Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-12-00 Community Preservation Plan: A Needs Assessment.rpt
Town of Lexington 2016 Community Preservation Plan: A Needs Assessment `Ovg MORN O 77s o.� c� N 41 N.0 � o Q ° APRIL IT" FXINGTG� December, 2016 Town of Lexington Community Preservation Plan Overview The Community Preservation Act In March of 2006, the residents of Lexington voted to adopt the Community Preservation Act (CPA), a statute which communities across the Commonwealth may adopt to fund eligible and worthy projects in four categories community housing, historic resources, open space and recreation. In order to fund these expenditures, CPA communities impose a surcharge on their own property taxes of up to 3% The CPA statute also created a statewide Community Preservation Trust Fund as an incentive for communities to adopt the Community Preservation Act. In addition to the monies raised through the local surcharge, the trust fund provides annual distributions to participating cities and towns at a certain percentage, commonly referred to as the `state match.' The CPA also requires each adopting community to establish a Community Preservation Committee (CPC), tasked with studying the needs, possibilities, and resources of the city or town regarding community preservation. The Community Preservation Committees are also required to make recommendations of eligible and worthy projects to their respective legislative bodies The CPA statute requires that at least 10% of the CPA funds received in each fiscal year be spent or reserved for each of the CPA's three main purposes open space, historic resources, and community housing. CPA funds may also be also used for the acquisition, creation, preservation or the restoration/rehabilitation of recreational resources CPA funds that are not expended in one year may be"banked" or earned over to subsequent years within each main designation. The remaining 70% of CPA funds received in each fiscal year are available to be appropriated or banked, according to the community's discretion. Up to five percent of the CPA funds raised annually may be used for administrative activities related to the work of the CPC The Community Preservation Act, signed into law by Governor Cellucci in September 2000, provides a steady source of funding for expenditures that may otherwise be overlooked in favor of the essential, daily operating needs of cities and towns The CPA provides communities with a tool to preserve their own unique character and quality of life Since the CPA was signed into law, 172 cities and towns across Massachusetts have adopted the statute The Community Preservation Act in Lexington Lexington voters adopted the maximum 3% surcharge on property tax bills upon the adoption of the CPA in 2006 Mindful of the burden on homeowners, however, the Town also adopted provisions which exempt the first $100,000 of home value from the surcharge and grant a total exemption from the surcharge to lower income residents 1 To-date, Lexington Town Meeting has appropriated nearly $63 million in funding for CPA projects (not including debt service payments) in the four primary categories of Community Housing ($8 8 million), Historic Resources ($31 8 million), Open Space Preservation ($14 4 million), and Recreational Resources ($6 6 million) and administrative expenses ($1 3 million) The chart below illustrates the percentage of Lexington's CPA funds allocated to each category by Town Meeting from 2006-2016 Appropriated To-Date by Category as of 7/1/16 Adrnini.tr ati,r F.Even Community Fr,r tion z�i Hoi.0:ink 10% 1.1°Jir, wl°allllll I, lu III I atl I Open S drt ?3% II III J IIIIII Ilul I � IIIIIIIIIIII I Illlllllllilll 111100 ��I� i (III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I ,I III Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllgil Illlllllllllllllllullllllllllllll ' °I'Illllllllllii'llllllllllll IIIIII VIII ulllllglllp�llliii��llpu III upl!p, � I "IIIIII IIIIIIIIII'lllllll(IIIIII u!!p I uu u!!p,;uuq ��� lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliliul!! p I �Illllllllllllllll��llllllllllllliillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll� � IIIII ul��u uuuli""' IIIIIIII p0 im I IIII I I I I II I II u II , llllldll 11 II illlll !!!!!!IIIIII awlliilllllllllllllldllllluw6iiililillh Hi 'tQ"DI"Ir �,F,CDI,UrrF 51% Of the funds that have been appropriated from the Town's Community Preservation Fund (CPF), over $13 5 million has been provided from state supplemental matching funds and $500,000 from a State Land (Local Acquisition for Natural Diversity) Grant. Therefore, nearly 21 5% of CPA funding has been provided by state matching funds In its initial year, fiscal year 2007 (FY07), the surcharge brought in approximately $2.5 million dollars, which was fully matched with state funds Since FY07, however, annual revenue from the local surcharge has steadily increased. Latest figures are available for FY 16, for which the surcharge raised $4,204,982 However, state matching funds, which come from a surcharge on Registry of Deeds transaction fees, have fallen since FY08 despite an increase in home sales over the last several years and a slight increase in collections this past year This decrease in state 2 matching funds is due pnmanly to an increased number of communities passing CPA by-laws therefore competing for limited funds Lexington's FY17 state match totals $897,243, or 21 3% of its surcharge Initial estimates from the Department of Revenue (DOR)projected this year's state match distribution at dust 19% While slightly higher than the initial estimates, the FY17 state match is substantially lower than the previous year's distribution. Record of Lexington's CPA State Matching Funds (Source Massachusetts Department of Revenue) CPA STATE MATCHING FUNDS TO DATE FISCAL PERCENTAGE AMOUNT YEAR 2008 100 00 $2,556,362 2009 69 40 $1,927,708 2010 36.17 $1,060,390 2011 28.22 $858,729 2012 27 62 $885,463 2013 27 79 $929,507 2014 54 09 $1,932,347 2015 32.56 $1,230,116 2016 30 70 $1,229,774 2017 21.30 $897,243 TOTAL $13,507,639 Dunng the last three consecutive fiscal years, Lexington has benefitted from surplus transfers from the state budget to the CPA Trust Fund. The FY16 budget authonzed the transfer of$10 million from the FY15 budget surplus, the FY15 budget authonzed the transfer of$11 4 million from the FY14 budget surplus and the FY14 budget authorized the transfer of$25 million from the FY13 budget surplus In July 2016, Governor Baker signed the fiscal year 2017 state budget which authorized the transfer of$10 million from the FY16 budget surplus, marking the fourth year the state budget included a surplus transfer to the trust fund. Unfortunately, the FY16 state budget ultimately closed with a $0 balance, therefore eliminating the possibility of the $10 million transfer to the trust fund. In 2016, a record 16 communities in Massachusetts placed CPA adoption on their ballots 11 of those communities voted during the November election to adopt the Community Preservation Act, including the cities of Boston and Springfield. While most of the adopting communities 3 voted for just a 1% or 1.5% surcharge (Watertown adopted a 2% surcharge), the impact of these additional communities on future state disbursements will be seen in FY18 While Lexington's FY17 state match is heavily impacted by the lack of state budget surplus funds and its FY18 state match expected to be impacted by the additional CPA communities, CPA advocates hope that these foreseeable decreases will strengthen the effort to pass legislation that calls for a permanent fix to the CPA Trust Fund. A piece of legislation introduced in 2015 entitled,An Act to Sustain Community Preservation Revenue, calls for a review of the fees collected at the Registries of Deeds (the trust fund's primary source of funding) The current transaction fees have not been adjusted since the CPA was signed into law in 2000 If passed, it would call upon the Department of Revenue to calculate the necessary fees that would allow for all CPA communities to receive a 50% match in their first round distribution. The bill received a favorable recommendation from the Joint Committee on Revenue in 2015 An update on this legislation is expected in January 2017 The Lexington CPC consists of nine members, one each appointed by the Conservation Commission, Planning Board, Housing Authonty, Historical Commission, Housing Partnership and Recreation Committee, and three at-large members appointed by the Board of Selectmen. The Committee is supported by a part-time Administrative Assistant. The CPC is required to study the "needs, possibilities and resources" for community preservation in Lexington. To that end, the Committee has reviewed existing plans and documents related to the four purposes designated for funding under the CPA open space, historic resources, community housing and recreation. In reviewing new projects, the CPC • Acts as a reviewing body for projects which fall within the CPA purview; • Acts as a funder, not a developer, • Seeks to advance community goals previously set forth in public documents that have received wide review and public input; • Attempts to meet multiple community preservation goals in its selection of projects to recommend to Town Meeting, and to the extent possible, meet multiple goals within each project; and • Communicates its mission and goals to applicants, to other community boards and committees and to the general public After completion of its review, the CPC's recommendations are forwarded to Town Meeting for discussion and voting by Town Meeting members Purpose This Needs Assessment Report ("the Assessment") is a summary of the CPC's work in developing community preservation goals for Lexington. The CPC has attempted to synthesize 4 all planning efforts addressing the four purposes identified in the CPA The Committee has reviewed Lexington's current resources and has outlined the needs and possibilities for community preservation activities which will enhance open space, recreation, historic resources and community housing. The CPC has set out the guidelines it will use to evaluate project proposals as well as the process it will follow during this undertaking. This Assessment sets out the goals and aspirations of the CPC, now in its tenth year of implementation. The purpose of the Assessment is to • Provide a clear statement of both broad and specific goals that lie behind the CPC's recommendations, and • Lay out the specific framework the CPC will use in formulating its recommendations, both for the guidance of applicants and the understanding of Town Meeting. Goals Lexington's committees and commissions have a long-standing history of carefully assessing Town needs and goals in light of the shared values of its residents The Lexington Comprehensive Plan, the Open Space and Recreational Plan, and the Town's Consolidated Housing Strategy and Plan were created in this spent. (For a complete list of Plans, Documents and Studies that are used as CPC sources, see Appendix A) In the ten years since the adoption of the CPA in Lexington, the CPC has strived to remain impartial while recommending worthwhile projects that fall within the purview of the statute to Town Meeting. The CPC expects that the CPA will continue to be a resource for carrying out the thoughtful community preservation recommendations contained in these studies Subsequent sections of this Assessment discuss community goals and projects specific to preservation within each of the four designated purposes of the CPA In addition to these goals, the CPC has articulated a set of guidelines that apply to projects generally The CPC will use these guidelines in its review and decision-making process They are intended to provide additional guidance to those preparing applications for funding. Not all guidelines will be appropriate for every project. Decision-Making Guidelines The CPC will only consider proposals that are eligible for CPA funding according to the terms of the statute (M G.L c 44B), specifically, proposals for • The acquisition, creation and preservation of open space, • The acquisition, preservation, rehabilitation and restoration of historic resources, • The acquisition, creation, preservation and support of community housing (including the creation of a housing trust for the purpose of preserving or expanding the affordable housing supply; support in the form of rental assistance, 5 security deposit assistance, interest rate write-downs or other financial assistance for persons who qualify for community housing), • The acquisition, creation, preservation and rehabilitation and/or restoration of land for recreational use, and • The rehabilitation and restoration of open space and community housing that has been acquired with CPA funds Preference will be given to proposals which meet as many of the following general criteria as possible, specifically those which • Are consistent with current planning documents adopted by the Town, • Preserve the essential character of the Town as described in the Comprehensive Plan, • Save resources that would otherwise be threatened, • Benefit a currently under-served population, • Serve more than one CPA purpose (for example, in linking open space, recreation and community housing, or the reuse of historic resources for community housing) or demonstrate why serving multiple needs is not feasible, • Demonstrate practicality and feasibility, and demonstrate that they can be implemented expeditiously and within budget; • Produce an advantageous cost/benefit value, • Leverage additional public and/or private funds, • Preserve or use currently owned Town assets, • Receive endorsement by other municipal boards, committees or departments, and • Provide long-term contribution and/or enhancement to the Town. Process The Town Manager, Town boards, committees and departments, civic organizations and residents may bring proposals for funding to the CPC Such proposals must be submitted by November 1 in the form prescribed by the CPC, in order to be considered for funding at the next Annual Town Meeting. Except in exigent circumstances, the CPC does not review and submit proposals to Fall Special Town Meetings In cases where proposals are contingent upon Town budget processes, or upon receipt of professional estimates, appraisals and the like, and cannot be completed by November 1, initial proposals must be submitted by November 1, and completed proposals must be submitted no later than January 15 of the following year Proposals submitted after January 15 will not be reviewed and submitted by the CPC to the Annual Town Meeting, but may, after review and with the agreement of the applicant, be submitted to a subsequent Town Meeting. Under the CPA statute, the CPC does not have the power to appropriate funds for particular projects, only to make recommendations to Town Meeting. While the power to appropriate CPA funds is reserved solely for Town Meeting, it may act only upon the recommendations of the CPC It may choose to deny or reduce funding for a project recommended by the CPC, but it 6 may not increase a recommended appropriation. Town Meeting also may not appropriate CPA funds for any project that is not recommended by the CPC The CPC seeks a Town-wide and long-term perspective The Committee expects to recommend projects that will have a significant long-term benefit to the Town. It may choose to recommend to Town Meeting that some or all of CPA funds be"banked" or reserved for significant projects and opportunities in the future It may also recommend bonding of significant acquisitions and projects in order to benefit the public good. The CPC strives to provide Town Meeting with a strong and consistent rationale for its recommendations and to create an effective joint process through which departments, organizations and citizens may gain access to CPA funds for projects that will enhance the Town. 7 Further Information This document, and a wide range of community preservation information, including the Application for Community Preservation Funding, is available on the Town's web site at http.//www.lexrntonma oN,/community-preservation-committee Additional information on the Community Preservation Act, current CPA news and events, and other CPA communities and projects can be found on the Community Preservation Coalition's website www communrtvpreservatron.org The General Guidelines and Process set out above apply in combination with category-specific goals outlined in the next four sections of this Assessment. This Community Preservation Needs Assessment is respectfully submitted to the residents of Lexington in the hope that it will provide a focus and catalyst for significant enhancement of community preservation goals in Lexington. 8 Town of Lexington Community Preservation Plan Community Housing BACKGROUND The majority of Lexington's population is in the middle-income category, earning over 80 percent of area median income Updated in May 2014, Areawide Median Income for a family of four in the Boston region was determined by the U S Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) to be $94,100 in FY 2013 Eighty percent of the Areawide Median Income for a family of four in the Boston region was $67,350 for the same period. (Due to HUD's complex formula for determination of this 80% figure, it is not simply asthmatic ) About 1 in 5 Lexington households falls into the moderate-, low-, or extremely—low income categories Lexington is faced with a declining population in the 18 to 44 age group High housing costs make it difficult for young people to afford a home in Lexington, the median sales pnce for a single family home is in excess of$1,000,000 at present. At the same time, the population over 65 is on the increase Members of this group often live on fixed incomes There is a clear need to create affordable rental and ownership opportunities for young families and senior citizens who fall into the low-income or moderate-income categories Lexington has three housing organizations that are advocates for low and moderate income housing. Lexington Housing Authority (LHA) The Lexington Housing Authonty was established in 1968 pursuant to Chapter 121B of the General Laws of Massachusetts Its role is to provide safe, clean and affordable housing for low- income individuals and families, including veterans, the elderly and the disabled. Housing units administered by the Housing Authority are supported by either State or Federal funds Since 2007, CPA funds have been used for capital expenditures to ensure that these units are safe and functional The Housing Authority is governed by a five-member Board of Commissioners, four of whom are elected by Town voters and one of whom is appointed by the Governor Lexington Housing Assistance Board (LexHAB) In 1983 the Lexington Housing Assistance Board, Inc was established by an Act of the General Court as requested by Town Meeting and the Board of Selectmen. The immediate impetus for LexHAB's creation was the conversion of the former Muzzey Junior High School to affordable housing. The charge to LexHAB was broadly framed to enable it to look beyond the Muzzey units in order to provide housing for young families and other residents who could not qualify for housing provided by the Housing Authority or for whom no LHA unit was available, but who were nevertheless in need of housing assistance The Town charged LexHAB, subject to the direction of the Board of Selectmen, to"investigate and implement" housing alternatives for low, 9 moderate and middle income families LexHab provides rental housing to eligible persons and families whose incomes do not exceed either 60% or 80% of the area median income for the greater Boston area. Since it is locally sponsored, it is able (in cases where need is equal) to give preference to applicants who have a Lexington connection through residence, work or school LexHAB is governed by a nine-member board appointed by the Selectmen. Lexington Housing Partnership (LHP) In 2003 the Lexington Housing Partnership was formed to promote and support affordable housing activities and to recommend appropriate actions to the Board of Selectmen and the Planning Board to further these goals The LHP Board, appointed by the Selectmen, consists of 15 voting members and six liaisons representing the many committees, groups and individuals who share a goal of providing affordable housing in Lexington. CURRENT RESOURCES The LHA administers 240 affordable units of low/moderate income housing including apartment complexes at Greeley Village, Vynebrooke Village and Countryside Village In addition, the authority owns a two-family house and seven condominium units The majority of the units are State-subsidized (154 units) while most of the remainder are subsidized by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) (77 units), with the State responsible for capital improvement to all LHA units The units are mostly occupied by seniors and by disabled and handicapped individuals and families The LHA also administers Federal Section 8 choice vouchers and Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program project-based vouchers, which combined, serve up to an additional 74 units While none of the Lexington Housing Authority units were purchased with CPA funds, there have been several CPA-funded projects that have benefitted the Housing Authority by preserving existing units These include window, roof and siding replacement at Greeley Village, window replacement at Vynebrooke Village, and the funding of a design study and funding for Vynebrooke Village to identify and improve on-site drainage In addition, CPA funds have been used for the construction of four additional units at Greeley Village which are barrier-free and accessible for elderly residents and will help bring this housing complex into compliance with State accessibility standards LexHAB presently owns 64 units, all of which are rented to qualifying individuals or families There is no line item in the Town budget supporting LexHAB It does not receive State or Federal funds The seed money for LexHAB was provided by the developers of Potter Pond and Brookhaven, who donated funds for affordable housing in order to comply with the Planning Board's inclusionary housing policy LexHAB purchased units at the former Muzzey Junior High School, Emerson Gardens and Parker Manor Since FY09, 10 units have been purchased with CPA funds A number of units have been donated to LexHAB as a result of rezoning plans negotiated by the Planning Board and approved by Town Meeting. Two homes were donated to LexHAB by their owners and were subsequently moved to Town-owned lots Utilizing donations and rental income from its housing units, LexHAB has built or rehabilitated 12 single and two- family homes on scattered sites throughout the Town with the help of Minuteman Career & Technical High School students and the Rotary Club 10 At the 2014 Annual Town meeting, voters approved CPA funding for LexHAB to construct two residences, each with three apartments, on a half-acre portion of the Busa land, purchased earlier with CPA funds One apartment in each building will be handicapped accessible The motion authorized LexHAB to utilize $535,000 in unused CPA funds from the two previous years' appropriations, as well as an additional $750,000 An application for initial Department of Housing and Community Development approval of this Local Initiative Program project will be submitted in the near future LexHAB is also in the process of developing four units of housing on a 25,000 square foot parcel on Fairview Avenue purchased with its own funds This project entails rehabilitation of an existing house and construction of a new residence with three apartments, one handicapped accessible This project has been approved by the Selectmen, DHCD and the Zoning Board of Appeals Construction