Infrastructure Problems Haunt Shutesbury Elementary School

Photo: shutesburyschool.org

As Shutesbury considers building a new library, many of the town’s public spaces have serious maintenance issues–including leaking roofs, heating and cooling system problems, and mold growth. The building with the most significant difficulties is the Shutesbury Elementary School (SES), with its 10-year history of roof leaks, among other serious concerns.

To find out why the two roof projects (gymnasium roof and school building roof are considered separately) at SES have not been fully addressed, I read through all the available minutes for the Town Buildings Committee and the Capital Planning Committee. I also pored over recent Annual Reports as well as several Finance Committee and Select Board minutes and requested several documents from the Town of Shutesbury. 

What I found was a pattern of patchwork repairs to a school roof that needed much more extensive work. Though many town officials noted the need for a more thorough scope of work–up to and including replacement–the project seemed to drop off the radar of Shutesbury’s government leaders for long periods. In addition, the town spent many years applying for grant aid for extensive repair and/or replacement, assistance that was denied. Meantime, the Town Buildings Committee took on the responsibility of monitoring and repairing the SES roof in response to each new problem.

A History of Deferred Maintenance

Shutesbury’s reluctance to address maintenance and repair of its public buildings is well-documented. A grant-funded study on Community Resilience Building published in 2020 noted that “Workshop participants stated that there is roof damage at almost every public building in Town. The roof of the Old Town Hall, where Town records and archives are stored, has caved in.” The Fire Department and Town Hall were also identified as buildings with leaking roofs.

The Town of Shutesbury Hazard Mitigation Plan of 2021 notes, “The roofs at the elementary school, Old Town Hall, and Highway Department salt shed are in need of repair.” 

When I asked the BC Chair about these problems, he told me that the Old Town Hall roof did not collapse, is solid, and that the Committee is not aware of any roof issues at the Fire Station. The Town Hall, where the roof was recently replaced, had a leak surrounding the chimney flashing; that has been repaired and a chimney cap installed. The roof at the Highway Department salt shed was repaired approximately three years ago.

Piecing together the SES roof story shows both the Select Board (SB) and the Finance Committee (FinCom) were aware of roof leaks at the elementary school by 2010 and 2011. The FinCom noted that suggested roof replacement costs of between $700,000 and $1,000,000 were “purely speculation” and that when replacement was necessary, the job “will likely be eligible for state grants.” 

The FinCom continued to acknowledge, in its Annual Reports for Fiscal Years 2016 through 2022, the need for continued maintenance on the 40+-year-old SES building. The fiscal year 2018 report notes a capital outlay of $300,000-plus for the school roof that FinCom expected to be on a Special Town Meeting warrant in Fiscal Year 2019. I could not find a record of that warrant article or a vote, however.

State Aid Denials Stall Action on SES Repairs

The “Upcoming Capital Projects” section of FinCom’s annual report for Fiscal Year 2020 estimated the SES roof project at $1,000,000 after noting “grant funding denied”. For FY2022, Annual Town Meeting approved $254,100 for phase one of the SES roof project as well as up to $200,000 to update controls on the SES heating system. In its year-end report, FinCom estimates phase two at $600,000. Also in the works is another costly SES upgrade: a new ventilation system, estimated to cost between $175,000 and $350,000. The ventilation project and the second phase of the roof replacement are on tap for next year (FY2023).

The grant funding mentioned time and again refers to the town’s fruitless efforts to secure aid from the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) for improvements to the SES roof as well as the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (HVAC).

My information request yielded applications to the MSBA’s Accelerated Repair Program and their subsequent denials for the years 2018 through 2021. The first request was made in February 2014 and presumably denied; the town had no record of this request.

The town’s insistence on submitting requests for funding prevented lasting repairs from being performed on the school roof for many years. Instead of accepting the fact that aid was not forthcoming, the town continued to postpone any substantial SES roof projects for several years–even as Shutesbury’s cash reserves continued to grow. Meantime, the Town Buildings Committee, whose Chair is a Massachusetts licensed construction supervisor, took the initiative to address each new roof problem on a case-by-case basis.

