After much drama and fuss, in the end, the city of Springfield will, indeed, exercise an option to mail out of tax bills late this quarter.
As reported by Michael McAuliffe in the Republican, the City Council voted this week to take advantage of a recently passed state “emergency” law that allows municipalities extra time to send out their property tax bills for the first quarter of the new year. Typically, those bills need to be mailed by the end of the calendar year; under the state law, Springfield now has until Jan. 31 to get them in the mail. Without the extension, the first quarter bills would have been bundled with the second quarter bills, leaving residents and business owners facing one hefty bill this spring.
City Hall’s financial team offered some compelling reasons for the Council to approve the extension: by getting the first quarter bills out now, the city will have that much more money in its coffers earning interest, and will not have to borrow money to cover costs in the first quarter. According to the Republican, Steve Lisauskas, the city’s acting chief financial officer, estimates the move will save the city about $400,000.
The wrinkle in the story—and isn’t there always a wrinkle?—is this: just a month earlier, city officials and their allies on the City Council had balked at a proposal by City Councilor Tim Rooke to accept the extension. Rooke had argued for taking the extra time to allow more public input as the Council prepared to vote on a new tax rate—the public hearings that had been held were a rush job, squeezed in during the busy holiday season—and to allow the new councilors, sworn in at the beginning of January, to weigh in on the new rate. At the time, Rooke’s idea was derided as “irresponsible,” and faced roadblocks that kept it from passing.
A couple of weeks later, when the extension appeared again before the Council for a vote—this time, sponsored by Mayor Domenic Sarno—a frustrated Rooke shut it down by invoking Rule 20, which allows any councilor to put off a vote until city officials produce a report on its potential fiscal effects. This time, Rooke (no doubt recognizing that city taxpayers were the ones who’d suffer if it didn’t pass) voted for the extension. Councilor Jimmy Ferrera cast the sole “no” vote, saying he wanted to see larger changes made to improve the process by which the city tax rate is set.
Indeed, both Rooke and Ferrera are proposing major changes to that process. Rooke would like to see the Council takes its annual tax rate vote at least one month before the November general election. “Then people know which way you voted, and you have to justify to those people who call or stop you why you voted the way you did,” he told the Advocate recently.
Rooke would also like the city to hold at least two public hearings on the tax rate, in the wards with the highest voter-turnout rates, with one scheduled during daytime hours on a weekend to make it easier for people who can’t make evening meetings downtown.
Ferrera told the Advocate that he’d like the mayor to submit his or her proposed tax rates to the Council along with his or her proposed budget, which is drawn up months before the tax rate vote. Ferrera would also like the Board of Assessors to prepare a report showing what effect the mayor’s spending plan would have on the tax rate. And, like Rooke, he’d like to see the Council vote on the tax rate before the election, “so it’s not something done after an election, so someone can hide,” he said.