is underway with completion expected in Apnl 2017 At the 2009 Annual Town Meeting, Town Meeting Members approved use of about 30,000 square feet of the 14 acre Leary parcel for affordable housing. More than five years ago, a Committee appointed by the Board of Selectmen made recommendations for housing at this site Progress to date is limited to the removal of the Leary residence from the site LexHAB will be rehabilitating a single family home on the one-acre Wright Farm parcel CPA funds for this work have been approved. The Town completed the purchase of the property in February 2016 and transferred ownership of the parcel to LexHAB for the renovations to take place Approvals by DHCD and the Zoning Board of Appeals are necessary before construction begins NEEDS Both locally and statewide, the demand for housing affordable to low and moderate income residents exceeds supply The lack of such housing leads to a loss of diversity at the local level and a loss of population at the state level as individuals and families abandon Massachusetts for more affordable areas of the country The State has sought to foster the creation of affordable housing through M G.L c 40B, which mandates that each municipality have a minimum of 10% of its housing stock in the affordable category in order to avoid the potential imposition of housing developments that do not conform to local zoning bylaws In Lexington there continue to be frequent "teardowns" of existing smaller homes, to be replaced by much larger and more costly homes This pattern contributes to the very high average cost for single family homes in Town. While the Town of Lexington is currently in compliance with the 10% requirement of State law, as more market rate housing is constructed, and as pnce restnctions on some currently affordable housing units expire, the Town could easily drop below the 10%threshold, allowing a developer who allocates 25% of a rental project to affordable housing to avoid being subject to the density and siting restnctions of Lexington's Zoning Bylaw This provides a practical incentive for the Town to continue to add affordable units to its inventory It should also be noted that the 11.2% SHI figure which is presently quoted as Lexington's percentage of affordable housing comprises both deed-restricted affordable units as well as market rate rental units The inclusion of market rate units to determine a community's 11 compliance with 40B was allowed by the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to encourage communities to create additional rental units If this formula for determining compliance should change, Lexington's SHI figure would drop to around 5.5%, or roughly half, - an incentive to continue to fund affordable housing projects It is important to recognize that an adequate stock of affordable community housing is an important Lexington goal independent of the desire to avoid overly dense or otherwise undesirable housing developments Beginning as a farming community, Lexington has become a suburban residential and commercial center with a population that is both ethnically and economically diverse After World War II, it attracted a large number of residents involved in academic and scientific pursuits at nearby universities Since then, its excellent schools and other amenities have continued to draw new residents, many with origins outside the United States While the median household income in the Town is well above the State's median, Lexington's profile increasingly includes retiring seniors who need less costly housing to stay in Town, as well as municipal employees, veterans, and others who seek more modest housing. At present, Lexington housing is largely unaffordable to young singles and families between 20 and 45, depriving the Town of the contributions of this demographic Traditionally, Lexington's culture has not been based primarily on the high price of admission, that is, expensive housing. The Town has evolved as a place of academic and professional achievement with a commitment to diversity and shared community involvement. The commitment to providing a range of housing opportunities is a part of the Town's character GOALS 1 Preservation and support of existing community housing, including State and Federally subsidized units. a.) Preservation of existing community housing through projects such as the following recent endeavors managed by the LHA • Installation of drainage structures and replacement of failing siding at Vynebrooke Village, • Replacement of windows and roofs at Greeley Village b ) Financial support to LexHAB toward current acquisitions and renovations so that it can maintain reserve funds sufficient to purchase community housing units at such time as their deed restrictions expire 2. Creation of additional units of affordable housing at an annual rate which will allow Lexington, at a minimum, to maintain its current Subsidized Housing Inventory of State- approved community housing at approximately 11% of the Town's housing stock a.) Provide funds to LexHAB to enable it to purchase and rehabilitate existing housing units which will then be deed restricted to maintain them as affordable units, 12 b ) Provide funds to LexHAB, or another responsible entity acceptable to the Town, to contract for and manage the construction of new units of affordable housing on Town-owned lands, particularly on the Leary property; c ) Encourage the Town Board of Selectmen to consider housing (as well as each of the other purposes set out in the CPA)when acquiring land for the Town and designating its use 3 Adoption of a Lexington Housing Production Plan to meet State requirements, to clarify community housing needs and goals for Lexington residents, and to lay out a blueprint for action for the next ten years. RECOMMENDATIONS As Lexington seeks to provide housing for different age groups and income levels, there are a number of approaches which might make constructive use of CPA funds • Acquisition or construction by LexHAB, or another responsible entity acceptable to the Town, of at least two to three additional affordable rental units per year on scattered sites throughout the Town, including parcels similar to the one secured by and to be utilized by LexHAB on Fairview Avenue, • Construction by LexHAB, or another responsible entity acceptable to the Town, of additional affordable units, rental or ownership, on Town-owned parcels, such as the Leary land on Vine Street and the Busa Farm property; • When a site for affordable housing is identified, as in the cases of the Busa and Leary properties, establish by action of the Board of Selectmen, at an early time, target dates for completion of the steps necessary to bring the housing to completion, • Support of LexHAB funding to acquire housing units in existing multi-family projects when their affordability restrictions expire, • Purchase of deed restrictions on existing homes to bndge the gap between current market prices and affordable prices, so as to preserve smaller homes from tear down and replacement; • When the Town acquires land, establish, at an early time, by action of the Board of Selectmen, a well-publicized, public opportunity for the groups advocating for the various Town core values to present proposals for use of all or part of the land in question, • Investigation of specific housing programs for veterans and senior citizens, and 13 • Support of first-time homebuyer programs, including the Soft Second Loan Program administered by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The 2012 amendments to the Community Preservation Act explicitly provide that "support of community housing" includes "programs that provide grants, loans, rental assistance, security deposits, interest rate write downs or other forms of assistance, directly to families or individuals who are eligible for community housing" In determining which strategies to support with recommendations for CPA funding, the Lexington CPC will be guided by our Town's specific needs and preferences regarding community housing. 14 Town of Lexington Community Preservation Plan Historic Resources BACKGROUND The Town of Lexington is rich in cultural resources Its role in the Revolutionary War has created a stewardship responsibility for its historical sites that extends to the nation at large, its later role in commercial expansion due to the arnval of the railroad created a building boom of late 19t1i and early 20t1i century housing stock that continues to distinguish the Town. Structures of the recent past—Moon Hill, Five Fields and the Peacock Farm enclaves throughout Town, among others — enhance Lexington's diverse architectural heritage Lexington has received national and state recognition of its historic resources four properties or areas, the Battle Green, Buckman Tavern, the Hancock-Clarke House, and the Minuteman National Historical Park, have been designated as National Historic Landmarks by the U S Secretary of the Interior Ten additional properties are individually listed on the National and State Registers of Historic Places, in addition to the Town's listed National Register Historic Districts (The Lexington Green Historic Distnct, the Buckman Tavern Histonc District, the Sanderson House - Munroe Tavern Histonc District, the Peacock Farm Historic District and the Six Moon Hill Historic District) and their contributing properties The Metropolitan State Hospital Multiple Property National Register listing, (shared with the towns of Belmont and Waltham) also contains a number of significant buildings In addition, the recently-listed Mid Century Modern Houses of Lexington Multiple Property Submission highlights the unique characteristics of Lexington's modern architecture In total, approximately 600 properties are protected through inclusion within one or another of the Town-established local historic districts (Battle Green, East Village, Hancock-Clarke, Munroe Tavern) The Town has recognized this wealth in its "Vision Statement Fostenng a Sense of Community" Prepared by the Vision 2020 group, the first vision listed was that of appreciation of the Town's history, through the "preservation and celebration of historic Town assets, including local events and interest points as well as Lexington's national attractions " And in the Planning Board's 2002 Comprehensive Plan, "The Lexington We Want," the authors recognized that the Town's stewardship responsibility to its Revolutionary War heritage has been executed "with effective care" but at the same time urged the adoption of a preservation plan that would rationalize preservation efforts throughout the Town. Lexington's history enhances its citizens' sense of place, attracting people to come and live here— and stay The impact of our historic resources also extends beyond the boundaries of the Town, providing educational opportunities for the nation's youth and for historical scholars, and bringing important tourist dollars to support the local economy 15 CURRENT RESOURCES To manage these cultural resources, the Town employs a powerful array of tools They include oversight by the Lexington Histonc Districts Commission, the Lexington Historical Commission, the Design Advisory Committee and, for those resources located in the Town Center, the Lexington Center Committee In addition, 2016 Spring Town Meeting approved enabling legislation to permit Neighborhood Conservation Districts upon application and approval of the requesting neighborhoods Two nationally known historic resources are located within Lexington, the Scottish Rite Masonic Museum and Library and the Minute Man National Historical Park, which is part of the National Park System Historical Districts Commission (HDC) The Historic Districts Commission of Lexington was established in 1956 by Special Act of the Legislature to"promote the educational, cultural, economic and general welfare of the public through the preservation and protection of historic buildings, places and distracts through the development of appropriate settings for said buildings, places and districts and through the maintenance of said buildings, places and districts as landmarks of historic interest." The HDC ensures that development or demolition of properties within the four historic districts may proceed only following a determination of appropriateness The five full and four alternate members of the HDC are appointed by the Selectmen, to serve at large, and from candidates proposed by the Historical Society, the Arts and Crafts Society, and the Cary Library Trustees Lexington Historical Commission (LHC) Similarly, the Lexington Histoncal Commission was created in 1975 by vote of Town Meeting "for the preservation, protection and development of the historical or archeological resources" of the Town. The LHC has prepared an inventory of historical structures located throughout the Town that documents over 2,000 buildings, structures and objects and is accessible through the Town web site The LHC administers the Town's Demolition Delay Bylaw to ensure that every effort is made to preserve these historically and architecturally significant structures The LHC also endeavors to educate citizens on the breadth and importance of Lexington's cultural heritage The five members of the LHC are appointed by the Town Manager Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCDs) The creation of Neighborhood Conservation Districts was approved under Article 29 of the 2016 Spring Town Meeting "to preserve, protect and enhance" Lexington's "unique and distinctive" neighborhoods by conserving and preserving existing buildings, fostering appropriate reuse and encouraging compatible new construction, all through Town-appointed neighborhood review boards To date, two neighborhoods have applied to self-regulate through an NCD the Turning Mill Neighborhood and the Byron/Lockwood Neighborhood. 16 Lexington Historical Society On a private level, the Lexington Historical Society plays a number of key roles, including the ownership and management of the Hancock-Clarke House, Munroe Tavern and the Depot and management of Buckman Tavern under a long-term lease from the Town, as well as through publications, the presentation of educational programs and the maintenance of an important archive The Scottish Rite Masonic Museum and Library The Scottish Rite Masonic Museum and Library, founded and supported by the Scottish Rite Freemasons, also provides resources and programs on American history and culture that draw national and international visitors and complement the cultural management efforts of the Town. The Minute Man National Historical Park The Minute Man National Historical Park, established in 1959 and located in Lexington as well as Lincoln and Concord, is a 1.2 mile linear park commemorating the opening battle of the American Revolution in 1775 Sites in Lexington include Fiske Hill, an important battle site, the Jacob Whittemore House, and the site of"Parker's Revenge", the second battle of April 19, 1775 NEEDS AND GOALS The goals for historic preservation in Lexington are embodied in the criteria for evaluation of potential CPA projects The CPC seeks projects that: • Protect, preserve, enhance, restore and/or rehabilitate histonc, cultural, architectural or archaeological resources of significance, especially those that are threatened, • Protect, preserve, enhance, restore and/or rehabilitate Town-owned properties, features or resources of historical significance, • Protect, preserve, enhance, restore and/or rehabilitate the historical function of a property or site, • Support the adaptive reuse of historic properties, • Affect a site within a Lexington Histonc District, on a State or National Histonc Register, or eligible for placement on such registers, or on the Lexington Historical Commission's Cultural Resources Inventory; • Demonstrate a specific public benefit; and/or • Provide permanent protection for maintaining a histonc resource 17 RECOMMENDATIONS These goals can be addressed, first, through the comprehensive identification of the historic resources that are at risk in Lexington due to lack of funding, insensitive alterations or deferred maintenance, or other lack of stewardship Second, the Town needs to provide the incentives to promote successful and sensitive rehabilitation/restoration projects, in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (Department of Interior Regulations, 36 CFR 67) and the adaptive reuse of historic buildings that have outlived their ongmal purposes Third, Lexington should be aware of the full complement of preservation techniques available to it, including the creation of neighborhood conservation overlay distracts to protect areas where the substantial oversight and control of a historic distract is not warranted or feasible, and the purchase of preservation easements from owners of histonc houses that would equalize their economic value so that they could be sold as houses rather than teardown opportunities Special attention should be paid to threatened classes of resources, such as Mid-Century Modern homes and landscapes, post-World War II buildings, historic schools, and unique examples of Lexmgon's commercial and residential architecture, especially those reflecting a high level of architectural and histoncal significance, with accompanying design integrity, intact settings or landscapes, and associations with notable individuals and/or architects Specific projects might include the following: • Acquisition of historic properties —buildings, landscapes, sites, structures or preservation easements CPA funds could help bridge the economic gap to make possible the acquisition and adaptation of older, histonc homes for affordable housing or assisted living as an alternative to teardown and redevelopment. Lexington CPA funding contributed to the acquisition and reuse of the M. H. Mernam and Co Building on Oakland Street, a former factory that was converted into the Douglas House, a residence for survivors of brain injuries, and the Tower Estate on Marrett Road, formerly the headquarters of the Scottish Rite Masons and now rehabilitated and repurposed as the Town's multigenerational Community Center • Bricks and mortar repairs and rehabilitation, including preparation of plans and specifications for construction, architectural/engmeermg assessments, and modifications for accessibility, and HVAC updates, to historic resources, including modifications for the purpose of making such historic resources accessible and/or functional for their intended use, all completed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Examples of past projects include the restoration of the exterior of the Stone Building (East Lexington Library) on Massachusetts Avenue, the Hancock-Clarke House, Munroe Tavern and Buckman Tavern. Importantly, the CPA-funded rehabilitation of the Cary Memorial Building and the Community Center is now complete Future projects could include restoration and rehabilitation of other buildings on the Battle Green and the interiors of the Hosmer Home ("White House") and the Stone Building. 18 • Documentation, survey, conservation and restoration of historic landscapes, including historic burying grounds and monuments Examples would be recent CPA- funded projects for restoration of two of the Town's historic burying grounds • Application for survey and planning grants for updating existing mventones and National Register nominations, with special emphasis on Mid-Century Modern neighborhoods and the social changes that accompanied these resources CPA funds provide important matching funds for other grant opportunities, including grants from the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Past CPA grants have enabled the updating, correction and posting on-line of the Town's Cultural Resources Inventory, as well as a study of the Mid-Century Modern movement in Lexington. Projects recently completed include the preparation of National Register of Historic Places nominations for the Peacock Farm and Six Moon Hill neighborhoods, a review of the Inventory listings on Menam Hill and the research and documentation of 123 new properties long pending for inclusion in the Inventory • Educational projects such as research of historic sites and buildings and the installation of informational signs that encourage the preservation of historic resources CPA has provided funding for extensive archaeological research into the battle site of Parker's Revenge, within the Minuteman National Historical Park. CPA funding has also enabled the placement of directional and informational signage throughout the historic center of Town, as well as the posting online of a survey of historical periods in Lexington, historic maps, a guide to the architectural styles of houses found here and a bibliography of additional reading about Lexington's history Future needs might include the restoration and repair of the Tercentenary guidepost signs formerly located at key intersections and the guideposts for the "Preserving Our Heritage" Walking Trails • Preservation of historic documents and archival materials. The Town Clerk has evaluated, restored and digitized many of the Town's historic records in a multi-year project using CPA funding. The Lexington Historical Society and the Cary Memorial Library have similarly used CPA funds to conserve important historical records 19 Town of Lexington Community Preservation Plan Open Space BACKGROUND Open space is one of the defining characteristics of Lexington. It enhances the histoncal and scenic character of the Town, protects important watershed and biological values, including wetlands, streams, floodplams and wildlife habitat and affords opportunities for passive recreational and educational uses, including hiking, walking, bird watching, picnicing, and nature exploration. CURRENT RESOURCES The Town Conservation Commission is entrusted with promoting and managing the Town's natural resources, enforcing the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(M G.L c 131 §40) and acquiring and managing open space The seven—member Commission is appointed for overlapping three-year terms by the Town Manager with the approval of the Selectmen. Out of approximately 10,650 acres, Lexington currently has more than 1,350 acres of conservation land, and approximately 400 acres reserved for recreation, including parkland. Town fiscal demands and restraints associated with Proposition 21/2 have been accompanied by the constant pressure of development, resulting in an absence of land acquisition by the Town in the 10-15 years pnor to the adoption of the CPA (For a list of specific goals and pnonties for open space and recreation purposes, see the 2015 Lexington Open Space and Recreation Plan, which can be viewed in the Conservation Office or online at http.