Volunteers Address Chronic Leaks at SES

Since at least 2010, Town Buildings Committee (BC) members, particularly the Committee’s Chair, have taken the initiative to maintain the SES roof and arrange repair work when leaks occur–something that has happened numerous times, according to BC minutes.

The available BC minutes on Shutesbury.org spanned mid-2015 to the spring of 2021. The minutes recounted many incidents of roof leaks at the school and the repairs and preventive maintenance work organized by the BC Chair and other committee members. Ice dams, an issue acknowledged by the Select Board in 2011, continued to cause leaks during the winter and spring months. A local roofing company, Hayden Roofing, often performed repairs as well as maintenance in the fall to fortify the roof for the upcoming winter.

After extensive repairs were completed in the fall of 2016, more leaks occurred in March of 2017. The BC agreed that a new roof needed to be installed by 2018. The roof suffered from chronic leaks through 2017. In December, the BC agreed that repairs were not sufficiently addressing the problems and were not cost-effective; the town should “move forward with roof replacement project and grant application.” On October 25, 2017, Shutesbury’s free cash balance was $1,253,860 and stabilization fund balance was $1,045,294.

Leaks continued into 2018. When the grant was denied by the MSBA in June, the committee agreed to consider resubmitting the grant application as an option, noting the “Town should proceed with plan to replace roof without grant.” On October 16, 2018, Shutesbury’s free cash balance was $1,253,057 and stabilization fund balance was $582,503. The Buildings Committee began discussions with Tom Ewing, Roofing Consultant. At the July 10, 2018, SB meeting, the Shutesbury Town Administrator (TA) announced, “an appraisal for the complete replacement of the SES roof is in process.” There is no further mention or record of this appraisal, however.

By May 2019, the third grant request was denied and stopgap measures to control leaks continued. On October 18, 2019, Shutesbury’s free cash balance was $1,389,680 and stabilization fund balance was $710,795. In February 2020, the TA, who often attended Buildings Committee meetings, stated that another grant request had been filed with the MSBA. The BC Chair noted that there needed to be a “Plan B” to replace the SES roof if MSBA funding did not come through. The grant request was denied on June 3, 2020, according to information supplied to me through the Town Clerk’s Office. On December 2, 2020, Shutesbury’s free cash balance was $1,378,767 and stabilization fund balance was $829,616.

The Town filed its latest request for grant money from the MSBA on June 1, 2021. The October 27, 2021 refusal marked the fifth time in a row Shutesbury was denied aid from the MSBA (source: Shutesbury Town Clerk’s Office). Our town has the funds to replace the roof. Why is this not being taken care of? Aside from the children, the roof is the most important part of the building. Why do we continue to send our children to a school with a leaky roof?

Heating and Ventilation Problems at SES

In addition to the roof problems, the heating system at SES has been balky and needs assessment and upgrading. The June 12, 2021, Town Meeting approved a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) study as well as upgrades to the present system. The FinCom has acknowledged the need to set aside money for a whole-building ventilation system–which may also include air conditioning–though the town hopes that state money might be available to defray the costs of such a project.

In the next post, I’ll take a look at why it took so long for town leaders to recognize the need for extensive repairs at SES.

Weekly Factoids:

 

School building conditions and their effects on students:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920982/

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6360122/

Was the Small Library Pilot Project Tailor-Made for Shutesbury?

MBLC Building Specialist Lauren Stara Discusses the Small Library Pilot Project

Early next year, the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) will decide which town, Shutesbury or Otis, will receive the Small Library Pilot grant. This program, the first of its kind in Massachusetts, was designed for towns with 2,000 or fewer residents. According to the May 6, 2021 news release introducing the program, these towns are generally underrepresented when securing construction grants from the MBLC due primarily to the high costs of construction.

The release states that 46 small towns were eligible for the grant, yet only four towns submitted letters of intent. Two towns have since withdrawn from consideration. Did the MBLC misread the appetite for such a project? With the state now funding 75% of eligible costs compared to the usual 40% to 50%, providing increased technical support, and streamlining the process, it is surprising that few communities expressed interest.

