration with the American Bar Association. The Institute’s Spring 2021 Advanced Tax Virtual Seminar featured a segment titled, “The Assessors’ Dark Store Conspiracy Theory Revisited…Again” promising to explain “this radical conspiracy theory” and “the role of the IAAO (International Association of Assessing Officers) in the inception and spread of this dramatic deviation from generally accepted appraisal practices.” For 2022, more of the same is on tap, with an agenda item offering updates on this “controversy artificially generated by assessors” and the ability, after attending this lecture, to “push back on the use of this theory in property tax cases” and to “utilize application of this theory to other property types.”

According to a 2018 report by S&P Global Ratings, dark store tax appeals are likely to continue and spread beyond the big box clientele. Hopefully, local governments will prevail in their battles with wealthy corporations because if they do not, it will be the residential taxpayer making up the difference. 

Weekly Factoid:

 

Mega-Corporations Leave Behind “Greyfields” that Burden U.S. Communities

 

Shells of the Stores They Once Were: Returning Vacant Retail Property to Productive Use in the Midst of the "Retail Apocalypse”