//www.lexingtonma go\//conservation/pages/conservation-land#anchor plan ) The CPA has enabled the acquisition and protection of open space by providing funds for the outright purchase of land to be owned by the Town or for the purchase of permanent conservation or agricultural restrictions that provide protection to privately owned land. Since the passage of the CPA, the Town has purchased six parcels of land totaling approximately 65 1 acres Of this total, 57.2 acres have been devoted to conservation purposes These include the two Goodwin Parcels off Hartwell Avenue, the Leary Parcel off Vine Street, the Cotton Farm Parcel off Marrett Road and the Wright Farm property off Grove Street. The 7 9 acre Busa Farm parcel off Lowell Street was also purchased with CPA funds It has been subdivided, and a 20,198 square foot parcel has been designated for community housing (per Approval not Required Plan, dated February, 2014 ) 20 NEEDS AND GOALS The goals for open space include, but are not limited to the following: Protection, through acquisition or conservation restrictions, of parcels of highest scenic and historic character Parcels are considered significant if they preserve one or more of the following • Historic landscapes and the visual relationships between historic buildings and their settings, • The visual character of the Town, particularly of those areas designated as scenic, and/or • Open fields and meadows visible from public roads Protection, through acquisition or conservation easements, of parcels of highest environmental value Parcels are considered significant if they preserve one or more of the following • Wetlands and watershed resources, • Agricultural land, • Greenway connections and wildlife corridors, and/or • Wildlife habitat. Acquisition of appropriate parcels to enhance recreational and educational opportunities of open space. Parcels appropriate for this purpose may include but are not limited to the following • Trail connections or access to conservation land, • Open spaces near schools, and • Open spaces accessible to people of all ages and abilities RECOMMENDATIONS • The Town should continue to monitor the status of parcels on its Land Acquisition Planning Report so as to be able to move promptly when such parcels become available for sale or donation to the Town. 21 • Because land acquisitions are expensive, the CPC may consider banking CPA funds designated for open space over the annually required 10% to insure that open space reserves will be available to initiate such purchases 22 Town of Lexington Community Preservation Plan Recreation BACKGROUND The Recreation Committee's goal is to provide a wide range of quality programs and facilities for the broad spectrum of Lexington residents The Recreation and Community Programs Department, supported by the Town Manager-appointed five-member Recreation Committee, administers and promotes recreation and wellness programs in the Town and manages the Lexington Community Center, neighborhood parks and playgrounds, athletic fields and other recreational facilities —including the public swimming facilities at the Irving H. Mabee Town Pool Complex, the Old Reservoir and Pine Meadows Golf Course CURRENT RESOURCES • The Recreation and Community Programs Department manages approximately 439 acres of parks and recreation land. A most important recreational resource for Lexington is the Pine Meadows Municipal Golf Course, which is one of the main revenue sources for funding capital improvements through the Recreation Enterpnse Fund. Regular course improvements and upgrades to the facility have made Pine Meadows a popular destination for local golfers, thus helping to ensure the financial strength of the Enterprise Fund and its role in supporting Department programs Other important recreational resources include the Irving H. Mabee Town Pool Complex, Old Reservoir, tennis courts, Center Track, bikeways, walking trails, the skate park, outdoor basketball courts, multi-use athletic fields, Community Center, and neighborhood parks and playgrounds NEEDS AND GOALS The need for rehabilitation of recreation facilities, especially athletic playing fields, has increased as activities have grown to include younger participants and senior adults, gender equality and special needs issues, longer and multiple seasons, and a greater number and vanety of new sports and activities General recreation goals include • Preserve, rehabilitate, restore or add new recreational uses of and access to Lexington's natural and recreational resources, • Preserve, rehabilitate, restore and/or and protect existing recreational facilities such as the Irving H. Mabee Town Pool Complex, Old Reservoir, Pine Meadows Golf Course, 23 tennis courts, Center Track, bikeways, walking trails, the skate park, outdoor basketball courts, multi-use athletic fields and neighborhood parks and playgrounds • Acquire land for active and passive recreation, including playing fields, consideration should be given to recreational uses whenever the Town looks to acquire additional open space, • Provide integration of recreational activities, such as the CPA-supported West Lexington Greenway for bicycles and walkers, with other Town Departments, such as the Conservation Department; • Provide a balance of recreation and leisure activities (active, passive, structured and unstructured) for residents of Lexington, and • Collaborate with Town Departments in continuous planning and implementing recreation and leisure opportunities for residents of all ages and abilities at the new Community Center RECOMMENDATIONS • Additional athletic fields to meet the increasing needs of the community • New active recreational resources, including playing fields and playgrounds, with special attention to universal access, as well as adult/senior and toddler recreational needs • More recreational access/use of open spaces and natural resources (where appropriate), including areas for hiking, bicycling, cross-country skiing, and fishing. • Preserve, protect, and improve Lexington's recreational infrastructure through rehabilitation and restoration of existing recreation facilities as outlined in the Recreation 5-Year Capital Plan, the Open Space and Recreation Plan, and the 2014-2016 Recreation Strategic Plan. • Preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration measures to extend the life and use of existing recreational facilities, such as neighborhood parks and playgrounds, tennis courts, as well as larger projects including drainage improvements at the Center Playing Fields, the Old Reservoir, and Pine Meadows Municipal Golf Course 24 Town of Lexington Community Preservation Plan Appendix A Plans, Documents and Studies BOARD OF SELECTMEN Selectmen's Goal Setting (annual documents 1997-2015) PLANNING BOARD • Design Guidelines for Commercial Distncts, Volume I. Public Improvements (1990) and Volume II. Private Sector Improvements (David Dixon & Associates, The Halvorson Company, 1990) • Report on Housing Characteristics in Lexington Promises and Performance, August, 1990 • Land Use Change in the Eighties Lexington, MA Apnl, 1993 • New Large Houses in Existing Neighborhoods Robert A Boyer, 1994 • Socio-Economic Charactenstics of Lexington, MA, Vol 1 Population. April, 1994 • Commercial Development in the CRO, CM and CD Zoning Districts April, 1997 • New Larger Houses in Existing Neighborhoods July, 1997 • Lexington Center Parking Study Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc , 2001 • Lexington Comprehensive Plan Land Use (1/2002) Natural and Cultural Resources (1/2002) Housing, Selectmen's Goal Setting (2005) Economic Development (1/2002) Transportation (6/2003) • Lexington Center Analysis Tamtor Associates, Inc , 2004 25 • Marrett Road/Spring Street/Bridge Street Intersection Study Phase I(7/2005) and Phase II(5/2006) • Revised Zoning Map of Lexington 2009 • Lexington Center Streetscape Concept Plan. December, 2011 • Town of Lexington, Parking Technical Assistance Final Report. Nelson Nygaard, July, 2010 • East Mass Ave Roadway Improvement Project, Functional Design Report. BSC Group, January 2014 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE • Town Five-Year Capital Plan 2020 VISION COMMITTEE • Visioning Reports, 2000 —2007 • Report of the Demographic Change Task force—Final, March 19, 2010 COMMUNITY HOUSING • Lexington Consolidated Housing Strategy (2006-2010) • Affordable Housing Subsidy Executive Summary, 2010 • Affordable Housing Subsidy Plan, 2010 • Lexington Housing Partnership and LexHAB "Affordable Housing Assistance Program" Design. January 20, 2010 HISTORIC PRESERVATION • Lexington Cultural and Historic Inventory (updated December, 2015), online at http.//histoncsuivev.lexingtonma goy • "Lexington Reconnaissance Report for the Massachusetts Heritage Landscape Inventory Program", 2006 26 • Lexington Battle Green Area Master Plan, Town of Lexington, March 14, 2011, online at http.//www.lexin4onma oN,/battle-green-master-plan. • History of Lexington Municipal Buildings, September 21, 2011, online at http.//historicsurvev.lexintonma o‘,/municipal-buildins-report.pdf • Planning Report for the Stone Building, June 2008, Volume 1 and 2, on file at the Cary Memorial Library • Stone Building Historic Structure Report and Recommendations for Rehabilitation and Reuse, September, 2009, on file at the Community Preservation Committee office • Historic Structure Report, the Hosmer(White) House, November 30, 2010, online at http.//www.lexintonma o‘,/hammond-hosmer-house-white-house/pales/historic- structures-report. • Cary Memonal Building Evaluation, Final Report, June 1, 2011, online at http.//records.lexintonma o‘,/WebLink8/0/doc/226298/Pae5 aspx • Leary House Condition Report, March 1, 2010, on file at the Community Preservation Committee Office • Muzzey Junior High Condominiums Envelope and Systems Analysis, Apnl 9, 2008, on file at the Community Preservation Committee office • Estabrook School Histonc Structure Report, June 2012, on file with the Lexington Historical Commission. • Hancock-Clarke House, 2007 Restoration Report, on file at the Community Preservation Committee office • Munroe Tavern Historic Structure Report, January, 2010, on file at the Community Preservation Committee office • Buckman Tavern, Historic Structure Report, October 21, 2012, on file at the Community Preservation Committee office OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION/RECREATION • Open Space and Recreation Plan, Updated 2015 http.//www.lexintonma o‘,/conservation/pa4es/conservation-land#anchor plan 27 • Recreation 5-Year Capital Plan. • Recreation Strategic Plan, 2014-2016 • Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat Map for Rare Species • BioMap and Living Waters Plans and Map • Aerial Photo Survey of Potential Vernal Pools • Priority Resource Map • Western Greenway Map • "Lexington Reconnaissance Report for the Massachusetts Heritage Landscape Inventory Program", 2006 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS • Town Maps 28 Town of Lexington Community Preservation Plan Appendix B Glossary Canital Imnrovements "Capital Improvements" - reconstruction or alteration of real property that: (1) matenally adds to the value of the real property or appreciably prolongs the useful life of the real property; (2) becomes part of the real property or is permanently affixed to the real property so that removal would cause material damage to the property or article itself; and(3) is intended to become a permanent installation or is intended to remain there for an indefinite penod of time Community Housing "Low income housing" -housing for those persons and families whose annual income is less than 80 per cent of the area-wide median income The area-wide median income is determined annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for specific regions, including the Boston Metropolitan Area. "Moderate income housing" -housing for those persons and families whose annual income is less than 100 per cent of the area-wide median income The area-wide median income is determined annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for specific regions, including the Boston Metropolitan Area. "Low or moderate income senior housing" -housing for those persons having reached the age of 60 or over who would qualify for low or moderate income housing. Community Preservation Act(CPA) The Community Preservation Act(CPA) (MGL c 44B) is legislation designed to help communities plan ahead for the preservation of important resources and to raise funds to achieve their goals CPA allows towns to levy a community-wide property tax surcharge of up to 3 per cent for the purpose of creating a local Community Preservation Fund(CPF) and qualifying for State matching funds The Fund must be used to acquire, create, preserve and rehabilitate or restore (if purchased with CPA funds) open space, acquire, preserve and rehabilitate or restore historic resources, acquire, create, preserve, suport and rehabilitate or restore (if purchased with CPA funds) community housing, and may be used to acquire, create, preserve or restore or rehabilitate recreational resources The State will provide"matching" funds to communities approving CPA by-laws, which Lexington did in 2006 at a 3% level 29 Community Preservation Committee (CPC) A nine-person committee with individual members appointed by the Conservation Commission, Historical Commission, Housing Authority, Housing Partnership, Planning Board, Recreation Committee, and three at-large members appointed by the Board of Selectmen. The Committee reviews funding applications and makes recommendations to Town Meeting for the appropriation of CPA monies to support approved projects It consults broadly with Town organizations, boards and committees Community Preservation Fund (CPF) A separate Town account for the deposit of all surcharges collected and State matching funds Sub-accounts of CPF (sometimes referred to as "buckets") have been established to ensure that required shares of the annual revenue added to the CPF are either spent each year or allocated to the appropriate reserve funds These are • Open Space Reserve Fund (minimum of 10% annually) • Historic Resources Fund (minimum of 10% annually) • Community Housing Reserve Fund (minimum of 10% annually) • Unbudgeted Reserve Fund (remaining 70% of funds, less administrative costs) • Undesignated Fund Balance • Administrative/Operating Fund(up to 5%) The CPC is permitted to appropriate up to 5% of the funds for administration and operational expenses of the Committee For example, these funds can be used to hire support staff, purchase office supplies, do mailings and cover the cost of professional services as needed. Any administrative monies not used in a given fiscal year are returned to the CPF Undesignated Fund Balance Recreation projects are eligible for CPA funding but there is no minimum amount specified by the Act. Beyond these required disbursements, Town Meeting, acting upon the recommendations of the CPC, will decide the allocation of the remaining 70% of annual CPA revenues For example, the CPC could recommend and Town Meeting could allocate the remaining 70% of annual revenue to one purpose, spread it evenly among all four, or set the funds aside for future spending. These allocations can be changed each year Community Preservation Surchar2e The locally raised share of CPA revenue comes from a surcharge (additional amount based on the real-estate tax) on real estate tax bills Lexington voted a 3% surcharge which is separately stated on each tax bill Community Preservation Surchar2e Exemptions 30 Taxpayers currently exempt from real property taxes under Chapter 59 of Massachusetts General Laws are exempt from the CPA surcharge In addition, Town Meeting approved exemption of the first $100,000 of taxable value of residential real estate Exemptions, as well as the surcharge percentage, can be changed at any time with the approval of Town Meeting and subsequent voter referendum, however, a sufficient surcharge must remain each year to meet any remaining long- term obligations (e g., debt service on bonds) of the CPF Historic Resources "Histonc resources" shall mean a building, structure, vessel, real property, document or artifact that is listed on the State Register of Histonc Places or has been determined by the Histoncal Commission to be significant in the history, archeology, architecture or culture of a city or town. Lexington Community Preservation By-Law A copy of the By-Law can be obtained online at htm.//www.lexingtonma go,/commumty- preservation®committee Maintenance Incidental repairs which neither materially add to the value of the property nor appreciably prolong the property's life, but keep the property in a condition of fitness, efficiency or readiness Oven Snace Open space shall include, but not be limited to, land to protect existing and future well fields, aquifers and recharge areas, watershed land, agricultural land, grasslands, fields, forest land, fresh and salt water marshes and other wetlands, ocean, nver, stream, lake and pond frontage, beaches, dunes and other coastal lands, lands to protect scenic vistas, land for wildlife or nature preserve and land for recreational use Preservation "Preservation" shall mean protection of personal or real property from injury, harm or destruction. Recreational Use "Recreational use" shall mean active or passive recreational use including, but not limited to, the use of land for community gardens, trails, and non-commercial youth and adult sports, and the use of land as a park, playground or athletic field. "Recreational use" shall not include horse or dog racing or the use of land for a stadium, gymnasium or similar structure 31 Rehabilitation "Rehabilitation" shall mean the capital improvements, or the making of extraordinary repairs to historic resources, open spaces, lands for recreational use and community housing for the purpose of making such historic resources, open spaces, land for recreational use and community housing functional for their intended use, including but not limited to improvements to comply with the American with Disabilities Act and other Federal, State or local building or access codes, provided that with respect to historic resources, "rehabilitation" comply with the Standard for Rehabilitation stated in the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties codified in 36 CFR Part 68, and provided further, that with respect to land for recreational use, "rehabilitation" shall include the replacement of playground equipment and other capital improvements to the land or the facilities thereon which make the land or the related facilities more functional for the intended recreational use Sunnort of Community Housing "Support of Community Housing" shall include, but not be limited to, programs that provide grants, loans, rental assistance, security deposits, interest-rate write-downs or other forms of assistance directly to individuals and families who are eligible for community housing or to an entity that owns, operates or manages such housing, for the purpose of making housing affordable Updated by the Community Preservation Committee, December, 2016. Marilyn Fenollosa, Chair(Historical Commission) Richard Wolk, Vice-Chair, (Conservation Commission) Charles Hornig (Planning Board) Norman Cohen (at large, appointed by the Board of Selectmen) David Horton (at large, appointed by the Board of Selectmen) Jeanne Krieger(at large, appointed by the Board of Selectmen) Robert Pressman (Housing Partnership) Sandra Shaw(Recreation Committee) Melinda Walker(Housing Authority) 32 An Examination of Residential Property Tax Exemptions for the Town of Lexington, Massachusetts fm) APRIL,IS"' The Lexington Select Board's Residential Exemption Policy Study Committee (Ad Hoc) Mark V Andersen, Chair Victoria Lawrence Blier Sara G Bothwell Allen Howard B Cloth Katie Ponty Cutler Thomas B Whelan John Zhiqian Zhao April 2019 V1 o Abstract This report of the Lexington Select Board's Residential Exemption Policy Study Committee (Ad Hoc) presents the Committee's year-long research to evaluate residential property tax exemptions as a tool for helping Lexington residents to remain in their homes Massachusetts offers a local option residential exemption that allows municipalities to apply a uniform exemption to property assessments of owner-occupied residential parcels The exemption does not reduce total tax revenue, and thus shifts property taxes from lower valued properties to higher valued properties and properties that are not owner-occupied Sixteen municipalities have adopted this local option Alternatively, at least five municipalities have adopted their own means-tested residential exemptions that apply only to properties owned and occupied by residents who meet certain income, age, length of residence and asset criteria The Committee executed its charge to determine "if adopting the exemption could help reduce the property tax burden and make it easier for residents to remain in their homes"by studying financial housing stress and out-migration through a combination of expert testimony from u:: cup"p,orn s1and u....Uou P.!ng..u:: ohcy u:: xpert5, local Pep!! u:: t tc Agents,, A e or with implementation experience, as well as 5wYPY uP P rch In tWQ„P pK l'IPPtTaq and in open meetings, residents expressed concern about local taxes and support for a thoughtful approach to determining the course of action which would balance direct and indirect effects of a proposed tax exemption After consideration and review of all issues raised, the Committee finds that no single exemption or other policy tool alone can address the existing property tax stress in our community However, an approach which includes several tools could provide targeted tax relief, but policy details would require further study At its conclusion, the Committee makes eight policy recommendations and urges prioritized attention to residential tax relief by the Select Board Local Tax Policy. 1 Do not adopt the Massachusetts Residential Exemption (SRE) (.t.°,.rh.. fPi 5.) 2 Develop for community consideration a proposal for a means-tested and/or age-based residential exemption (C,h.piieir ?) 3 Promote awareness of existing programs such as tax deferrals, exemptions, and the Massachusetts Senior Circuit Breaker Tax Credit. (Gh „pter ) 4 Evaluate increasing eligibility thresholds significantly for the U..p p,naton Property x U:) fear . u::Prggr P.1 1 State Advocacy. 5 Advocate for expanded access to tax deferrals for homeowners with existing or future mortgages and home equity loans 6 Advocate for expanded access to the state administered 5PriOr (ANA Fire fpr "[ .,.rem for surviving spouses and those with homes above the current eligibility thresholds, as well as expanding the level of rebate Further Study. 