One reason why there was not wider participation could be that this project was designed to favor Shutesbury as the program’s recipient. I have outlined the reasons why I believe this to be the case below. Taken together, I feel they indicate a predisposition to awarding this grant to Shutesbury despite the town’s history of opposing library construction projects–or, perhaps, because of it.

The Project’s Workload and Timelines are Daunting

Though the Pilot Project was created to help small towns navigate the complicated process of building a new library, the work is arduous. The sheer volume of documents listed on the MN Spear Small Library Pilot Project page is dizzying. The Trustees, Library Director, Friends, and volunteers have put an enormous amount of work into creating these documents, some of which are quite lengthy. Add to this the compressed timelines dictated by the MBLC and it is obvious that this is a herculean task.

In October, I emailed Lauren Stara, MBLC Building Specialist, asking why so few towns expressed interest in the program despite the additional financial and technical support offered by the Pilot Project. She replied:

“We are not surprised at the small number of applicants, and we think there are good reasons for this:

• The project is new construction only (many towns have historic buildings that they wish to preserve)

• The rapid timeline

• The amount of work involved in a major capital project (we think this is why two of the four towns have dropped out already – they realized how much it would take, even with increased help from us)”

 

This response belies the concept behind the Pilot Project, which is to make the grant process easier for small towns. Why create a targeted program with many of the same roadblocks that have historically kept small towns from participating?

These hurdles appear less consequential for Shutesbury. Ms. Stara noted at a meeting with Shutesbury’s Select Board on August 3 that “Shutesbury worked hard on grant applications twice before” and “the first step is to write a library building program; having written a program in the past, Shutesbury is in a good position”. Ms. Stara obviously has sympathy for those involved in trying to secure the library construction grant ten years ago. While introducing herself at the Small Library Pilot Community meeting on August 17, Ms. Stara mentioned her involvement in “the last grant round that Shutesbury valiantly tried to pass a grant in (sic)”. 

Shutesbury also has the advantage of a full-time Library Director. Of the 68 Massachusetts towns with populations under 2,000 six have Library Directors who work 35 to 40 hours per week. 

When I spoke with the Library Director in Otis several weeks ago, she speculated that the Pilot project entailed a lot of work complicated by truncated timelines that part-time Directors might find too much to handle. She noted that small towns like Otis, Chester, and Florida have Directors whose salaries are often supported by grants and donations, not by the town’s taxpayers as is the case in Shutesbury (on line 146). 

The MBLC and Shutesbury Share an Especially Cozy Relationship

Shutesbury Library Director Mary Anne Antonellis has a longtime association with the MBLC Board, dating back at least to the last grant round when she worked with Ms. Stara. The friendly relationship between the two is obvious. In addition to Ms. Stara’s comment about Shutesbury’s “valiant” efforts ten years ago, she responded to a resident’s call for “staff space” at a new library with the statement, “We’ll get Mary Anne an office.” This comment referred to Ms. Antonellis’ belief that a Director’s office is controversial in Shutesbury–a concern she voiced at the October 14 info session regarding space allocations in the library building plan.

Ms. Antonellis had been involved in the Pilot project long before the MBLC made its announcement in May. In her December 12, 2020 Director’s report, Ms. Antonellis noted that she had attended a meeting about the MBLC’s library planning tool, Library Space: A Planning Resource for Librarians, the same guidebook mentioned by Ms. Stara at the August 17 community meeting. Ms. Antonellis said she had “participated in reviewing this plan as it was developed”, a process that lasted over a year, according to Ms. Stara. Ms. Antonellis also referred to her involvement with the Pilot Project in her report of May 8, 2021, saying, “The potential to move forward with this long-discussed project is here.” 

Ms. Antonellis was given space in the MBLC’s Pilot Project news release to plead her case for Shutesbury, the only Director quoted of the 46 towns deemed eligible for the Pilot Project. She also sought the MBLC’s feedback while developing the language for Shutesbury’s 2021 Town Meeting Warrant Article 9, which requested permission from voters to apply for and use Pilot Project funds. 

