North Adams Finance Recommending Tax Payment Plan
 The Finance Committee met Monday at City Hall. |
The administration raised the possibility of implementing a payment plan a couple months ago as part of its delinquent tax collection efforts.
"It's been used in other communities, I've used it in the past and have had success using it," Administrative Officer Michael Canales told the committee.
He provided a draft based on ordinances used by other communities with recommendations on the length of time and percentage. The ordinance would allow the treasurer to enter into a payment agreement with a delinquent taxpayer and waive a percentage of the penalties owed.
Canales said the taxpayer would have to pay 25 percent of the back taxes owed up front and make regularly scheduled payments until the bill is cleared. The treasurer would be able to waive up to 50 percent of the interest penalty, but not actual taxes or collections costs, and halt further interest penalties.
However, the interest would still accrue on paper and be re-instituted should the taxpayer fail to make payments as required.
Committee members asked if it could apply to long-delinquent taxes; Canales said, yes, if the City Council wanted, but he did not expect those taxpayers to take advantage of the program.
"It's been mainly been around people that have gotten behind, want to get out, but they can't come in and just pay off the whole amount," he said. "Most of the time it will probably be somebody within the first five years, who's fallen behind for some specific reason ... a layoff, something like that ... and really wants their house cleared."
The committee decided to go with the administration's recommendation of allowing payment plans up to five years and interest waivers up to 50 percent. They left in all types of taxes — commercial, residential and industrial — and deleted references limiting the amount and number of years behind.
The ordinance has not been reviewed by the solicitor but Mayor Richard Alcombright said if the City Council passes the measure to a second reading, it can be sent to the solicitor at that time.
Canales said it would be posted in the treasurer's office and the office will be trained to offer the option to eligible property owners. Alcombright said there was the possibility of mailing the ordinance to those taxpayers who were eligible.
The committee also reviewed several areas of the budget that were questioned by Councilor John Barrett III, including what he said were discrepancies in the tourism director's salary compared to the classification, councilor salaries and budgeting for raises.
Alcombright said the tourism director was brought in at Year 4 ($33,669), the first step for the S-35 classification, then raised to Year 5-9 ($34,870) this fiscal year as allowed by city ordinance (Sec. 2-30. Compensation of employees generally)
"It doesn't mean you move up or down just by years of service, it's years of service plus you have to show you have the skills or competency to do it," said Canales, adding the mayor can move employees up one step and, with a City Council vote, up two steps.
"The way this was done, there was nothing here that was out of the ordinary?" asked Committee member David Bond. "The thought was that there was something funny going on here."
"It follows the current ordinances to the letter," said Canales.
The committee also was satisfied with the mayor and Canales' explanation of the budgeting process in including 1 percent increases for the year and the half year in anticipation of union negotiations. The written explanation said, "it gives the City Council an accurate and transparent view of what the total budget numbers will be based on if and when the raises are instituted." Should the raises be awarded, the council will receive a new compensation plan reflecting that.
The mayor said the concerns over the payment of councilors was "a matter of semantics."
"I don't think that the council voted to change their salaries," said Alcombright. "I don't think that changed the compensation plan in my mind. ... You're not raising your salaries. I don't think the council ever voted to reduce their salaries, they voted not to take it."
The complaint had been that the councilors' salaries should have been $750 (half of $1,500) and that the budget was overstated.
The council had offered to dismiss its annual $3,000 pay for the last fiscal year to show support during the city's budget difficulties, which took effect on the calendar year per ordinance. The compensation was changed from $1,500 for the first six months and $1 for the second six months; beginning this fiscal year, it's the opposite, with the $1,500 being restored in January.
Chairman Alan Marden said he "would be much more comfortable bringing it to the council and vote on it ... That without a doubt that the council wants its salary restored to the $3,000 and we do that this year, so it becomes effective next year."
The mayor noted that council had already approved that by voting on the budget. All three issues, he said, had been raised with the city's auditors and the state Division of Local Services, who were satisfied with the way the budget and compensation plans had been developed.
The committee decided that the council could determine its approval by accepting or rejecting its report.
Tags: budget process, deliquent taxes, Finance Committee, payment plan, property taxes,