7 Further study the financial needs and supports necessary for Lexington's population of older (80+) seniors to age in place 8 Further study methods to retain irOcqe, pqedres.toleht who have the Itika ,e iU i to Qf 501. Nret:A5te0 Qgt n. grafi n a.mQng.. UU q c;QhQrt U 'p, wr 5PrkheY. Although Committee members unanimously approved the recommendations above, individual Committee members found their own basis for support in different ways The executive summary describes the rationales which were used by Committee members to support these recommendations 2 Abstract 1 Executive Summary 6 Recommendations 11 Introduction 16 1 Criteria for Examining Residential Exemptions 18 Direct, Intended Consequences 18 Economic and Psychological Impact on the Household 18 Impact on Household Migration 18 Indirect and Second-Order Effects 18 Housing Impact 19 Lexington Budgetary Impact 19 Equitable Taxation 19 Evaluative framework 19 2. Housing-Cost Stress and Out-Migration in Lexington 20 An Analysis of the Public Services and Housing Costs Survey 20 Housing stress 21 Migration potential 25 Open Response Comments 29 Statistical Study 30 Summary 30 3. Property Tax Relief Measures Currently Available to Lexington Residents 32 Town Programs 32 Property Tax Exemptions 32 Property Tax Deferrals 33 Senior Service Program 34 Utilization of Property Tax Programs in Lexington 34 The Massachusetts Senior Circuit Breaker Property Tax Credit 35 4 Residential Properties in Lexington 36 Classification of Residential Properties 36 Residential Property Types 37 Single Family Homes in Lexington 38 3 Two-Family Homes in Lexington 39 Condominiums in Lexington 40 Large Apartment Complexes in Lexington 42 Undeveloped Land 43 For-Profit Child Care Facilities 43 Group Living Facilities 44 Brookhaven 44 Affordable and Subsidized Housing 45 Conclusion 45 5 The Massachusetts Residential Exemption 47 State Residential Exemption Process 47 Setting an Exemption Percentage and, thereby, an Exemption Amount 47 Eligibility and Verification 48 Exemption Amount and Tax Rate Calculation 48 Misunderstandings about the SRE 54 Direct Consequences of SRE on Homes and Property Classes 54 Owner-occupied Single Family Homes and Condominiums 54 Tax Burdens Relative to Peer Communities 56 Indirect Consequences of the State Residential Exemption 64 Perspectives from the Lexington Real Estate Community 64 Perspectives from Economists and Housing Policy Experts 65 Aggregate Residential and Commercial Property Value in Lexington 67 Condominium Conversions 68 Effects of the SRE by Income Profile 69 Residential Exemptions in Massachusetts Communities 72 Summary 73 6. Massachusetts Model Means-Tested Residential Exemption Laws 74 Existing MTRE Laws in Five Towns 74 Massachusetts Model Means-Tested Exemption Laws 75 Adoption 75 Offsetting Loss of Circuit Breaker Tax Credits 76 Funding 76 4 An Assessor's Perspective on Means-Tested Residential Exemptions 77 Implementation Issues Experienced by Concord 77 Perspectives from Economists and Housing Policy Experts 78 Summary 78 7 Lexington Means-Tested Exemption Proposals 79 Lexington Proposals 79 Rationales for Eligibility 80 Rationales for Benefits 81 Proposal #1 Circuit Breaker Style Means-Tested Exemption 82 Proposal #2 Octogenarian Means-Tested Tax Exemption 84 Property Tax Freeze Models in other States 87 Evaluation 87 8. Conclusions and Recommendations 89 Appendix Property Tax Benchmark Chart 90 Appendix Services, Housing Stress and Emigration Survey 102 Survey Executive Summary 102 1 Overview 103 2 Survey Process 104 Survey Structure 106 3 Survey Respondents 108 4 Comparative Charts and Correlation Analysis on Housing Stress 114 and Migration 114 4a Housing Stress in the Survey 115 5 Correlation Charts 149 6 Open Responses to Survey 152 7 Statistical Analysis of Housing Stress and Predicted Migration 162 8 Survey Response Summary 168 Survey Data and Analysis 188 Dr Jonathan Haughton Tax Equilibrium Model 188 Public Hearings Summary 189 5 Executive Summary This report summarizes the year-long research undertaken by the Select Board's Residential Exemption Policy Study Committee (Ad Hoc) This Committee was charged by the Lexington Select Board' to evaluate residential property tax exemptions as a tool for helping residents remain in their homes During the course of the year, the Committee surveyed residents, interviewed subject matter experts, reviewed legislation, held two public hearings, and evaluated its applicability for Lexington The State's Residential Exemption (SRE) is a local option available to all municipalities When adopted, it allows the Select Board to set a uniform flat exemption that is applied to the property tax assessments of verified owner-occupied residential property A provision of the law maintains revenue levels by increasing the residential tax rates to compensate for exemptions Thus, the exemption effectively reduces taxes on residential properties with lower assessed values, increases taxes on residential properties with higher assessed values, and substantially increases taxes on residential properties that are not owner-occupied (,hater 1 provides an overview of the framework and terminology developed by the Committee to examine residential exemptions The Committee identified criteria for examining the effects of residential exemptions as • Economic and Psychological Impacts on the Household - the role that property taxation has on financial stress and feelings of alienation toward the Town, and what effect residential exemptions may have on these factors • Impact on Household Migration - the effect that residential exemptions may have on migration decisions • Housing Impact- whether residential exemptions might change housing costs, the mix of housing types and as a result, the demographics of Lexington • Lexington Budgetary Impact- the effect that residential exemptions may have on demographics with resulting impacts on the Town budget. • Equitable Taxation - how residential exemptions comport with concepts of tax fairness An evaluative framework was used that examines residential exemptions in terms of Precision and Recall, a methodology borrowed from data science Precision Out of the group of people that receive benefits from an exemption, how many of them are the intended beneficiaries? The fewer unintended beneficiaries, the higher the precision ' During the tenure of this committee, the name of Lexington's Board of Selectmen was voted by Town Meeting to be changed to Lexington's Select Board This document will use the term Select Board for all references 6 Recall Out of the intended beneficiaries of an exemption, how many of them will receive benefits? The more intended beneficiaries included, the higher the recall Crhq.ptpr ,2 Finding limited information from existing studies to answer the Committee's questions regarding the relationship between home value, housing stress, age, income, the use of Town services and migration decisions, the Committee undertook a detailed survey that reached a representative 7% of the adult population of Lexington Key findings are presented in this chapter, and all details covered in the 5Wrv.on , , e 'p, p Findings presented in Chapter 2 include • Renters report high housing stress more often than owners • High housing stress is reported at all ages, lengths of residence, incomes, and home values • Income is a better predictor of housing stress than is home value • Means tested targeting offers higher precision than the State's Residential Exemption (SRE), but low recall (under-reaching those with high housing stress) • Renters are more likely to migrate than owners • Housing stress significantly drives migration for homeowners • Home value and income are not significant predictors of migration for homeowners • Middle aged populations have the highest forecast of migration • Lexington residents are very concerned about the steady increase in local taxes These survey findings suggest that the SRE would not directly target those with high housing stress, and that its impact on migration patterns would be limited Residential exemptions may impact economic health and psychological stress, but survey data suggests that policy makers should not expect an exemption to have a material impact on migration CrhPlPter 3 provides an overview of property tax relief measures currently available to Lexington residents and the extent to which they are utilized Most relevant for this discussion are two programs • u...he iassachusetts 5erd ur UN:uA u:::reuoer .u. x G���pit a State administered program which provides a partial rebate for senior homeowners whose property tax exceeds 10% of their income The provisions of the State Circuit Breaker are important to understand, as this $1,100 State tax rebate could paradoxically be diminished when the taxpayer receives a residential exemption • u..he U..exp,naiicn uax u:jef naU Prcar r, which is an option for homeowners to manage cash flows by deferring payment of their property taxes The Committee identified common obstacles that exist for use of the tax deferral income eligibility ceilings and blocking-actions by mortgage and home equity creditors 7 .°,hater 4 describes and enumerates the various types of residential property in Lexington and discusses how they may be influenced by the effects of an SRE • Homes which could be owner-occupied account for 97% of residential value in Lexington • Condominiums account for 10% of all residential parcels and have a median assessed value of$530,000 Due to their lower assessed values, nearly all Lexington condominium owners would benefit from the SRE regardless of their personal level of assets or income • Lexington has eight large commercial apartment buildings comprised of 984 units These large apartment buildings do not qualify for residential exemptions and will receive significant property tax increases with an SRE • Lexington has 53 remaining buildable lots Buildable lots are not owner occupied and will experience an increase in property tax with an SRE Increased property tax could incentivize development of these parcels • Lexington's five for-profit child care centers and four for-profit group living facilities are taxed as residential properties but are not owner-occupied They would experience an increase in property tax with an SRE • None of Lexington's affordable and subsidized rental housing would be affected by an SRE Owner-occupancy is the only eligibility criteria for a residential property to qualify for an SRE It is described by the Massachusetts Division of Revenue as the owner's primary residence where family, social, civic and economic life is centered and where the homeowner plans to return whenever he or she is away Owner-occupancy verification is determined by local policy, and may be confirmed by tax returns, driver's license, utility bills or other evidence (ii,h tff describes Massachusetts' State Residential Exemption (SRE) in detail, provides quantified examples of direct effects, discusses the expected indirect effects, defines key concepts, and dantons misunderstandings articulated at the Committee's two public hearings A direct effect of SRE adoption would be to lower property taxes for owner-occupied homes with assessments that are below a breakeven pointe and increase property taxes for owner occupied homes above that breakeven point and for all non-owner occupied properties • An owner-occupied home at the breakeven point would experience neither an increase nor decrease in property tax due to the SRE • The impact on owner-occupied households is proportional to how far above or below the breakeven point their property assessment is 2 The breakeven point (approximately $1,150,000 in FY2019) is the total of residential value in Lexington divided by the number of owner-occupied properties receiving a residential exemption 8 • The breakeven point is irrelevant to non-owner-occupied properties because all such properties would experience tax increases of the same percentage The financial impact of the SRE is proporfuonap to the size of the exemiion set b, the %epect u:::grai At the higher exemption rates, for owner-occupied properties near the extremes of assessed-values, tax impacts could amount to thousands of dollars per year All non-owner-occupied homes would also see large impacts Tables and charts are provided both to illustrate these effects, and also to compare Lexington's current and SRE modeled property taxes with example communities An penapx extends these charts to numerous adjacent, peer, and competing communities Over the long term, the SRE has an indirect effect by incentivizing ownership housing and disincentivizing rental housing This policy could have lasting effects on Lexington housing and demographics, hypothesized to include the following • Absentee homeowners may prefer to sell their homes due to higher taxes rather than lease them to others • Rental units may be converted to condominiums, because, with an SRE, fc;hu condo num uun t can aaun vapuc by qualifying for its own residential exemption • Conversion of rental units to condominiums would shrink the rental market, which would likely increase area rental rates • Converted rental units could reduce economic diversity in Lexington by displacing asset-poor renters • Increased numbers of owner-occupied housing due to ownership incentives could increase the total number of residential exemptions and therefore reduce the tax benefit for each owner-occupied home At the Committee's !E cPrpnt5t qncl Policy u:: ,(inert Poundtabpe Iffrscusson, further indirect effects were discussed • Economists hypothesize that tax changes affect future gyp.c peat, vallues While a tax decrease for lower-valued properties, such as condominiums, initially makes these properties seem more affordable, this improved affordability would be expected to make them more attractive to buyers Many buyers are constrained by ability to pay and will apply their tax savings or tax loss to the purchase price Purchase affordability could drive an increase in market value for lower priced properties causing their tax assessment to subsequently increase The opposite would happen for higher priced homes and multi-tenant properties which would find their values and subsequent assessments declining These housing market adaptations to SRE implementation are anticipated to reverse 28% of the initial tax shift. • SRE-prompted changes in property values are hypothesized to make a residential exemption a single-generation affordability benefit. Current owners would receive both an adjusted tax bill and an adjusted market value, while future property buyers would purchase a property whose value had already shifted in the opposite direction from the 9 tax shift. Future owners would not realize any net affordability benefit when purchasing a Lexington property The Committee combined survey data (see Chapter 2) with the projected direct effects of the SRE finding that: • "ITh nQf taIciet financuaU rehef effect veU ; to residents found to have significant housing stress • fhP p:,1 CNN PdvPh$PIly irliiioact some re udent dread)/ p , Pu`penna na housing stress After identifying deficiencies of the SRE, the Committee sought and was granted an enlarged scope by the Select Board to additionally examine Means-Tested Residential Exemptions (MTRE), and to evaluate them in comparision to the SRE Chapter examines Means-Tested Residential Exemptions (MTRE), which are tax exemptions given to qualifying residents based on criteria that include income, asset, age, and residency thresholds • :ATI; 5 of two hask, types have been adopted in at Ilea t five Massachusetts towns through Special Legislation (state approval), and provide meaningful assistance to qualified households • MTREs can have an u.in,uu ilei id 5W-effect of!M 4 raw state aid for beneficiaries by decreasing property taxes • Using survey data from Chapter 2, the Committee projects that typical means-tested exemptions would precisely target beneficiaries with limited means, however the roqi..cylty irP5110.PriN with hpg.h I.wuruq cost stress wouki receive no rehef In view of inherent limitations and side-effects of existing MTREs, the Committee recommends that Lexington evaluate creation of its own MTRE variant rather than directly copy from existing models Chapter / outlines two new models for possible Lexington-specific exemptions which could be further developed through community conversation • A cijrc ap,t t;:iro u,orstye ';ii a p�u:: with guidelines to avoid unintended consequences such as reduction in Circuit Breaker benefits or penalties for surviving spouses • An age,tased„property t trep7e for seniors over 80 years old These proposals target two different populations in Lexington Detailed notes are provided to guide future legislation away from limitations identified in current programs Because eligibility for both of these proposed MTRE models attaches to the homeowner rather than to the property, minimal impact on housing values is anticipated Cr .111(.N5M15 summarizes final thoughts and provides eight recommendations The Committee urges policy makers to review the a et upea a rvey ae5c01,0Pc1 lin th which provides insight on housing stress and migration attitudes in relation to age, income, and home value, as well as general concerns about taxes ;ua( 1,1Qpincrimprving against peer and neighboring communities, along with survey data, could be used to inform many Town projects 10 and policies This research suggests an interaction between taxes, demographics, and migration which policy makers should further examine to improve Lexington's position in attracting and retaining residents Recommendations No proposed exemption directly targets all residents experiencing high housing cost stress The SRE and existing MTREs present the possibility of unintended consequences including changes in Lexington home values and housing types, reduced economic diversity, the direction of benefits to unintended recipients, increased taxation of already-stressed households, and a reduction in State aid to qualifying beneficiaries As a result of these findings, the Committee unanimously makes the following eight recommendations to the Select Board, spanning actions for local tax policy, advocacy at the state level, and areas for additional study Committee members reached the recommendations based on evidence presented, but individual Committee members found their own basis in this evidence differently Below each numbered recommendation we enumerate rationales that were used by one or more Committee members to support their position Local Tax Policy 1 Do not adopt the Massachusetts Residential Exemption (SRE) a. The benefit is not targeted to those in need Data from our survey shows that gcncern5 00qut tipp p,g„5tre55 areal„pr ,peaty tPxe5 span renters and owners, low value homes and high value homes, and an SRE would offer tax relief to only a portion of those with need It would also provide benefits to other residents who are not experiencing housing stress b Taxes would increase on h.g,heu wr p,u n I eau 5orme of which are occupuea Ib 1P5110.Pnt5 wr�ncQ tfflP 5tIPP5,$Pd 11Q.Y WIP c The SRE increases the potential for rents to increase either through direct pass-through of tax increases or indirectly because landlords may be incentivized to convert apartments to condominiums which will reduce the supply of rental units, thus changing the market conditions that influence rents Survey data shows that renter report hodOna.5tre55 \Mth far Greater freauenc th, l homeowr�rner ... ....... .......... .. . d Using Lexington tax monies to provide local tax exemptions n. , reduce inaroinaert ta,K rebate$ that 447 moderate income households receive under the Massachusetts 5enor C rorcot u:::reauker "lax C redut (2016) The net benefit for these households will be less than anticipated and local tax monies will be wasted by these offset losses e An SRE does not lower the aggregate residential tax burden in Lexington, it shifts a portion of residential taxes from a majority of residents to a minority who own more expensive homes or non-owner occupied properties f An SRE would increase the property tax on grow re udeniaU facuhuie , making these developments less competitive in Lexington As the population ages and 11 attitudes about housing ownership evolve, Lexington should promote rather than discourage evolving residential housing solutions g By providing a tax incentive to owner occupied housing over rental housing, the SRE provides a benefit to owner occupied pied condominium over rerotaU units If landlords were to convert housing stock from rental to ownership, housing and economic diversity in Lexington would be diminished h Incentives created by a residential exemption may cause actions by owners of non-owner-occupied properties that increase the total number of exemptions granted These actions include the selling of rental properties to owners who will occupy the property, the conversion of rental properties into owner-occupied condominiums, and the development of empty land An increased number of exemptions would mathematically lower the net exemption benefit. i When an SRE lowers property taxes associated with a home, economic theory suggests that the price of that home would increase If this were true, then the present occupant would receive a double benefit (reduced taxes and higher home value) while the future purchaser would receive no net benefit (higher home purchase price required to purchase lower taxes) This dual effect means a residential tax exemption is a single generation adjustment with no long term benefit for affordability of Lexington homes Additionally, a higher purchase price offsetting lower taxes could favor future buyers with more assets and higher credit scores over those with less, giving preference to economically advantaged buyers j As MIQMPa Icy !E). a...glfifm, 28% of the suggested tax adjustment is undone through hypothesized impact of that tax adjustment on housing prices k. The SRE is hypothesized to make it easier for Lexington residents to "remain in their homes" by reducing property tax stress Our survey investigated whether there was a relationship between home value and likelihood of migration The survey results show that beneficiaries of an SRE have a lower self-forecasted migration probability and therefore it seems unlikely that creating an SRE would materially impact migration I Owner occupancy verification required by an SRE is time consuming to administer and verify, especially for properties held in some types of trusts 2 Develop for community consideration a proposal for a means-tested and/or age-based residential exemption a. A means-tested residential exemption can be designed to provide aid to those residents who have high property taxes in relation to their income i Survey results show that UM a p, a p, niQrp 5tiQrlIgN correUated with hq,45 qa stress than is home vaUue Thus, income targeting tax relief would more precisely reach those with economic need ii Survey data shows that residents who meet all criteria of typical means-testing (income, age, home value, years of residence) are unlikely to have children in public schools, and therefore are net contributors to town finances even with reduced taxes 12 iii Because a means-tested exemption would affect a small number of households, it would not materially change tax levels for most residents iv Because a means-tested exemption would target the household rather than the property, impact on home values should be minimal v However, uentmted a eurati . e, emoforo would taraet a small eament of resdents, while survey data shows that a large portion of residents experience housing stress or express open comments of concern about property taxes, an exemption alone, no matter how well-tailored, will not provide relief to all tax-stressed residents b An exemption which targets the oldest members of the community can provide financial predictability for a subpopulation with limited flexibility i Residents are living longer, and a greater number of older seniors (80+) will live in Lexington in the future ii Older seniors are often unable to take on additional work to augment income iii Although older seniors have lower self-forecasted migration, anecdotal evidence suggests that alternatives are expensive and not attractive, forcing some of these residents to remain in their homes even in deteriorating conditions iv Older residents are more likely to experience the death of a spouse, which reduces rather than increases economic support from existing policies such as the State Circuit Breaker v Older seniors are unlikely to have children in schools, and therefore are a portion of the population which are net contributors, even if their property tax bills were to remain unchanged after age 80 vi A simple model suggests that providing a property tax freeze to residents age 80 and above would have a one-time tax effect but would likely cause little impact after that point. However, if the tax policy were also to extend Lexington residency among more older seniors, a resulting reduction in public school children could provide some relief for operating and capital budgets vii Because an exemption for older seniors would target the household rather than the property, the expected impact on home prices would be minimal viii However, it is acknowledged that dui Wrvey 0E5, rPt 5hcmt th t 5,Prik,Qr$ age Q,Q+ have epiUhel the uae t housna stress nor an eUevated UUkehhoa d f mkorafcn Nonetheless, survey results suggest that migration decisions occur at an earlier age, and therefore households may be anticipating benefits and costs of retiring in Lexington 3 Promote awareness of existing programs such as tax deferrals, exemptions, and the Massachusetts Senior Circuit Breaker Tax Credit. a. Panelists at the Housing Policy and Economics Roundtable Discussion suggested that the Town could increase awareness of existing programs 13 b Residents may not recognize the Circuit Breaker Tax Credit as related to property taxes because the application is part of the State income tax return process It is possible that some eligible community members are not submitting this form c The Committee learned that this tax credit may be lost by some who would receive an SRE, and therefore public education may also help residents realize that U..e, pfaton can not slmpp.y provide a residential exemption without a partlall , offsettlna lass to of this credit to households with lm to moderate incomes 4 Evaluate increasing eligibility thresholds significantly for the Lexington Tax Deferral Program a. Income thresholds prevent some Lexington residents from using deferrals, 42 cxpngton re5icIeht5 uui hicd deferrals in l Y"2018 3 Increasing eligibility thresholds will enable more residents with financial concerns to avail themselves of assistance b Some argue that targeted tax relief benefits heirs at the expense of community members, making deferrals preferable to exemptions State Advocacy. 