In another favorable development for Pilot Project proponents here in Shutesbury, Karen Traub, a former Shutesbury Library Trustee who was active during the last grant round, was recently appointed to the MBLC by Governor Baker. Although the Board itself will not be voting on which town receives the Pilot grant, it is certain that Ms. Traub will be advocating for Shutesbury in her new capacity as Commissioner.

Pilot Project Requirements Favor Shutesbury

Some of the criteria listed in the MBLC’s Program Notice to rank towns regarding Pilot Project eligibility are clear, such as “financial stability of the municipality, its bonding capacity, and any financial reserves”. Shutesbury is particularly favored in the area of cash reserves, outpacing area towns and causing some residents to move to lower cost of living areas in its zeal to prop up its Free Cash percentage to nearly 20% of its annual budget.

Others are somewhat vague, such as the “demonstrated community readiness and support for a major capital project” criterion. I received some clarity on this recently, through an email exchange with Ms. Antonellis.

I asked her why, according to the MN Spear Small Library Project page, voting on this project at the Annual Town Meeting rather than at a Special Town Meeting in the fall was characterized as strengthening our application. She replied that such a move fulfilled the above criterion because “We showed ‘community readiness’ by asking for permission to pursue the grant at Town Meeting. We were both informed and organized enough to write a warrant article, and have it approved by the Trustees and Selectboard.”

The logic of this explanation seems a bit shaky. For instance, the warrant article was written by a handful of people with assistance from the MBLC, so Boston knows it does not reflect the “readiness and support” of the community at large. Neither was the Town Meeting vote itself. Of the 1,494 registered voters in town, a total of 219 (just under 15%) signed in to vote at Town Meeting. Fewer still voted on Article 9, since many had left or were leaving by the time that article reached the floor. Notably, of the 29 articles on the warrant, 22 passed unanimously; Article 9 passed with a “clear majority”.

In addition, the article does not speak to any costs related to the Pilot program, never mind a major capital project. In any case, as long as a town had administered the vote by the deadline of November 19, there should have been no advantage to procuring a vote months ahead of that date.

It should be noted that on June 12, Town Meeting voted on this article without any prior knowledge that another new library project was on the horizon; in fact, Trustee minutes from their meeting of April 12 show June 12 as the date when “we will introduce the town to our plan to apply for the MBLC Pilot Grant Project”. Shutesbury taxpayers were introduced to the concept of the Pilot Project and Shutesbury’s plan to participate in the program on the floor of Town Meeting with Article 9. 

The MBLC Plans to Use Shutesbury to Take its Planning Model Nationwide

As a replacement for the Wisconsin Library Building Project Handbook, the MBLC’s Library Space: A Planning Resource for Librarians was touted by Ms.Stara at the August 17 community meeting as the new, go-to manual for public library planning and construction not only for Massachusetts but for the entire country. Both MBLC Building Specialists Andrea Bunker and Lauren Stara are credited authors on this guide, and the Pilot Project will be using its principles throughout the planning and building of a new Pilot Project library. 

As a testing ground for its new handbook’s precepts and a prototype of a possible new library construction project type, the Pilot program is very important to the MBLC. What would be better than choosing a subject town with name recognition, where a legal fight over a failed library vote was covered by Boston media outlets as well as news media worldwide? It would be a coup for the MBLC if it could prod such a recalcitrant community into accepting the Pilot grant. What a wonderful marketing tool for its new planning guide!

Whether you agree with my assessment or not, the most important aspect of this scenario is that Shutesbury voters will have the last word. Will we use our cash reserves or vote for a debt exclusion override to fund this project? We will be asked to do one or even both of these things at Shutesbury’s 2022 Annual Town Meeting next spring, and at the ballot box shortly afterward. Staying informed on this important issue and attending Town Meeting will ensure that the will of the people of Shutesbury, not the MBLC, prevails.

Weekly Factoid: Christmas Edition

 

If you are looking for a different perspective on Christmas this holiday season, treat yourself to a reading of The Battle for Christmas by former UMASS history professor Stephen Nissenbaum. Ho Ho Ho!

Property Tax Relief for Seniors

 

Cities and towns offer an array of options to help seniors cope with rising property tax bills such as exemptions, deferrals, and in some municipalities, a program that exchanges work for a reduction in an eligible senior’s tax obligation.