5 Advocate for expanded access to tax deferrals for homeowners with existing or future mortgages and home equity loans a. Anecdotal evidence provided by committee members and at public hearings indicated that some residents are blocked from obtaining a tax deferral by a company holding their mortgage or equity loan b It is hypothesized that one reason a np,y 4,2 U..e, ngtQh re p,a enf !ATM d, **1r U pip F "2 118,, may be that mortgage holders do not approve the local tax liens that are part of the deferral process c Panelists agree that deferrals are an important public policy and that action to ensure that mortgage or equity loan creditors cannot easily block tax deferrals would benefit residents seeking such deferrals 6 Advocate for expanded access to the state administered Senior Circuit Breaker Tax Credit for surviving spouses and those with homes above the current eligibility threshold, as well as expanding the level of rebate a. A concern was Volccd lru the Cr'+ mmlttkc s second Dubhc hcarina that cxlstuno tax Iodides do not sufflclentl ; dlfferentlate older seniors as a distinct group On the loss of a spouse, income cut-offs for single individuals may disqualify surviving spouses from Circuit Breaker rebates b The existing cap of$1,100 property tax rebate is inadequate assistance for the size of property taxes in Lexington in 2019 3 It should be noted that despite low deferral participation, Lexington has the third-highest Tax Deferral participation rate in the State 14 Further Study. 7 Further study the financial needs and supports necessary for Lexington's population of older(80+) seniors to "age in place" a. Our oldest senior residents may experience different housing and financial challenges than younger seniors, cQrlcern yr u. ubUuc heeruna b Supports unrelated to property taxes also might be created for older seniors to "age in place", but further study is needed to identify those supports 8 Further study methods to retain middle-aged residents, who have the highest rate of self-forecasted out-migration among all age-cohorts in our survey a. 5WrVey 5Wminffy „,ii,p, pPg.Pd PQ.P0AfiQn5 Nye the If .gl e t p fQieciq5t uhf rnigirpitic2n and these residents may have the highest capacity to afford Lexington's taxes b Anecdotal evidence combined with the survey data leads the Committee to believe that out-migration for the aging population occurs within a few years after children graduate from Lexington public schools rather than mid-retirement. Therefore, the community needs to understand these migration trends to enhance Lexington's economic stability and make aging in Lexington a realistic long term option for more households While the Committee does not recommend the SRE nor a direct copy of an existing MTRE, committee members feel that responding to property tax concerns is urgent and important. During this Committee's term, we heard the voices of residents at public hearings and undertook a survey which shows that residents express ciQn5Nont ooen responses caUHung for orooert, tax reUpet Therefore, members of the Committee urge Lexington's leaders to review these recommendations and take timely actions to support resident concerns about taxes while remaining in Lexington 15 Introduction A growing school population and a number of significant school and town capital projects have increased financial pressure on Lexington taxpayers While the Massachusetts Residential Exemption (SRE) has been available and unused in Lexington for decades, it remained unclear whether this law would be an effective tool for tax relief Therefore, in early 2018 the Lexington Select Board formed an Ad Hoc Residential Exemption Policy Study Committee (in this report, "the Committee") to examine whether instituting a residential property tax exemption would serve the interests of the Lexington community The Committee was appointed and presented with this charge "Preserving affordability for residents is the Board's top financial goal This ad-hoc committee will study the Residential Exemption and analyze if adopting the exemption could help reduce the property tax burden and make it easier for residents to remain in their homes The ad-hoc committee will focus on identifying policy questions and will make recommendations to the Selectmen regarding the residential exemption '4 The SRE is a local option available to all municipalities When applied, it allows the Select Board to set a uniform flat exemption to all owner-occupied residential properties A provision of the law maintains municipal revenue at the same level by increasing the residential tax rate by a compensatory amount. The exemption then has the effect of reducing taxes on residential properties with low assessed value, increasing taxes on residential properties with high assessed value, and substantially increasing taxes residential properties which are not owner-occupied This exemption is used by only 16 of the 351 municipalities in Massachusetts, and communities adopting it are characterized by significant numbers of properties which are not owner-occupied After several months of study of the SRE and a first public hearing, the Committee determined that it should also study state-approved local ordinances which provide means-tested exemptions The Select Board supported this requested and extended the Committee's charge and timeline through the end of 2018 The Committee then expanded its scope to include means-tested exemptions which are presently adopted in Sudbury, Concord, Hopkinton, Reading and Wayland Means-Tested Residential Exemptions (MTREs) vary across communities, but share the characteristic that eligibility for the exemption is limited to those who qualify, primarily on the basis of income and age These exemptions typically also have requirements for residency-length, home value, and assets besides one's primary residence The Committee's study and this report also encompass an evaluation of these exemptions, which could be adopted in Lexington through a home rule petition to the Massachusetts legislature 4 bli.p.au.v.v.G.g..116.,awl sID lii�ruf �1i 1 ;..: 11,0,S C^ Y4'° L;- i I ;; ' ," Jai.:LPacit 16 After reviewing a prior working group's output and the few reports produced by other communities, the Committee set an ambitious course of seeking more data and expertise to inform this analysis This report describes the results of two public hearings, a roundtable with real estate brokers, a second roundtable with housing policy experts, and a data analysis of a Services and Housing Stress survey which reached 7% of Lexington's adult population Furthermore, the Committee consulted with assessment staff in Lexington and other communities to learn about implementation experiences with residential exemptions This new empirical research was combined with data on Lexington demographics and ownership to provide an overview of how residential exemptions would impact Lexington Modifying a community's taxation policy impacts not only tax bills, but can impact demographics, the type of housing, affordability, budgets, and tax policy for decades We encourage the community to read this report and debate the present tax policy and proposed changes, and how adoption decisions could shape Lexington's future 17 1. Criteria for Examining Residential Exemptions As the Committee deliberated the pros and cons of various residential exemptions, many considerations occurred to the Committee Who gains and who loses? Can apartment owners pass through taxes as increased rents? What would happen to housing prices? Should Lexington's tax policy impact a snowbird who lives part time in Lexington? With many potential intended and unintended consequences (or"second order effects"), it is challenging to provide a clear and consistent framework. Moreover, effects which seem more "fair" or desirable to one, may seem patently unfair to another Direct, Intended Consequences The Committee Charge includes the phrase "if adopting the exemption could help reduce the property tax burden and make it easier for residents to remain in their homes " Interpreting this charge, the Committee identified two interpretations for the phrase "easier for residents to remain in their homes" Economic and Psychological Impact on the Household A common complaint is that Lexington property taxes make it difficult for residents to remain in their homes because large tax costs displace necessary expenses ranging from food, energy, and medical expenses to entertainment. Moreover, even if the economic impact is not a hardship, the stress that some residents may feel in realizing that property taxes are among their largest annual expenses can create a sense of stress and alienation from the town The Committee's first interpretation of the phrase "easier for residents to remain" is an attempt to measure for each type of residential exemption whether it significantly impacts economic and psychological stress in the household Impact on Household Migration Practical interpretation of the phrase "easier for residents to remain in their homes" suggests that the objective is met if residents in fact would more often remain in their Lexington homes In other words, would adopting a residential exemption impact migration decisions of residents? Some feel that high property taxes have the impact of"forcing" some residents to leave Lexington A typical political argument is that if the tax burden is decreased, fewer residents will in fact leave Lexington A literal interpretation of the charge was then to leverage data and expert opinion to evaluate whether residential exemptions would impact decisions made by Lexington households Indirect and Second-Order Effects Beyond the specific economic and migration impacts of a residential exemption, the Committee found a wide range of impacts which could ripple through the community We felt these impacts could not be neglected, though they fall outside the wording of the charge Key categories of these indirect effects also were evaluated for each type of exemption 18 Housing Impact Residential exemptions may impact housing in several respects the balance between owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied housing may shift while rents and prices may be affected For each exemption type, the Committee identified the anticipated housing effects Lexington Budgetary Impact If a residential exemption succeeds in making it easier for residents to remain in their homes, one should expect a demographic shift to occur and some change in out-migration patterns Because demographic shifts impact utilization of local services and, in particular, public school enrollment which is by far the most expensive service provided by the Town, a residential exemption might be expected to impact operating and capital costs for Lexington For each exemption type, the Committee evaluated possible budgetary impact. Equitable Taxation Real estate property taxation is grounded in a concept that owners of more property have greater ability to pay than those with less property, and therefore tax policy should be related to that property This concept of tax policy is enshrined in the Massachusetts Constitution which provides for equal taxation rates on each class of property The Committee examined how each exemption type impacts concepts of tax fairness Each exemption policy departs from residential proportionality under some conditions We identify these conditions and describe how they can relate to tax fairness Evaluative framework Any potential policy tool created to address the criteria we have described above should be evaluated for how well it will help target residents, and how well it avoids assisting those outside the target. Providing tax relief to those struggling seems a significant goal, providing tax relief to those who are not struggling is an undesirable outcome It may not be possible to meaningfully assist all of the former at the exclusion of the latter Potential public policies can be compared by how effectively tax relief reaches the target population In the interpretive portions of this report, we will use the terms precision and recall (borrowed from data science) as a framework for evaluation Precision Out of the group of people that receive benefits from an exemption, how many of them are the intended beneficiaries? The fewer unintended beneficiaries, the higher the precision Recall Out of the intended beneficiaries of an exemption, how many of them will receive benefits? The more intended beneficiaries included, the higher the recall By employing precision and recall as evaluation metrics, the Committee is able to leverage data to quantify how effective exemption public policies are likely to be in their direct consequences Separately, this report also describes indirect consequences of public policies, which must also be considered by policy makers 19 2. Housing-Cost Stress and Out-Migration in Lexington An Analysis of the Public Services and Housing Costs Survey The Committee undertook a detailed survey of Lexington residents with a goal of increased insight into financial housing stress and migration, and how these insights might relate to proposed residential property tax exemptions We wanted to assess what portion of the community experiences high stress related to property taxes, how property taxes and high stress relate to migration decisions, and whether proposed tax exemptions would benefit members of the community with greatest need or least use of services This section of the report considers survey data as a source of evidence that, by itself, does not constitute a comprehensive assessment of residential exemptions The Committee created a survey in summer-fall 2018 and administered it in the October-November 2018 time frame The survey yielded 1,475 responses from Lexington residents, or approximately 7% of the adult population The survey allows assessment of whether relationships exist between demographic and tax levels along with two behavioral variables housing stress and likelihood of leaving Lexington within ten years (migration) While behavioral variables describe subjective experiences, the Committee believes the broad outlines of the results provide insight into residential exemption policy Per the Committee's charges, two goals of a residential exemption would be to assist those with high housing stress (especially when property taxes contribute) or to impact decisions to leave Lexington To discuss measurement of possible policies, we use the conceptual framework of precision and recall 6 Precision is the percentage of those helped by a policy who are in the class of intended beneficiaries Recall is the percentage of all intended beneficiaries assisted by a given policy A complete description of this survey, including participation, evaluation of response demographics, illustrative charts, statistical analyses, and responses to open-ended questions is provided in the appendix to this report. Moreover, all data without personally identifying information (PI I) will be published This chapter will summarize key conclusions of the survey, and the appendix can be referenced for complete analysis Each conclusion will be identified along with relevance to the Massachusetts State Residential Exemption (SRE) or a Means-Tested Residential Exemption (MTRE) These exemptions are described in more detail in later chapters 5 bit.p.au.v.v g...116.,awl nro),'sit.sIDlc wlinruf • �1i 1 ;.: i, C^ Y4'° L;- I ;; " ," .:UIA,.:LP 6 Illtc :u� ror pl.prc u m o n,°ror olku,"Preci.suon and reca 20 Housing stress A first set of insights relates to housing stress, which is the frequency with which owners or renters report that they experience stress related to housing payments Housing payments may include mortgage, equity loans, home improvement, utilities, or property taxes The Committee sought to determine whether property tax remedies would materially assist residents experiencing housing stress 1 Renters report high housing stress more often than owners. The survey provided unequivocal evidence that renters are more often stressed by housing costs than owners 58% of renters report high housing stress, as compared with only 18% of owners High Housing Stress Reported Rent Own Vim IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII This finding argues against adoption of the State's Residential Exemption (SRE), because the SRE would increase taxes on owners of rental properties which may be passed through to 21 renters Additional indirect effects of increased tax rates on rental property may include apartment conversion to condominiums (to avoid the higher tax rate and let individual condominium owners take advantage of the exemption) and increased apartment rental rates (due to lower supply of apartments) 2. High housing stress is reported at all ages, lengths of residence, incomes, and home values. This finding argues against adoption of the SRE, because the SRE would provide relatively low precision many of its beneficiaries report medium or low levels of housing stress At the same time, an SRE would increase property taxes for those owning homes above the breakeven point; some of these owners already report high levels of housing stress Age v Housing Stress(Owners) Tenure v Housong Stress(Owners) 111111111 2.High litres 111111111 2.High Stres ll Medium Stres 1.Medium Stress ee+ 101000 a"11 VVVi1i 27° 54% 0 Low Stress moved in 2915 or later ie"i,+,5 """"' 40° �g..row Stress IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 19 38 56 so 79 7s IIIIIIIIIIIII 26% 57°l° HE1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 41 97 moved in 10x0-2414 m,dm'^Y�,' 102 000000000 4 6/ 69-e,9 iii 0 29% 57lIII 1 1111111111111111111 ''111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 59 116 moved in 2090-2009 €pw���l?i 35% 51% �irn. 95 139 uuuuuuuuuu Ei Q 50-59 W11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 330 , 98 136 1*I� 36° 48% 9 1111111 I VIII moved In 1990-ll499 '4,.1—II 71 96 11111 111111111111111111 36% 45l lllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 127 158 ImoVed In 1980-ll469 ` II'1'1'1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111 2 26 55'8% 30x39 Ihlii'lii 1I 111i111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 50% 31% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII so 31 111 0-10 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 25% 50% "11111111111111111111111111111:. 24° s7°✓ 1 Imo4ed In 1979 and ea YllelY E"' 111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 121 Only include r-_pancfents r,FonLIbie Ito,-housing =rs III,un_lude r,:pan den,,r,Fonsible for housing 5,s 22 Income v Housing Stress(Owners) Home Value v Housing Stress(Owners) IIIIIIII 2 Mlgh Sties IIIIIIII 2 KO Stres III 1 Medium stres r11100iv'"iil 20% 69 ll Mediumstres 9.Lou Stress $2,000,000+ �V� 0 Lou Stress $200 ODD+ n lN$ I 32 f 571 IIIIIIIIIIIIII 11 38 145 260 II, $1.750.000-1.999599 VII ,IIIIIIII 38% 49% $150.900-199995 nll0000 lllllllllllllplll 40% 40% am 22 1,..........iiiil 67 67 1111111111111111111111111111111 muuuu 32% 54% $1,500000-1.744999 a IlVli`u 27 45 uuuuuuuum 0000000000 8100000-149.999 °i i�iu 37% 44 ����� muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 76 92 m$1750,000 498999 l'a��1 uml 32% 52°1 411 WIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 41 66 &° a w 0,000-1,149999 11 I� llli11IIIIII 0000 000000000000000000000 r$1,0 34% 49% iiiiiiii ViV° 00000000000000000000 100 143 337%3/ ���������������������� $75oom-9e,9996� w Ig $750,..,„,999 u.Jl I$,I15iiiiiiiiiiiiil, 36% 45% 0 000000000000000000000000 ° ;..uuuuuuuum 145 181 um $50,00074.999 1 IV01 u 27% 41% I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 20 30 8500,0°5 500,0 749 999 µu wan30% 44 uuuuuuuuuumuuuuuuuuuul 53 7.8 00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 $0-49,999 ;4 30% 195' II HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 32�0 39 °' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1$ 1$ $D-499 999 v iM m 9 11 lnh un-lodes r=o�ndeo4 responsible far h esinia .rs r )rlclucla rFsu,ndenrs r pcnsi Lle dor howsimor costs A note on interpreting stacked horizontal bar charts on stress and migration Colors colors have been chosen to represent levels of the parameter being measured, in most cases "housing stress" or"forecast of intent to move" Stress and intent to move were measured on a five or six point scale, but adjacent categories are grouped to be easily interpreted using a three color scheme Stacked bars Each row corresponds to the entire number of respondents meeting the criteria labelled on the left (100%) A colored bar is shown with area proportionate to the respondents in that category (percent) Below the primary label showing the percent value is an integer value, representing the actual number of respondents This actual number can be used to interpret the significance of the finding, as small counts (<20) have less reliability than higher number counts Interpreting percentages these charts indicate the frequency with which respondents report a sentiment of the questioned intensity, which is different from respondent intensity The language in the report uses the term "frequency" to reference how often respondents indicated an issue 3. Income is a better predictor of housing stress than is home value. This finding (bottom left figure in the prior section) illustrates that a means-tested residential exemption based on income would provide for the higher precision than a SRE based on home value Note the higher rates of housing stress at lower income levels (bottom left) in comparison to rates of housing stress at lower home values (bottom right) 23 4 Means tested targeting offers higher precision than the State's Residential Exemption (SRE), but low recall This chart uses survey variables to construct an approximation for eligibility to a generic means tested exemption, and shows stress levels for those with value 1 (eligible) v 0 (ineligible) Means Tested Approx Qualified v Housing Stress(Owners) IIIIIIIIIIII 2.High Stress 1, Medium Stress 1 Low Stress 1 28% 31% 20 22 cs �r. tm La z C u. Lsiluuumuuuuuuuuuuu 34mrm 49% 3u3 562 )ASI, 'Includes respondents responsible for housing costo Only a small portion of households that responded to our survey would benefit from an MTRE (low recall), but a means-tested exemption would have higher precision High precision means that most beneficiaries have the target criteria (high housing stress) However, an MTRE would have low recall, because only about 10-15% of homeowners experiencing high housing stress would be eligible We conclude that neither the SRE nor an MTRE offers both high precision and high recall helping many who need assistance while ensuring help lands mostly with those who need it. 24 Migration potential A second set of insights relates to a question about future migration Residents were asked whether they anticipated migrating from Lexington in the next ten years The survey allowed us to examine the relationship between high likelihood of departing Lexington and demographic variables 5. Renters are more likely to migrate than owners. Owning and Renting v Mligratian 11111111 Likely INeutrall Unfulkely tientuI,Il al! t m 1, IIIIII III20% aau 28 28 0 Own ������������������ ������������������ 34% 31% 1111111111 111 424 386 3n1, 'includes respondents responsible for he using costo 51% of renters forecast leaving in the next 10 years compared to 34% of owners We would expect renters to constitute a more transient population, and yet find it noteworthy that 34% of owners also anticipate leaving Lexington The Committee has no benchmark to evaluate this percentage, but notes that it seems a high rate for anticipated migration, as actual migration would also include unexpected life changes and events beyond what survey residents can forecast. 25 6. Housing stress significantly drives migration for homeowners. Housing Stress v Migration (Owners) 11111111 Likely Neutral) Illlllllllllllllllllllllll�����(llllllllllluw Uulikrelly 4 Substantial ,111111111111111111111111111111111111::111111111111 �91111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 18% 20% uuullllll 1111111111 9 10 uwuuuuuuuwuuuuuuuuu tl I III iiiiilu Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll�llllll11llllllllllliiiiiiiiiiiiliiiluuuu 3.Significant li11ppllllllppp11ppllllllllliwuuuuuilwuuuu 27f 18/ uuullllll III 46 31 v;7 � �������IIIIIIIuuIuulll"""" ol 2.SolomeIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 35°✓m 26 i`m uuullllll 140 '103 1,(Little ap uwuuwuw"'illi)) �f1 38% uuullllll "1r 117 110 0.None �' 35% 41°,� uuullllll �'r1�II 104 121 inly includes respondent:responsible for housing ccstr We see a strong relationship between housing stress and forecasted out-migration This survey does not prove that a causal relationship exists, only a correlation is demonstrated between housing stress and anticipated migration 26 7 Home value and income are not significant predictors of migration for homeowners. Income v Migration(Owners) Home Value v Migration(Owners) III Likely VIII Likely 33% 33% neutral 1""11111111 IIIIIIIIIII Neutral $2 000000+ J,+h,llllllll llsa sa Unlikely $200,000+ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 29%130 Geo Unlikely $1750,000-1999999 28% 33% �� 13 Ssill lllll������. $150,000-199999 gy, llllllllll( 37° 290 62 49 $1s00,000-17+9999 26% t% 23 lllllllm° $100 000-149999 IIIIIIIIIII 37% 24° Kat 77 51 ,,$1,250,000-1499,999 IlsI 3fi�% 33%� E pullll""' Pa X$1.000,000-L,^{9.999 �IIIIII Illllll 307 3�"m $7s00 _9,999 42° 229 'll 38 20 $750 000-999 999 II,III'i,illllllllllllllllllll 32/ 3097 �uuullllllll 111 12Z (III llllluw $50005-74999 3090 21ll li 111 42%78 50% $500 0007+9 999 VIII(( lllllu' a llllllli 421 2fi/ 'Illllll $0 49,999 $0-499 99s II I'.I 3 0 10 24 15 Illllllllllll 15 s5 I����� nh dutle p tlenra ,Ibleh b q srs rh cli els sp tlenrs sp .ible far Lr a srs The finding that home value and income do not predict migration demonstrates that an effective public policy to address migration concerns would have to address housing stress without simply relying on home value or income as proxies for stress Surprisingly, those with the lowest income levels or home values have depressed levels of migration relative to those with median incomes and home values One conclusion is that owners with the lowest incomes and home values may feel precluded from relocating by economic considerations Another conclusion is that a direct application of SRE or MTRE might not be expected to reduce migration significantly 7 Note As the Committee has not compared migration rates with other communities or looked at changes over time,the extent to which there is a migration "problem" in Lexington is not known 27 Means Tested Approx Qualified v Migration (Owers) 111111111 Likely Neutral Unillukelly 1 111111111 uuuuuiuuu�u �ll, I VIII 40% 29% KKIIIIIIIII 24 21 0X a a Q 4, U, a mI II 34%m 32% 11uuuullwuuuw III'^i 395 355 Al )rIy'includes respardent5 recponsible for housing cctitr The chart above categorizes survey respondents into those which are quite similar to (approximately qualified) for a typical means-tested exemption (1) and those which are not qualified (0) This chart shows very little difference in migration forecasts between the qualified population and other respondents Therefore, the data does not provide evidence of migration impact for the targeted group with a means-tested exemption We conclude that both SRE and MTRE approaches may assist in reducing housing stress for some portions of our community, but it is unclear that these programs would change how long people stay in their homes 28 8. Middle aged populations have the highest forecast of migration Age v Migration (Owners) 111111111 Wlkely IFIu !!!!!'VIII( Neutral 80+ 1IIIIIIIII 43% 37% Wnlikelly91111( ze 70-7947%jrll1llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllmu1 24%� uuul "I�IIIIII8342VIII 111111111111 60-6 32% 29% 9 ��r uuu II VIII 67 62 5(�59 1111 �I ���lllllllum�" Illllluuu� uu� 35% al 50-59 pp,I �I16% uuul l�µlnll 104 4'9 40-49 ������ '� II111i� �llllllllllllllll���iiiu31% 39% 110 135 uuululllll"°° 30-39 1mll 1iiiiii lllllllllllllllli 23% 58%�u(III (III 23 59 0-29 25% 75% 1 3 '3nly includes respondents recpnnsible far housing cask The survey data shows that expectation to leave Lexington is highest among 50-59 year olds, with about half of residents in this age category expecting to leave Lexington within 10 years A residential exemption with a requirement of age 65+, such as most existing models for MTRE, would not benefit this population Instead, an age 65+-targeted exemption would help a group that is self-forecasting lower levels of migration It appears that senior residential exemption programs target populations which in Lexington have lower levels of forecast migration or mobility Open Response Comments 9. Lexington residents are quite concerned about the steady increase in local taxes The survey was constructed to focus initially on town services, and yet residents used the first open response question to raise concerns about property taxes even before the first explicit 29 mention of taxes in the survey Many respondents expressed gratitude at the opportunity to share their feelings about taxes and about housing stress, and appreciate that the Town is listening The appendix provides an enumeration of the most frequent words used in open response comments and sample quotes Key repeated points from open response comments • High property taxes are on the minds of many Lexington residents • Fixed income residents or those approaching retirement are concerned about how to manage large and increasing property tax burdens • Residents do not understand why taxes continue to escalate at a high rate, and some feel Lexington government spends beyond what is necessary • Residents would like to stay in Lexington, but some find the cost prohibitive • Some residents feel the town services are great, while others feel they are too few for the high property taxes that they pay • Medium and long term residents report that their taxes have tripled or more since moving to Lexington • Residents in unimproved, small homes do not understand why their property taxes are substantial • Property taxes increase much faster than inflation Statistical Study Our multivariable study suggests that property taxes may impact propensity to move via housing stress, but the effect is minimal and really only exists for those for whom property taxes constitute the preponderance of monthly housing costs Summary In summary, Lexington residents are concerned about housing costs and property taxes across a wide demographic spectrum Fixed exemption programs like the SRE which shift taxes from low assessed value homes to those with high assessed values would have low precision as many beneficiaries do not have high housing stress, and such a program would shift higher taxes on to other residents--including numerous residents who experience high housing stress Those receiving a higher tax burden may include those at a life stage and with financial resources to respond to a tax shift by migrating from Lexington A residential exemption could exacerbate migration patterns Thus, the survey data does not provide support for the state residential exemption A Means Tested Residential Exemption could be structured to provide higher precision, with many beneficiaries who experience high housing stress The limitation of such a program is low recall fewer than 15% of residents reporting high housing stress would benefit from such an 30 exemption As a targeted program it may seem more attractive than the SRE, but it will have very limited scope and yet carry higher implementation costs (see Ghapiieir 6) Residents have voiced concern about the overall level of property taxes in Lexington, and neither exemption provides across-the-board tax relief to all residents To address these needs, the Town would have to look to actions outside the scope of this Committee The stress of owning a home in Lexington may not be evenly shared, a high stress burden occurs across a wide spectrum of Lexington's homeowners Any public policy which addresses the needs of some homeowners will necessarily shift this burden onto other homeowners or onto renters, who may also feel burdened Policy makers need to take resentment and burden shifting onto already-burdened populations into account when making such a shift. 31 3. Property Tax Relief Measures Currently Available to Lexington Residents Town Programs The Committee examined programs in place in Lexington today to assist homeowners with property taxes Property Tax Exemptions The Town of Lexington has adopted most local-option tax exemption programs enabled by State legislation and has expanded all program benefits to the maximum extent allowable by statute Most programs are designed to aid veterans, blind people, surviving spouses of firemen and policemen killed in the line of duty, or income-qualified seniors An exemption from the Town's Community Preservation Act Surcharge is the only local property tax program that applies to income-qualified property tax payers of any age Tax Exemptions are a cost to the Town, partially reimbursed by the State The cost of FY2018 property tax exemptions is estimated to be approximately $201,000 The State reimbursement is estimated to be approximately $89,000 1111111111, 1 11,1111111111111111111 111' litl - 11 !IlltolllllllJJ"""'� ,,t !! t1��1�rllr ffJ� llJll flo 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 .11111,1 1111111111 111111111111111111111 r 1 !to Massachusetts General Laws Abbreviated Description FY2019 Exemptions Chapter 59,Section 5 More qualifications and details Exemption Granted Exemptions will apply Amount In FY2018 (latest available data) Clause and Name 17D Surviving Spouses, minors or Total assets other than house of less $350 2 persons 70 years or over than$40 000 No income limit 18 HardshipHardship due to age infirmity and 100% 0 poverty At discretion of Board of Assessors 18A Temporary Deferral-limitedFinancial hardship due to change to 100% 0 duration active military status 22(a f)VeteransPurple Heart recipients, or $800 65 service-related 10%disabled or more Gold Star Parents,and others 22A Veterans&surviving spousesService related loss of one foot, $1 500 0 hand or sight in one eye or certain military service decoration award winners 22B Veterans&surviving spouses. Service-related loss of use of both $2,500 0 feet, hands, sight in both eyes 32 22C Veterans&surviving spouses Service-related 100%disability and $3 000 0 living in specially adapted housing 22D Surviving spouse Un-remarried spouse of serviceman 100% 2 presumed dead or who died due to service-related injury 22E Veterans&surviving spouses Service-related 100%disability $2,000 8 22F PARA Paraplegics&surviving Paraplegic from service-related injury 100% 4 spouses of paraplegics 37A Blind Persons certified blind $1 000 14 41 C Certain elderly persons 65 years Low income and low assets $2,000 25 of age or over 42 Surviving spouses of police 100% 1 officers/firefighters killed in the line of duty CPA SURCHARGE EXEMPTION Moderate income seniors and 100% 176 Under Massachusetts General Laws non seniors. Income limits scaled to of CPA surcharge Chapter 44B household size $317 avg exemption TOTAL 295 01-17-2019 Property Tax Deferrals Property Tax Deferrals enable seniors to postpone paying any or all of their property tax until the property is conveyed or they or a surviving spouse dies Lexington's Property Tax Deferral Program provides the opportunity for the greatest amount of property tax relief of all programs available to seniors In 2006, Lexington successfully petitioned the State legislature to allow the Town to provide lower interest rates and more generous income qualifications than the State property tax deferral law allowed at that time In the ensuing years, Lexington has incrementally increased qualifying income limits and has matched deferral interest rates to the Monthly One Year Constant Maturity Treasury Rate as published by the Federal Reserve Board for the first week in March preceding the Town's new Fiscal Year This rate generally runs below the Prime Rate and roughly matches the interest that the deferred amounts would have earned if the funds had been held in Lexington's free cash accounts 8 Seniors who defer their property tax may also defer water and sewer charges With a total of 877 deferrals among all Massachusetts municipalities in FY2018, utilization rates for Property Tax Deferrals are very low state-wide Lexington has been one of the top three 8 The simple interest rates on Lexington deferrals have ranged from a high of 4 77% in FY2007, to a low of 0 12% in 2015 The FY2019 interest rate is 1 96% The income cut-off has increased incrementally from $40,000 in FY2007 to $70,000 in FY2019 Each year's deferral is treated as an individual loan at the fixed interest rate in effect in its year of origin 33 municipalities in deferral utilization, but despite recent gains in participation, Lexington, with only 42 deferrals in FY2018, is no exception to the low utilization rates found across the State Anecdotal evidence suggests that seniors feel that a deferral would indicate a "desperation" that is out of proportion to their situation, or they want to leave their home unencumbered to their heirs A small number of seniors who would like to defer have existing equity loans or mortgages and are blocked from deferring by their lenders who are sometimes unwilling to allow their liens to become secondary to Lexington's tax liens Unlike tax exemptions, tax deferrals are not subsidized by other taxpayers beyond any differential between the interest rate charged and the actual cost to the Town Senior Service Program Administered by Lexington's Human Services Department, Lexington's FY2019 Senior Service Program provides a property tax credit of up to $1,540 per household for seniors with household incomes of up to $70,000 in exchange for work performed at $11 per hour for the Town or the School Department. This program is paid for from a line-item in the Town budget. Twelve seniors benefited from this program in FY2018 at a cost to the Town of$13,733 50 Utilization of Property Tax Programs in Lexington Very small numbers of Lexington residents benefit from the Town's property tax exemption and deferral programs With the exception of Property Tax Deferrals, which have seen a substantial increase in an otherwise extremely low utilization rate, the major programs have experienced steady declines, likely due to the lower number of veterans now in Lexington and the higher incomes of the more recent elderly population Def rralll and III.. xerinpflii. n Utiiiiiizatlii n 20-9 to 2018 111111111111111 22 (a t) .V:P raw"; I[: xP rrrptioln., 41 c I[: Id E,rll j IF: i .mptiions V:: rcpf rty Tax i.1efa rr tills 123 - 120, '114 108 ,73 0, 70, ,65 39 43 44 39 43 4.1 42 26 28 28 29 29 29 28 27 24 25 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 201 5 201b 2017 2018 State Program 34 The Massachusetts Senior Circuit Breaker Property Tax Credit Administered by the State through the income tax return process, this program provides a tax credit or a direct payment from the State of one dollar for every dollar that the owner's property tax exceeds 10% of his or her income, up to $1,100 Renters also qualify for the State Circuit Breaker when 25% of their rent exceeds 10% of their income Income limits, house value limits and the maximum credit change annually by a cost of living adjustment. This program has no cost to the Town of Lexington In 2009, 735 Lexington taxpayers received State Circuit Breaker benefits The number of beneficiaries has declined steadily since then In Tax Year 2016, 447 Lexington seniors received Circuit Breaker benefits at an average of$1,032 each The decline in utilization in Lexington is likely due to the Circuit Breaker's house value cut-off Over time, Lexington's median house value has increased faster than the Circuit Breaker's house value limit, which is based on State averages State Circuit Breaker Parameters, Tax Year 2018 Income Limit Single $58 000 Head of Household $73 000 Married,filing jointly $88 000 House Value Limit $778 000 Maximum Credit Given $1 100 35 4. Residential Properties in Lexington The tax policies discussed in this report apply to properties classified as residential property per Massachusetts law and assessment guidelines However, the typical taxpayer or Town Meeting Member is likely not familiar with all of the instances of residential property This chapter provides an overview of all residential property classes, with details specific to Lexington The information in this chapter serves as a reference for further chapters that evaluate how changes in tax policy impact residential property holders As a matter of policy, a residential tax exemption pertains to a person's primary residence. The Committee understands that per the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, a Lexington home is considered a primary residence when it is the homeowner's principal and legal home, where family, social, civic and economic life is centered and where the homeowner plans to return whenever he or she is away In general this definition would be unambiguous for most citizens However, the Committee is also aware that some citizens may live in a gray area where they could willfully adjust their town or state of residence, legally or illegally One example, might be so-called "snow birds" which spend part of a year in Florida and part of a year in Massachusetts, and may give consideration to a variety of financial incentives in declaring residency Later chapters discuss both the existing State Residential Tax Exemption and possible means-tested tax exemptions Because these models largely benefit owner-occupied residential properties, this chapter also provides information on which types of residential properties are likely to be owner-occupied This section's data reflects Lexington residential property in Fiscal Year 2019, and what we know of significant near term projects While these concrete examples help examine near-term impact, policy makers should consider the evolving needs of the community as well Classification of Residential Properties The State's Residential Exemption (SRE) statute creates exemptions for particular"Class One, residential" properties These Code 1 residential properties are distinct from industrial, commercial, and personal property and are defined as follows "CODE 1 M G L. Chapter 59 §2A All real property used or held for human habitation containing one or more dwelling units including rooming houses with facilities assigned and used for living, sleeping, cooking and eating on a non-transient basis, and including a bed and breakfast home with no more than three rooms for rent. Such property includes accessory land, buildings or improvements incidental to such habitation and used exclusively by the residents of the property or their guests Such property shall include (i) land that is situated in a residential zone and has been subdivided into residential lots, and (ii) land used for the purpose of a manufactured housing community, as defined in Chapter 140, §32F Such property shall not include a hotel or motel 36 Incidental accessory land, buildings or improvements would include garages, sheds, inground swimming pools, tennis courts, etc Non-incidental accessory land, classified and coded differently, would include mixed use properties, such as a variety store, machine shop, etc on a residential parcel " Residential Property Types The Lexington assessment database includes the following types of residential property. 111 I �/1111,110111111111 woro 111111111111111111 000 ignifloomo 000 0 000001 r ; . �i f�� 110 w I.I � � � 1 itl ,.1! 