Without further ado, let’s take a look at the pros and cons of each of these options. Exemptions are contained within Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, Section 5 unless otherwise noted. All eligibility requirements are as of July 1, and applications are due in the Assessor’s office by April 1. As noted in my previous post, Chapter 7 of the Massachusetts Division of Local Services Training Course 101, Introduction to Assessment Administration:  Law, Procedures and Valuation is an excellent source of information on this complex subject. 

Exemptions

Senior Exemptions - Clauses 41, 41B, 41C and 41C½

These exemptions apply to seniors only. Eligibility requirements vary between Clause 41 and local option clauses 41B through 41C½. 

 

Age: Clause 41 and local option 41B applies to seniors who are 70 years of age, whereas local options 41C and 41C½ reduce the eligibility age to 65.  

Exemption Amount: $500 for Clauses 41, 41B, and 41C; 41C may be raised to $1,000 by a vote of the local governing body. Clause 41C½ provides for an exemption equal to 5% of a town’s average assessed valuation of residential property; this may be raised to 20% by a vote of the local government.

Domicile/Ownership: Clauses 41, 41B, and 41C require 10 consecutive years of domicile (primary residence) in Massachusetts as of July 1; for Clause 41C, that requirement may be reduced to 5 consecutive years. If the applicant owns the property with anyone other than a spouse, the exemption amount will reflect the percent of ownership in the property.

Income/Assets: Each clause has a different requirement. As I noted in my previous post on exemptions, income is measured as gross receipts (income from all sources) and assets as whole estate (retirement accounts, stocks, bonds, cash, etc.). For Clauses 41, 41B, and 41C, income limits usually rise annually along with the Consumer Price Index (CPI); municipalities may vote to increase income limits further for 41B and 41C. For Clause 41C½, a local option vote can change the requirement to include all household income, not just that of the applicant. For assets, Clauses 41, 41B, and 41C have increasing asset limits; Clause 41C may, through a municipal vote, exclude the value of the applicant’s domicile up to a four-family house. Clause 41C½ has no asset limits. Asset limits, where applicable, generally increase each year according to the CPI.

Senior, Minor Child with Deceased Parent and Surviving Spouse Exemptions - Clauses 17, 17C, 17C½ and 17D

For seniors, these exemptions may be easier to obtain than the Clauses 41 through 41C½ because the eligibility requirements are less stringent. The exemption amount is also less than allowed for Clauses 41 through 41C½.

To be eligible, the applicant must be at least 70 years of age, and the whole estate requirements exclude items like household furnishing and cemetery plots. Mortgage balances on the applicant’s domicile and other real estate holdings are also excluded (or a percentage thereof, if not wholly owned by the applicant and spouse). The residency requirement is 10 years domicile in Massachusetts for Clauses 17 through 17C½ and 5 years for 17D.

Financial Hardship Exemption - Clause 18

This exemption applies to seniors who are experiencing financial hardship due to mental or physical infirmity. The eligibility requirements are set by local assessors and exemptions are granted at their discretion, allowing the flexibility to consider each case individually while treating all applicants equitably. Many towns, including Shutesbury, have adopted this exemption. Prospective applicants should contact their local Assessors Office for more details.

Low Income/Low to Moderate Income Seniors Exemption for Community Preservation Act - Chapter 44B

As part of the Community Preservation Act (CPA), this exemption must be adopted by each CPA community. Eligibility is restricted by annual income, and those limits differ depending upon whether the applicant is under or over the age of 60. The amounts vary from year to year and are based on the area’s median income levels according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Shutesbury has adopted this exemption.

Annual income figures are gross income minus each non-spouse dependent as well as out-of-pocket medical expenses.

For example, the fiscal year 2021 income limits for Shutesbury residents were as follows: For a non-senior, two-person household the limit was $53,056 annually while for a senior household the income limit for two people was $66,320. 

Optional Senior Exemption - Clause 57 

This exemption is adopted by local option and is based on the Massachusetts Senior Circuit Breaker Tax Credit which allows for a refundable credit on a resident’s Massachusetts income tax based on the property taxes paid on their primary residence.

To be eligible, an applicant must be age 65 by the end of the tax year. Income limits apply whether the domicile is owned or rented. For 2021, the maximum credit is $1,170 and a taxpayer will receive a refund from the state if the credit for which they qualify is greater than the amount of income tax owed.

In cities and towns that adopt Clause 57, seniors who qualify for the circuit breaker credit would be eligible for an exemption up to the amount they received in the previous tax year. Because this clause is by local option only, funding for this exemption is not refunded by the state and must be borne by the municipality.

Shutesbury has taken the first steps toward the adoption of this exemption. At the 2021 Annual Town Meeting, voters passed Article 18, requesting the legislature to pass language allowing the town to offer a Clause 57 exemption. 

Other Ways for Seniors to Seek Tax Relief

Senior Citizen Property Tax Work-Off Abatement Program

Eligible seniors can opt to work for their local government and earn a tax abatement of up to $1,500 to be applied to their annual property tax bill. To be eligible, applicants must be at least 60 years old and must be the owner of the property on which taxes are to be abated, though the property need not be their domicile. Municipalities must credit the work using at least the federal minimum hourly wage rate but not more than the state minimum wage rate.

Municipalities adopting this local option may vote to substitute 125 hours of work for the $1,500 maximum benefit and to allow a proxy to perform such duties in cases where the homeowner is physically unable to do so. 

As a local option program, municipalities have the flexibility to develop rules on income and asset limits, dates of eligibility, and/or the number of seniors participating in the program. Seniors may be eligible for and participate in the work-off program in addition to receiving another tax exemption. Shutesbury has not adopted this program.

Any abatement is subject to the 6.2% Social Security tax and the 1.45% Medicare tax, which will reduce a $1500 abatement to $1385.25.

Senior Tax Deferral Clause - 41A

Another option open to seniors aged 65 or older is property tax deferral. The tax is not forgiven but is deferred until the owner dies or the property is sold. As is the case with exemptions, application is yearly, with income, asset, ownership, occupancy, and domicile requirements that must be met by July 1. The application deadline is April 1.

Eligible seniors can defer all or part of their tax obligation. They can still obtain exemptions as long as they meet the requirements, and defer the remainder of their tax obligation. Deferment can help seniors stay in their homes when financial need is the primary concern and other options have been exhausted. 

Qualified seniors are required to sign a Statement of Entry into Tax Deferral and Recovery Agreement with the Assessors Office. This document will be recorded at the Registry of Deeds as a lien against the property.

Interest on deferred taxes accrues at a rate of 8% unless the municipality votes to apply a lower rate. Payments may accrue as long as the accumulated amount does not represent more than 50% of the property’s fair cash value, prorated in cases where the applicant’s interest in such property is less than 100%.

Next in this series, we’ll discuss progressive taxes and the residential exemption.

Weekly Factoid:

 

The Massachusetts Homestead Protection Act of 2010 protects $125,000 of home equity against creditors without filing and up to $500,000 for those who file. Though Massachusetts does not provide a tax exemption within its Homestead legislation, the state’s high level of equity protection—and the nominal  $35 filing fee—makes it the cheapest insurance available to Massachusetts homeowners.

Property Tax Exemptions 101

 

Property tax bills take a big chunk of many taxpayers’ incomes, particularly in Shutesbury. Wouldn’t it be great to get a break on this expense—especially for low-income persons, seniors, and others in need?

Exemptions take many forms, but there are two major types:  exempt real estate and exempt persons. In this discussion, we will focus on exempt persons.

Property tax exemptions help lighten the tax load for those who qualify. Municipalities are at least partially reimbursed by the state of Massachusetts for exempted property tax dollars.

Most tax exemptions hail from Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 59, Section 5 which contains many clauses pertaining to specific exemptions.

For most exempt persons, there are general eligibility requirements that must be met as of July 1. Taxpayers must have at least partial ownership in the property for which they are seeking an exemption and that property must be their primary domicile. Applicants who own the property together with someone other than a spouse will receive a partial exemption. In the case of a senior exemption or exemption for a minor, the appropriate age must be documented by July 1.