00000vl,101 11 VIww 11000 1 II 1111"1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'HiloollIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi01111111111111111111111110 II OW Single Family9,030 $9,486,786,000 89 7% $1,050,588 $939,000 Yes Condominium 1,057 $623,512,900 5 9% $589,889 $530,000 Yes Two Family 159 $135,414,000 1 3% $851,660 $783,000 Yes Three Family 11 $9,451,000 0 1% $859,182 $810,000 Yes Multiple Houses 31 $40,179,000 0 4% $1,296,097 $1,256,000 Yes Four Unit Apts 1 $899,000 0 0% $899,000 $899,000 Yes 8+ Unit Apts 8 $196,268,000 1 9% $24,533,500 $14,416,000 No Group Living 4 $7,020,000 0 1% $1,755,000 $1,329,500 No Child care facility 5 $7,027,000 0 1% $1,405,400 $1,076,000 No Mixed Use 17 $11,022,920 0 1% $648,407 $1,082,000 Yes Miscellaneous (106) 35 $6,100,000 0 1% $174,286 $78,000 Yes Developable Land 53 $30,142,000 0 3% $568,717 $519,000 No Potentially Developable Land 63 $6,864,000 0 1% $108,952 $109,000 No Undevelopable Land 398 $8,768,000 0 1% $22,030 $23,000 No Land (adjustment) $1,185,000 0 0% No $10,570,638,82 10,872 0 $972,281 *Parcel count is the number of assessed parcels A single apartment parcel may provide housing for hundreds of families, and therefore the parcel count only provides a partial view of the number of impacted individuals and families **Classifications are described in hilt§ www IVf iligirgnM i q1If''uf11111 gini t m' tfq, P m . .'uf,Ku1I1WP,la rEsid dcm frog 2 018 odf and nttIP www mass m.ss goy dordocs (ills'I ilm s lam. ilficcitilou cod€book pclf 37 From this table, a few key points should be highlighted about Lexington's residential tax base • Homes which could be owner-occupied (single family, two family, three family, condominium, and multiple houses on one parcel) account for 97% of residential assessed value in Lexington • Condominiums account for about 10% of all residential parcels, but are also distinctive in having lower median and mean assessed values than other owner-occupied properties • Eight commercial apartment buildings have a combined $196 million in assessed value A fixed residential exemption offers no real benefit to these operations, and is impossible with commercial ownership However, as will be discussed in a later section on indirect effects, the apartments penalized by residential tax exemptions might be convertible to condominiums, which are rewarded by residential tax exemptions • Group living facilities and child care facilities are typically operated with commercial ownership and not owner-occupied • Until developed, land cannot be owner-occupied Only 53 lots in Lexington are deemed "developable", and tax policies could impact motivation to develop these properties The following sections are intended to provide additional flavor to the types of properties of each class which exist in Lexington Single Family Homes in Lexington In FY2019, the mean single family home assessment in Lexington is $1,050,588, while the median home assessment is $939,000 The mean is higher than the median due to the long tail of high-end residential properties, some even above the $3,000,000 truncation for the following chart: 38 Single Family Homes Frequency by Assessed Value (limit $3,000,000) $3 000 000 5 $2 950 000 2 $2 900 000 1 $2 850 060 4 $2 800 000 6 $2 750 000 3 $2 700 000 2 $2 650 000 6 $2 600 000 8 $2,550 000 1. $2,500 000 5 $2 450 000 15 $2 400 000 14 $2,350 000 3 $2,300 000 15 $2,250 000 13 $2,200 000 19 $2 150 000 20 $2 100 000 30 $2 050 000 36 $2 000 000 39 $1,950 000 46 $1,900 000 54 $1,850 000 64 $1,800 000 64 $1,750 000 82 10 $1,650 000 87 121 $1,600 000 132 C $1,550 000 111 N $1,500 000 138 E $1,450 000 176 N $1,400 000 175 $1,350 060 234 u) $1,300 000 227 Q $1,250 060 238 $1,200 000 290 $1,150 000 713 $1,100 000 310 $1,050 000 414 $1,000 000 438 $950 000 414 $900 000 494 $850 000 40c $800 000 711 $750 000 675 $700 000 705 $650 000 656 $600 000 479 $550 000 255 $500 000 00 $450 000 33 $400 000 8 $350 000 1 $300 000 2 $250 000 5 $200 000 2 $150 000 4 $100 000 0 $50 000 0 $0 5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Count of Properties The chart above shows the count of properties assessed by$50,000 increments For example, 90 properties are assessed for amounts from $500,000 to $549,999 This chart shows that large numbers of properties are assessed in the $600,000-$900,000 range, well below the median property assessment. This means that a large cluster of single family home owners would receive some financial benefit from a residential exemption Two-Family Homes in Lexington Two-family homes are typically assessed at lower values than single family homes, and no Lexington two-family homes are currently assessed above $2,000,000 39 Two Family Homes Frequency by Assessed Value (limit $2,500,000) $2,500 000 0 $2 450 000 0 $2 400 000 0 $2,350 000 0 $2,300 000 0 $2,250 000 0 $2,200 000 0 $2 150 006 0 $2 100 000 0 $2 050 000 0 $2 000 000 0 $1,950 006 0 $1,900 000 0 $1,850 006 1 $1,800 000 0 $1,750 000 0 $1,700 006 1 $1,650 000 0 $1,600 000 1 $1,550 006 0 $1,500 000 1 $1,450 006 0 75 $1,400 000 $1,350 006 1 $1,300 000 0 N $1,250 006 4 E $1,200 000 2 cin $1,150 006 4 $1,100 000 7 $1,050 000 5 $1,000 000 10 $950 000 11 $900 000 6 $850 000 5 $800 000 ii $750 000 17 $700 000 15 $650 000 21 $600 000 18 $550 000 8 $500 000 2 $450 000 1 $400 000 0 $350 000 0 $300 000 1 $250 000 0 $200 000 0 $150 000 1 $100 000 0 $50 000 0 $0 0 0.0 2.5 5.0 7 5 10.0 12.5 15 0 17.5 20 0 Count of Properties A two-family home can have only one owner occupant, and therefore the physical structure can earn only a single owner-occupied exemption However, with sufficient tax incentives, the owner of a two-family home might convert the structure to two condominiums The effect of the conversion would impact taxes (both condominiums could potentially receive owner-occupied exemptions thereby lowering tax incidence) and demographic (condominium owners could be expected to be a wealthier and more stable population than renters) Condominiums in Lexington With a median assessed value of$530,000, condominiums in Lexington have lower values than two-family homes Due to their lower assessed values, nearly all Lexington condominium 40 owners would benefit from the SRE's fixed exemption per property which shifts taxes to higher valued properties Condonnirciums Frequency by Assessed Value (limit $2,500,000) $2,500 000 0 $2 450 000 0 $2 400 000 0 $2,350 000 0 $2,300 000 0 $2,250 000 0 $2,200 000 0 $2 150 000 0 $2 100 000 0 $2 050 000 0 $2 000 000 0 $1,950 000 0 $1,900 000 1 $1,850 000 0 $1,800 000 0 $1,750 000 0 $1,700 000 0 $1,650 000 1 $1,600 000 0 $1,550 000 2 $1,500 000 0 $1,450 000 0 75 $1,400 000 0 > $1,350 COO $1,300 000 (1) $1,250 COO 9 E $1,200 000 5 $1,150 COO 5 5,1 $1,100 000 17 0 $1,050 000 20 $1,000 000 25 $950 000 24 $900 000 32 $850 000 2: $800 000 $750 000 $700 000 48 $650 000 7e $600 000 72 $550 000 52 $500 000 11D $450 000 131 $400 000 150 $350 000 50 $300 000 41 $250 000 24 $200 000 $150 000 $100 000 6 $50 000 0 $0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Count of Properties 41 Large Apartment Complexes in Lexington Eight large apartment complexes contribute about $200,000,000 in total assessments to Lexington's residential property tax base, resulting in approximately $2,800,000 in property taxes These properties are comprised of 984 units with an average property tax contribution of approximately $2,845 per unit. 111111111111 ,11,Illi Avalon Lexington Hills 1000 Main Campus Drive $82,852,000 387 Avalon Lexington Ridge 987 Waltham Street $37,960,000 198 Battle Green 32 Worthen Road $8,135,000 48 Captain Parker Arms (Avalon) 125 Worthen Road $19,199,000 94 Countryside Manor 425 Woburn Road $9,633,000 51 Franklin School Stedman Road $5,491,000 38 Katandin Woods 307 Wood Street $25,382,000 128 1 April Lane 1 April Lane $7,616,000 40 $196,268,000 984 While the impact of residential exemptions on apartments will be covered in later sections, three noteworthy points are appropriate when one considers this class of property in general First, apartment buildings are commercial enterprises Yet, Massachusetts tax law taxes commercial apartment buildings at the residential tax rate rather than the commercial tax rate Lexington is among a number of communities which have a "split" tax rate, where commercial parcels pay a higher tax rate than residential parcels for FY2019 the Lexington commercial tax rate is $27 69 compared with $14 30 for the residential tax rate Therefore, while one could regret an increase in apartment building property taxes due to an SRE, another perspective is that these businesses are operating in Lexington at a deep tax discount relative to other commercial enterprises Second, and unlike other commercial businesses, apartments have a clear and negative impact on Lexington's financial structure The 2014 Enrollment Working Group Report indicated that in 2015, 43 6% of apartment units had school children with an average 1 46 students per apartment with children Therefore, the apartments collectively house about 626 public school students In FY2016, Lexington spent $18,003 per pupil9 So, at FY2016 spending levels, the impact of 626 public school students would be $11,269,878 Because the total contribution of apartments to Lexington for all taxes ($2,800,000) is less than 25% of the educational operating 9 ➢.:U.1, J�Je jijag,tojanat,c iciims.'lliib,"I ➢J,j Jiv ), 'l 7, ,,';11fi1,al4 i ;('111:: roc(,nnfi. . ,, i -1 slide 10 42 costs (excluding capital), these apartment buildings demand substantially more from the Lexington fiscal base than is covered by their tax contributions Finally, while apartment buildings may support a broader demographic than single family homes, they also serve another purpose for Lexington, which is to contribute materially to the town's goal of 10% affordable housing Of Lexington's 1328 Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) Units,10 802 are provided by five apartment buildings If Lexington's SHI were to fall below 10% affordable housing, then Chapter 40B rules would allow developers to bypass certain local zoning regulations Therefore, these apartments serve a useful function for a town seeking to regulate residential development. Undeveloped Land Land in residential districts is categorized and assessed depending on the ease with which it can be transformed into occupied residential property Developable land has a higher assessment (median $519,000 in FY2019) than undevelopable land A tax policy which penalizes developable land for remaining idle (e g missing out on an owner-occupied residential exemption) could spur development of these assets into owner-occupied housing The terms "potentially developable land" and "undevelopable land" refer to properties which might not be easily developed These properties also cannot be owner-occupied, so owners of these properties cannot benefit from exemptions for owner-occupied properties It seems reasonable to expect that many of the privately owned, undevelopable lands are small tracts abutting a parcel owner's primary residence For-Profit Child Care Facilities Although commercial enterprises, for-profit child care facilities are classified and taxed as residential properties Lexington currently has five such properties Vlll µ. "011111111iU1111111111;,,,,,,,,, ,,��llll/ � �r P U,1111111111$1,111111111,11,i,08!178,0 llllltiJfp» iiU ,1y I IIIIII IIIIII Itirm. Bright Horizons 903 Waltham Street $1,718,000 First Circle Learning Center 80 Maple Street $879,000 Goddard School 332 Concord Avenue $1,076,000 (under construction at time of assessment) LEAP School 210 Marrett Road $2,445,000 Lexington Knowledge Beginnings 429 Marrett Road $909,000 $7,027,000 10 a ttps www rhsou cvl.Spng Ora node 81 "hou.sino dinvw ntort Note Under the 40B law, the Town's SHI receives credit for all affordable and market rate units in a development when at least 20% to 25% of the units are deeded to be affordable The Town's current nominal affordable housing percentage is 11 12%, although the actual percentage of affordable units is smaller 43 For-profit child care facilities are not owner-occupied, and therefore would not benefit from a residential exemption Again, as these are commercial enterprises in practice, one could reasonably debate whether the desired policy for taxes should be the current residential tax rate or the much higher commercial tax rate Group Living Facilities Group living facilities are classified as residential rather than commercial Lexington currently has four group living facilities IIII llllllllm' °���� '�� IIMN � 1J1�11111���1/lllll��rriiiiim,,,,,,, � 1 0I���III , linil�'luW jf°,, n Elm mo Artis Senior Living 430 Concord Road $3,181,000 Supportive Living 7 Oakland Street $1,378,000 50 Percy Road $1,281,000 52 Percy Road $1,180,000 $7,020,000 Lexington's fall 2018 Town Meeting approved development of two additional facilities an assisted living facility (Waterstone) and a memory care facility (Bridges) These are for-profit enterprises which, once built, are expected to be classified as a residential group facility The Fall 2018 presentation to Town Meeting projected that these properties would contribute $600,000 in property taxes per year to Lexington, suggesting a residential assessment of about $42,000,000 The combined Waterstone and Bridges projects illustrate how quickly new residential solutions might be adopted in Lexington, and hence the importance for policy makers to consider the impact of exemption policies on future housing initiatives Again, as commercial businesses, for-profit group living facilities receive favorable tax treatment in Lexington when compared with commercially zoned businesses However, because Lexington's residential and commercial tax rates may already differ significantly from peer communities, economic competitiveness also deserves consideration, not just fairness relative to other commercial businesses Brookhaven Brookhaven is a lifecare community for seniors that provides services ranging from assisted living through nursing home care It is considered to be a not-for-profit community Currently, Symmes Lifecare Inc (d/b/a Brookhaven) makes a negotiated Payment In Lieu Of Taxes (PILOT) to Lexington rather than being taxed directly as a residential property It is unresolved whether Lexington could tax Brookhaven directly rather than accepting this payment in lieu of taxes 44 In 2017, Brookhaven entered into a memorandum of understanding with Lexington that will increase its PILOT payments This was part of a larger agreement with Brookhaven concerning a planned Brookhaven expansion This revised PILOT will increase Brookhaven's payment in lieu of taxes to $573,001 in FY2022 Because Brookhaven pays a PILOT, no change in residential exemption policy will directly impact tax payments from Brookhaven However, a residential exemption could increase the gap between PILOT payments and what Brookhaven would pay if taxed directly Adoption of the State's Residential Exemption could motivate renegotiation of the Brookhaven agreement, or contribute to a revised PILOT level when future negotiation occurs " Affordable and Subsidized Housing Lexington has more than 800 subsidized and affordable apartment units and houses that are owned, managed, funded or overseen by a complex variety of government entities and private building owners Units owned by the government are not subject to property tax, and would not be affected by the adoption of the SRE Much of Lexington's affordable housing consists of designated apartments located within privately owned apartment buildings While the apartment buildings themselves would see an increase in property tax if the Town were to adopt the SRE, rental rates for the affordable units are dictated by the State and would remain unaffected Lexington also has almost 90 units of deed-restricted affordable ownership apartments These units are privately owned by income-qualified owners and in perpetuity may be sold only to other income-qualified owners at a controlled price These units are required to be the primary residence of the owner and may not be rented out. With low assessments, these residences would receive a decrease in their property tax if the Town were to adopt the SRE Conclusion This chapter describes the many types of properties which contribute to Lexington's residential property tax base While some properties--such as single-family homes, two-family homes and condominiums--may be owner-occupied, others such as large apartment buildings and group housing facilities are generally not owner-occupied It is noteworthy that some properties are taxed at residential rates despite being commercial in nature One could argue that these properties are under-taxed relative to their purely commercial peers, and in fact some might not provide sufficient taxes to cover their economic impact on the town But Lexington does not exist in a vacuum, so these arguments should be tempered by Lexington's competitive position in the residential housing market. As Lexington considers changing how taxes are derived from the residential tax base, policy makers should recognize that new projects as well as zoning changes could impact how residential properties are utilized Policy makers should think not only about short term impacts, 11 The Committee does not have any evidence that Lexington would renegotiate with Brookhaven, so this section serves to make policy makers aware of this possibility or implied tax levels 45 but also what types of long term impacts are sought as well as whether Lexington will have flexibility in responding to changes in housing needs in our society, and whether tax changes would impact competitiveness for all classes of residential owners with surrounding communities 46 5. The Massachusetts Residential Exemption The Residential Exemption Policy Study Committee's original charge was to study the Massachusetts Residential Exemption, a local option available to all municipalities After weighing the pros and cons of this exemption, the Committee requested an expansion of scope to include means-tested residential exemptions as found in other communities, most of which were enacted by special legislation gained by home rule petitions This chapter will cover Massachusetts's statutory residential exemption, while the next chapter examines means-tested residential exemptions To avoid confusion, throughout this document, the term SRE is used to refer to Massachusetts' "State Residential Exemption", while the term MTRE will refer to a variety of Means-Tested Residential Exemptions which may exist or could be created The State's Residential Exemption (SRE) is a local tax option available to the Select Board for adoption With respect to each parcel of real property classified as Class One, residential, in each city or town at the option of the board of selectmen there shall be an exemption equal to not more than 35 percent of the average assessed value of all Class One, residential, parcels within such city or town, provided, however, that such an exemption shall be applied only to the principal residence of a taxpayer as used by the taxpayer for income tax purposes.12 Only 16 of 351 municipalities in Massachusetts presently utilize the SRE, and these communities are typically cities or vacation communities, with none closely resembling Lexington in housing stock or demographics State Residential Exemption Process Setting an Exemption Percentage and, thereby, an Exemption Amount Each year, as part of the State regulated tax-rate setting process, the Select Board is required to set a percentage for a Residential Exemption Lexington's Select Board has historically chosen a 0% factor, in effect, declining to adopt the SRE Supporting documentation for options can be found in the tax classification packet13, which includes projections for adoption at percentages such as 10%, 20%, and 35% (typical percentages used by other municipalities) 35% is the maximum allowable percentage If the Lexington Select Board chooses a percentage above 0%, the following processes would be set in motion • Lexington residents would be notified of a new residential exemption 12 bHP5: mole aislaature aov I...aws'(:ielne:ralL..aws"Par&V, Mlle II/ Ch a.IDte:r59,Soction5( From 1979-2016 a maximum 20% exemption was permitted without special legislation, but starting in 2016 this maximum was increased to 35% 13 Ili tfys °v v v Ile ii,ngtonn a catno, sites'lle iincatonma,'fiilles'uIDllodads'Ifvlo? H Ildassiilfkk .anion Da(lket for boa 11 oil 18 Iiin,.all iDdff 47 • The Board of Assessors and the Lexington Assessor would establish a certification process and then certify the properties determined to be eligible for a residential exemption • The residential tax rate would be increased to offset the pjected revenue shortfall due to the exemption Eligibility and Verification Per the state law, parcels that are "the principalal residence of a taxpayer as used by the taxpayer for income tax purposes"would receive a residential exemption In other municipalities, identification of these parcels occurs via voluntary affidavit by the taxpayer, with required evidence such as federal tax return, state tax return, drivers |icanaa, vehicle nagiatnadon, utility bills or bank statements Practices differ on the handling of real estate transfers and whether annual recertification is required Once affidavits are submitted for an estimated 10.800+ parcels, Lexington would apply its own process for residency verification Significant verification may be required given financial incentives to cheat. Verification of the more than 1.400 properties in Lexington owned by truato, requires review of each trust's atructuna, trustee status and beneficial interest assignments would be required,14 and will entail both time and expertise Exemption Amount and Tax Rate Calculation The Lexington Assessor provides the Select Board with the assessed value of the average residential parcel As shown earlier, this average parcel value includes more than single family homeo, incorporating parcels such as empty lots, non-developable land and apartment buildings Therefore, the average parcel value is simply the assessed value of all residential parcels in Lexington divided by the number of parcels According to the FY2019 tax classification packet, the average residential parcel assessment in Lexington is $973,804 The exemption percentage set by the Select Board is multiplied by the average residential parcel to determine the exemption amount. The result would be a single fixed exemption amount which would be applied to every residential parcel in Lexington for which eligibility is confirmed The exemption amount is subtracted from the parcel's assessed value before application of the tax rate ,^ K8assachusettsOepartmentnfRevenuepub|icaUnnsindicatethathnmeshe|dintrustandnccupiedas the primary residence by a named trustee with a sufficient beneficial interest or life estate in the property would be considered owner-occupied The Committee has no expertise in trust law and did not seek legal guidance on this matter, nor does any statement in this report constitute a legal opinion about eligibility 48 The following table identifies exemption amounts which would occur for various exemption percentages if hypothetically adopted in FY2019 1111111 r 1? u I 111111�I 1111111 n„ 1.,;x' ni II i � I � III. 111111 I1106601111601111 111 »»»»»»»»»»»»»r 2 5% $24,345 5 0% $48,690 7 5% $73,035 10 0% $97,380 12 5% $121,726 15 0% $146,071 17 5% $170,416 20 0% $194,761 22 5% $219,106 25 0% $243,451 27 5% $267,796 30 0% $292,141 32 5% $316,486 35 0% $340,831 The Committee is aware that for many taxpayers, understanding of the SRE stops at this point. Residents are often enthusiastic supporters of the SRE based on a misconceived belief that this exemption would lower taxes for all Lexington residents However, perhaps the most important point is that the total Lexington tax levy remains unchanged Revenue neutrality is accomplished by increasing the tax rate on all residential class properties to offset the loss in revenue from the properties that received the residential exemptions 49 Based on 2019 figures and the Assessor's estimate of 9,265 exempt parcels15, the following table illustrates how the lower aggregate residential assessed value combined with fixed residential tax revenue results in an increased residential tax rate II 1 i1111, II 1111111 VIII it qPIP IIIIII1 000 !i,10' 11110 . r-'1, IRA* ommo 1, lolitilillooli6iiiiii1111111,1110,111,1111111 VIII a , IIIA, M01.310111 11' 11'III10001101 ION MotskIro 11 #M911111111111111 0" IMM ll 1 0% $10,570,638,820 $149,308,233 1412 0% 5% $10,119,524,117 $149,308,233 14 75 4 5% 10% $9,668,409,414 $149,308,233 15 44 9 3% 15% $9,217,294,711 $149,308,233 16.20 14 7% 20% $8,766,180,008 $149,308,233 17 03 20 6% 25% $8,315,065,305 $149,308,233 17 96 27.2% 30% $7,863,950,602 $149,308,233 18 99 34 5% 35% $7,412,835,899 $149,308,233 20 14 42 6% As this table shows, higher residential exemption percentages result in a reduction of residential assessed value that is subject to taxation, and a corresponding increase in tax rates on residential properties in order to make the exemption revenue-neutral to the municipality While the tables above illustrate the range of options available to the men, a more tangible perspective for residents may be to show the impact on homes Such an impact illustration requires the selection of a particular SRE percentage, and this report does so using 20% merely to illustrate key relationships between property values and taxes The following table illustrates a 20% SRE assuming FY2019 tax rates, as above The FY2019 preliminary tax rate is $14 12 At a 20% SRE, the tax rate is estimated to increase to $17 03 The following table shows the tax paid by the parcel owner at status quo (no SRE) (column B), and with the SRE when owner-occupied (column C), with the SRE when not owner-occupied (column D) Columns E and F show the changes in taxation 15 The 9,265 figure from the tax classification packet is a rough estimate Policy makers should treat this figure as an illustration, and evaluate from a longer perspective than how many parcels are owned in FY2019 hilt os ,v v v le 'iiimac - po sitIe 'iinall J2 ip,si V pa a ' ` it ifiic ahem naelkot folr by m 11 'f1 18 fiiinall n if 50 FY2019 Tax Illustration with a 20% SRE Illlllllrrrrrrr������������ fi ,w lllllX ' int �� lii 'u 11111 NORtrANOPRev Assessed FY2019 Not Not Residential Property Tax Bill Owner Owner- Owner- Owner- Occupied Value (No SRE) Occupied Occupied Occupied Occupied $400,000 $5,648 $3,496 $6,813 -$2,152 $1,165 $500,000 $7,060 $5,199 $8,516 -$1,861 $1,456 $600,000 $8,472 $6,902 $10,219 -$1,570 $1,747 $700,000 $9,884 $8,605 $11,923 -$1,279 $2,039 $800,000 $11,296 $10,309 $13,626 -$987 $2,330 $900,000 $12,708 $12,012 $15,329 -$696 $2,621 $1,000,000 $14,120 $13,715 $17,032 -$405 $2,912 $1,100,000 $15,532 $15,418 $18,736 -$114 $3,204 $1,200,000 $16,944 $17,122 $20,439 $178 $3,495 $1,300,000 $18,356 $18,825 $22,142 $469 $3,786 $1,400,000 $19,768 $20,528 $23,845 $760 $4,077 $1,500,000 $21,180 $22,231 $25,548 $1,051 $4,368 $1,600,000 $22,592 $23,934 $27,252 $1,342 $4,660 $1,700,000 $24,004 $25,638 $28,955 $1,634 $4,951 $1,800,000 $25,416 $27,341 $30,658 $1,925 $5,242 $1,900,000 $26,828 $29,044 $32,361 $2,216 $5,533 $2,000,000 $28,240 $30,747 $34,065 $2,507 $5,825 Key observations • SRE increases property taxes on all non-owner-occupied properties (it has no relation to the type of non-owner-occupied property) Non-owner-occupied properties always experience a significant negative impact from the SRE • For owner-occupied properties assessed below $1,150,000, a decrease in taxes occurs, the lower the assessed value, the larger the decrease • For owner-occupied properties assessed near the breakeven point, in the $1,100,000-$1,200,000 range, an immaterial change to taxes occurs • For property owners with values well above the breakeven point, taxes increase a material amount, increasing proportionately to property value Finally, it is important to observe that the majority of residential parcels will have a reduced tax burden, offset by increases on a minority of parcels 51 Using this 20% illustration, the following table shows the impact on the median property of sub-classes of residential property likely to be owner-occupied , 1'1'11111111111111 olio loll a t u» 111111111111111111111111Miliiiiiill000k toixoJosirrm e oe,,eiineet4letisi 1111 u,..R.