For income and financial hardship exemptions, income and/or assets must be proved through gross receipts (all income, regardless of the source) and/or whole estate (all other assets accessible by the applicant, such as pensions and other retirement accounts, stocks, bonds, cash, etc.).

Exemptions must be applied for each year, usually, by April 1 or three months after the actual, (not preliminary), tax bills are mailed (if later). Timely filing is essential, as assessors may not act on late applications by law. Assessors have three months from the date the application is received to act; if they do not, your application is deemed denied. The three-month period may be extended, in writing, by mutual consent. 

If your application is denied, you may appeal your case to the Appellate Tax Board in Boston within three months of the denial or deemed denial.

In most cases, eligibility under MGL c. 59 § 5 is determined by state statute, although assessors have some input and flexibility for setting parameters for the Financial Hardship Exemption (clause 18). Municipalities also have the ability to tailor some exemptions through the “local option” process, usually through the town or city’s governing body. The Senior Exemption (clause 41C), requires a ballot vote at a municipal election.

The list of exemptions is fairly long, and the rules and regulations can be complicated.  For the purposes of this and subsequent posts on this subject, I will try to simplify the various types of exemptions to give an overview of what is available at both the state and local levels. Chapter 7 of the Massachusetts Division of Local Services Training Course 101, Introduction to Assessment Administration:  Law, Procedures and Valuation, gives a very good explanation of this subject matter and I encourage you to read it if you want to drill down on a specific type of exemption. Your local Assessor’s Office is a font of information on all things pertaining to property taxes, including exemptions. Give them a shout and they will be happy to explain the details of any exemption for which you believe you are eligible.

There are multiple exemptions that apply to seniors as well as veterans. Senior tax exemptions will be covered in a future post, as will the residential exemption—a local option that shifts the tax burden within the residential class to higher-valued properties, second homes, and rental properties.

To get started, here are some examples of personal tax exemptions which I have linked to their State Tax/Application Forms. The following exemptions are provided for under  MGL c. 59 § 5.

Blind Persons - Clause 37 or 37A

Municipalities may accept clause 37A, which increases the exemption to $500 from the $437.50 provided in clause 37. Otherwise, all eligibility requirements are the same. The applicant must submit a certification from the Commission for the Blind every year for which the exemption is requested, and must prove domicile and property ownership.

Veterans - Clauses 22, 22A Through 22H

Disabled veterans, their spouses (if they own the property), surviving spouses (not remarried), and surviving parents of those who died during military service can be awarded property tax exemptions ranging from $400 to the full amount of the property tax. Applicants must prove eligibility through service records, residency requirements (the amount of time one has lived in MA), as well as ownership of and residence in the property under consideration.

If the municipality has voted to adopt clause 22H, surviving parents or guardian of those who died during active duty may receive a full property tax exemption if they meet the criteria:  The surviving parents or guardian must have lived in the state for five years before the start of the tax year or the deceased veteran must have lived in Massachusetts for six months or more before entering military service.

Surviving Spouse and Minor Child of Firefighters and Police Officers - Clauses 42 and 43

Surviving spouses and minor children of police officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty are eligible for a full exemption from property taxes. The spouse must not be remarried. In cases where the spouse owns the domicile with another person, the exemption will apply to only the percentage of the applicant’s ownership stake in the property.

Optional National Guard and Reservist - Clause 56

Passed as part of the 2010 Municipal Relief Act, clause 56 is a local option personal exemption for military personnel.

Municipalities that accept clause 56 may allow a partial or complete tax exemption to National Guard or Reservists who are deployed overseas. This clause expires two years after acceptance unless the governing body votes to renew.

Since this is a local option only, there is no state reimbursement, therefore the municipality shoulders the expense of any exemption granted.

Next time, we’ll delve into the wonderful world of senior tax exemptions.

Weekly Factoid:

 

Scams are especially ubiquitous this time of year. Take this quiz, courtesy of Florence Savings Bank, to test your bank Scam Savvy:

 

https://www.banksneveraskthat.com/