� 00414$0040 11110 II Y7 11 o t�11101 '1 oo � � i �ifll i05;0000000I Ulll i«rr llJp h��11i �, �� �,0°Il ' '• fl ' fa ;14 41141111110101,11)1111111111 woo 011 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ��I Nitt'IfI Malt I Single Family $939,000 $13,259 $12,667 $15,982 Condominium $530,000 $7,484 $5,706 $9,021 Two Family $783,000 $11,056 $10,012 $13,327 Three Family $810,000 $11,437 $10,471 $13,786 Multiple Houses $1,256,000 $17,735 $18,062 $21,377 Four Unit Apts $899,000 $12,694 $11,986 $15,301 This table illustrates that for most of these classes of properties, the owner of the median assessed property would receive a tax reduction, provided the home is verified as owner-occupied However, one subclass "multiple houses"16, have high enough median value that the median property would experience a tax increase even if owner-occupied Conversely, the median condominium would experience the largest decrease in property taxes The chart below further illustrates how tax level relates to property value The chart is intended to illustrate two points • The term "breakeven" in the residential exemption discussions refers to the point at which an owner-occupied parcel experiences no change in taxes due to the SRE Mathematically, the breakeven point is the total of residential value in Lexington divided by the number of owner-occupied properties claiming a residential exemption The red and blue lines in the following chart intersect at the breakeven point. • Owners of non-owner-occupied parcels always pays more taxes with an SRE, and are therefore worse off in all cases under an SRE These disadvantaged properties are not only apartment buildings, but also single family homes or apartments owned by investors or owners living elsewhere 16 Properties are classified as multiple houses if multiple dwellings exist on a common residential parcel 52 E''''),It 010.- 1 0t,'''Ilv,00 IIE'110 lIll 1 1,1:,Ill t.,1 t III 4.,111110 „,. „, .,'il 1111 11„,1111,1[11„,11 HIP ylP, r0„„0 Assessed Value 53 Misunderstandings about the SRE The revenue-neutrality of the tax burden shift can be confusing to residents Clarification about some common misunderstandings regarding the SRE may assist resident understanding Misunderstanding#1 A residential exemption reduces Lexington taxes No The total amount of revenue that is lost due to the exemptions is estimated and then the tax rate is increased to exactly offset that loss, ensuring that the revenue raised by property taxation remains unchanged The sum of all tax relief experienced by residential parcel holders will be offset by an equal new tax burden experienced by other residential parcel holders Misunderstanding#2. A residential exemption simply shifts tax burden onto apartments It is not that simple Two types of residential parcel holders would see an increase • Those owning residential properties above the breakeven point. • Any parcel which is not certified as owner-occupied, whether it is the smallest piece of undeveloped land or the largest apartment building The variety of parcels which would experience a tax increase is detailed in an earlier chapter Misunderstanding#3. A residential exemption is progressive by shifting the tax burden from low price homes onto high price homes A definition of a progressive tax from Investopedia reads A progressive tax is a tax that imposes a lower Mx Irk ; on low-income earners compared to those with a higher income, making it based on the tpApa,yeir'_b ability to pay" The SRE would reward those who occupy their own homes Owner-occupants are typically wealthier members of the community than those who rent. Landlords would see a significant increase in taxes and attempt to pass those through to tenants Moreover, Lexington condominiums, which are generally the least expensive residential properties in Lexington, may be owned by those with significant income or other assets, who would nonetheless see a substantial lowering of tax burden Therefore, while the SRE may appear to be progressive when considering only owner-occupied single family homes, when considering all types of residential properties and their occupants, it is not progressive Direct Consequences of SRE on Homes and Property Classes Owner-occupied Single Family Homes and Condominiums The chart below is introduced as a format for evaluation of Lexington taxes as well as for comparison against benchmark communities Based on FY2018 tax values, which are the latest valuations available for all communities, this study provides a guide to understanding the impact of a SRE in Lexington and in comparison with other communities This chart format is 17 MA: VroNYI!Il!)r - Q Tt p.:m cot,'f:um u. .t),troorEssi w:tax asp 54 introduced here to prepare the reader for comparison charts later in this section Lexington Residential lExemption Scenarios FY2018 Residential Property Tax Denlographocs and Residential Taxes DOn.oi 11,0111011110pl - $28,1290 ::.11i,..„,,i41.4313 V7 $1,3011.01N0 34_740 (Li 51,500,00n • $1,4811.01W "Ci 320,020 (Li vi $1,2 no,onn $17,18U o:Lo $1,Don.vo,0 514,4,no PIPP,„„1„ .00,L4E $11,4413 n.30 6.4enript mount S8 .80 111111111111111111111111 Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington oo in o:O I: I '1,:orOI ol II o I, oro O Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE 5,,Don.oiw $23,-43 $21 2 51,30.1.3.192. 52E 715 • si,noo,onn Sx3,557 $4-0.24 • $1,40n.0192. $20 4.4 341, DE (Li • $1,20.9,00n Lo 517,3:1 S.18,7E.8 coo oo,1 si,Don.coo,0 514,2I $1_,640 $11,075 $501;ii.30 57 9,47 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex!ngton $9,384 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex'ngton Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 5 ,DOfl.OU01 O $34,5 n.a $1,3011.01N0 $47.18 $21,05 • 51,500,onn 344,4'3 $47,600 • $1,4011.01921 $23 Da' (14 co 51,2 no,onn Lo $17,J0 $20 TM O $1,3.0n..31Ki [/) $14,08.3 $17,25ii $5.30,01 513,12 i.12 II $13,809 SW:Wan 57,1 ;1 111111111111111111111111 Lex!ngton 510 .,o 111111111111111111111111 Lex'ngton Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 30% RE DOn.oi s: 17€ 533,4:9 $1,30n.DINO 343,323 .4,14 $23,78 • siAnn.oiKi 521,6 $2F 9 5 (Li s 1,2 oi $17 734 $23,0s7 coo ▪ si,onn.ono [/) $13,41E $19,240 .00.ME Sici,n85 $1_,391 $50111,30 56 4I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LeI ngton $11,543 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexi ngton Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes 55 This chart series is intended to provide the status quo for FY2018 (top line) and the impact of possible residential exemption amounts on owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied properties (chart rows 2-4) The top left chart shows the FY2018 residential tax rate applied to properties ranging from $600,000 to $2,000,000 Each bar shows the tax amount in relative proportion with a label for the tax at each assessed value The top right chart shows demographic data and tax rate data useful for comparing communities Due to lack of space, the vertical legend occurs as text within the top right chart. The community population is from recent census estimates The average single family assessment is from state data and the average single family tax bill These figures are included because different communities may have more or less expensive single family homes, so the comparison of tax rate does not provide a complete picture for understanding relative assessments The tax rate line shows the FY2018 residential tax rate, and for those communities with a FY2018 residential exemption, the last bar"exempt amount" will show that amount. For Lexington, there is a 14 30 tax rate and $0 exemption amount for FY2018 Rows two through four show the impact of various SRE scenarios, ranging from 10% to 30% The illustrated percentages are intended to represent options and are not Committee suggestions For these rows, the left column shows resulting tax for owner-occupied properties, and the right column shows resulting tax for non-owner-occupied properties Example If someone owns a $1,000,000 home, we can determine from the upper left chart that their FY2018 tax would be $14,300 without a SRE If a SRE were created at the 20% level, their property tax would be $14,080 if owner-occupied (lower left) and $17,250 if not owner-occupied (lower right) Tax Burdens Relative to Peer Communities Adoption of a residential exemption impacts Lexington's economic competitiveness relative to peer communities Benchmark charts are included for 17 communities selected either for geographic proximity, similar socioeconomic status, or likely out migration within Massachusetts Three charts are included in this chapter as examples for discussion, and the remaining charts are included in an appendix. Peer Community Newton Newton is often cited as a socioeconomic peer with similar distance to Boston 56 Lexington v Newton FY2018 Residenitilal Property Tax Denlagraphllcs and Residential Taxes 52,0,09,01')0 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115,6,9114 1;+58^1F.clr :8',4.11.171'!0,,)uuo33"7 521,640 88 794 51,5an.alu IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111115,_741, +56,264') 519,47E D $1,100,0,0, �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1111111111111111111111111115e.E.+B' t+'S ,6671, �����������������������������������������������il��IV'SI)"iilllli �iiliiI1 iiii.I ''I' Rii,i9"'I'mdli 599'0 8'5 517,31" 44,0,9-3E7 > 5VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11720,02_t+'54, o -, 515,148 1111111111111111r!" dm'u,.5i0lll°11°, „!111ii.u',.Ii1u514,1., $4,1051,0,0, �1�DIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVD1�IIhIIIIlpllllllll�lllhlllll141$17,1611 +$4,16'1 011, +a $1,0,0n.0nu VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIpIIhIIIIoIIII5.14,7.901+$3.4'801 �I�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DIYIIl01,2IW�m��u'�IVI"'I;114 t11 .‹ VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$11,440 t+'$ 7841' 10 82 $8',0,01 58.5` IIIIIIII Lexington ExeimptarnIau,ntt IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex lllgton $.6,,I.9,00, �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1111111111115'8 .00 I+5 ,U+81 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 50 56 49 Newton so Newton 111''10110 1'11V, II'I 1l I, '1171 f, 1 I' 1 P1II t1 0 '1'005; II Y y,II I Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE $e,0,0n.01Nu 1111����������������������������������������������������������������������111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110,"43 t+$8,2034 �I����I��������������������������������������������������������������������� llll llllllllllllllllls 2'8. t+$9,"41} 521.640 52.1.640 51,501'1,0,1')1 11111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 525 715 1+57,E-9'1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111120,1_ 7+50 1 519,4-E 519,47E ar • 54,1051,0,09 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111111111111111111115,3,.87 +56�,-s5) VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111115,_,n24 +5"12) 517,31" 447,31" ,„• $1,400.091 ������������������������������������������������������ 520 454' +$5, I1) 111111,11,11111,11,1011111111111521,096 i+$6 740') 410,148 510,148 V7▪ $4,1051,0,09 �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1�11111111111111111111517,3^_1 +54.,4 �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1111111111111111111111111111518 768 +55,,841 LU SP=984 512,954 1'J 51,0,00.00u �1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�11111111111111111514,2514 t-x53,3891 1111111111111111111010000000000000000000051_.640 +54,'02111 LA 510,020 510,020 Q 111111111111111111111111111111111111111511,07S'I+52 4191 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115L,'51 I+,3.956) 5'80,0,011, 58.5 5, 58.55,- 1111111 LexIgton IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexlllgton 5y,bi10,U0, VIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVV1111IIIIIIIIIIII5,75,471,+'51,4_51 11111111111111111 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111111111111159,3141+$e,84J 55 49 Newton 50 49- Newton Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 52,0,09,01 Nu VIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5 13' 31,+$9',6'51)I VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s 4,50'01,+$1,.8601 $21640, 521,640, $1,80n.0nu VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1111111111111111111111111111111111111527 a8' t+08 41141 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 1,050 t+'511.`741 519,47E 519,47E D 11,6051,0,0, �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��111111111111111111111111111111115e.4,4'31,+'57,1181 �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1111111111111111111111111111111111111111115e.7 „09 +510.1881 76 517,31" 517,31" • $1,400.01,,0 111111111111111111111111111100000000000000000000000052_=!8' t+'ss, o 1111111111111111111111111000000000000000000000000000000000000s,m.so +$9,1'(o.' ICI 515,148 515,148 vii +$4..49 tn $1,)0.: ,Un VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 517,'570, ;, 111111111111111111110000000000000000000000000001000520 7'1x,t+'¢'71t to 412,984 542,984 $1,00n.01Nu 111111111111111111IIIIIVIIIIpllllhlllllll1911 S 14,0'0,01,+$9,2,,114 �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��11111111111111111111111111517,2111 +5t 430;, 410,120 "'� 11111111111111O11111111141a,t 101+ 1.974' 1111111111111111111111111111111111413,50,01,+4 .1441 58610,051, s8.FSh 11111111111111111 48.F S, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIII57,1 1+$86 ') IIIA Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington $691;9,00, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111111111114c111151a 350 1:+53, ,81 5k 49 Newton 5.5 49 Newton Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 309' RE 11,a,0n.011 1111111111111111111111111111111111,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 175 +$11,531 I VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111 111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111598,48;1 I+516 841NI 56.1,640, $21,647, $4,809.01')1 �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111$29',320 + 9, 2, �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111114,4,6 .'-t$1.$.1. 'I 519,476 519,476 m $1,6011,00, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII41.4.101+$8,1681 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII43,0,'8 1,4'51.471, 517,31 517,31" .,„• 54,409.01')0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111111111111111111156.1,6 4+$t 4841 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$2F 9 5,+$11'8'1 515,148 515,148 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII517 784 +54.'8004 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1111111111111111111111111111111111115,_,067 t+'¢1031113'') $1,200,00, $12 994 $12 984 $P,a,On.abIN1 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII513,,',5 +$ 11tH1111111111111111011111111111$19,240,1,+$5421; U ,40,860 510 0_0 "� VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111111510,0'881,451,4- I VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111151.3'911+s1_ s) s5Po,coov $5.57 58.5 5, IIIIIIII Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington $6011 n,„, 11111111110156.411 I=5.'521 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111O11111111111111111111111$11,'543 +$5.,1'`1) $6 49 Newton S,6 49' Newton Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes 57 The principal difference between this chart series and the Lexington-only chart series is that two values are shown for each bar, one for Lexington (blue) and one for the comparison community (green) The difference in tax impact is shown in parentheses to assist the reader in comparing impact. Again, these charts are all for FY2018 because tax information is readily available in all communities for the completed fiscal year The upper right chart shows that Newton has an average single home assessment that is $100,000 greater than Lexington but a lower tax rate (10 82 v 14 30), and therefore a lower average single family home tax ($11,830 v $14,169) The result of this tax rate differential can be seen in the upper left chart which shows that a $1,000,000 property in Newton is taxed at $10,820, which is $3,480 less than a $1,000,000 property in Lexington Readers with an investment mindset might appreciate the $3,480 tax difference, which is a drag on the value of a $1,000,000 investment in a community Other readers might focus on the fact that a $1,000,000 Lexington home might be nicer than a $1,000,000 Newton home, and therefore the comparison is not apples-to-apples Because communities and housing stock are not identical, we encourage considering the differences in average single family home values and average single family tax bills when evaluating tax differentials across communities Next, one would consider how a residential exemption in Lexington would impact competitiveness against Newton, which currently does not have a residential exemption Examining the hypothetical 20% SRE row, one can see that a $1,000,000 home would hardly be impacted in Lexington if owner-occupied, but if not owner-occupied the tax gap between Lexington and Newton would grow to $6,430 Thus, a residential exemption would have an obvious impact on retarding investment ownership and rental of Lexington homes relative to Newton homes Looking at the $600,000 level (condominium end of market), a 20% residential exemption would substantially reduce the tax disadvantage relative to Newton ($688 v $2,088 at status quo), provided the home is owner-occupied In examining newer homes at the $2,000,000 level, a 20% residential exemption would increase the tax disadvantage relative to Newton from $6,960 today to $9,690 if owner-occupied and to $12,860 if not owner-occupied Adjacent Community Burlington Burlington is an example of a geographically proximate community where some Lexington residents have moved for the purpose of downsizing and/or reducing their property tax burden Retention of residents requires Lexington policy makers to ensure that taxes and services are competitive with communities such as Burlington, Waltham, Arlington, Woburn and Bedford 58 Lexington v Burlington FY20118 Residenitilal Property Tax Denlargraphllcs and Residential Taxes 52,a10n.000 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII521,24 a1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5,8 J",'11+5 -.60 I„1.'11,d'!'3LI!""11111d13933"7 sP,Ban. ,u IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII59_749, +56, .‘c sP,ca,;,,son IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIhIIIIIpIIIIIFIIIIIIIInlllllallllllllllllllllllllll s2,,,+a' r+g asspsisJus od VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIII IIIII!I','dr as .Iliiiil'lilllll' '11115.9on a s > VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVV1111�111I11�1111111s1111111111111111520,02_,'+'s 5.1_;1 1"i "'w uullill�'Ijjj"i;.tl,1uu 111, 5P,40n.01 Yu VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi�:.i^,ibalWP, 111.111514,1.4, g/ 5P,20u,aon VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 017.16, +$4,4173 5`a'1 hp11 51 aeon obi}u 11111111111111111111111111111111111111000000000000000000511.;301+SR.b;arVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV iiill""N1111d11 C'';';',14 iI "LA 510,6201 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VV1111111111111111111111115P1,443 r+'$ 5441 10 E2 307,0,00 58 455 1111111 Lexington Exelmptalm�aunt 11111111111111111111111 Lexington „6,-,,,,no, VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVIVVIIIIII0II3Sa .00 I,F$ 2n+111111111111111111 50 5537' Burlongtam 50 Burllingtam I 10 I, 1r I '0,, II'I 11 'II'I r 1 I 1 P I I 1 n I 0 II oii F. I I Y u u,II I Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE 5,,000.0,1u VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 5,5,"43 r+55 .031. 11111115 35. r+$30.340 II 521,240 521,340 5,1,1300.016. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII s2F 715 I+s7 89'1 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 525.1_ 1+5'133E') 514,116 519,116 cu • 51.60r,,00n VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 5�3,.87 +$6..951 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII0005,2_,n24 +$8 0 I -rZi $1F SOSS 51F 49,2 $1,ion.b,lu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 525 484 +55,.92} VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S21,006'1+07 IL c) 514,307 514,367 V7 5P,20iI,a10n VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 517,3'1 +$4.,85 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 518 7E8 +$b p_ 60 512,743 552,743 ▪ 5P,00n.allu VVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 514,2.,,r+$3.5331. 11111111111111111111111111111111111100000000000000001000051_.640 +45,0201 63 510,6+ 510,630 < 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111511,075 +52 9', VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIII1111111111111111111111111111111115P_,51 I+.4'716} 5330,0.,11 SAi 493 11111111111111111111111 Lexi 11$ton S849a 11111111111111111111111 Lexi l'l$ton 5531„0,aa, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIII111111111111157 4VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII59,354 H'$ aa_ 7:471,451,57E4Burllongt0n s6371 Burllingtam Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 52,son.011u VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS 1 3^31,+$10,1301 0111111VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 5-4,500,,+$13'260; 521,240 521,240 5➢.,6Gn.0,1u VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111527 a5' r+$8 7540 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s 1.050 r+'411.434} 513,116 514,116 Clx • 51,60'' son VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 5e..4,3'0,,+'$7 a38r VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5e7 .00 +$10.F08, 76 I-IF 49,2 5 1 F 492 >„„ 5„,40,,,, VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII52_aa' r+'$E.1131 VVVVVV111111111111111111111111111111VVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIse..4,150 +49,28'4 , 514,867 514,857 wgi 51,10,;1,0,03 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111115 P7,'570 +&4.78'1 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII52O 7'I'r+'4'q`7' 60 $12,743 542,743 51.710n Lou VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIpIII�IIIIIIIIhI5014,0'80,,+2.3,4501 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111111111111111111517,2,11 +5t 6$0'r S10,n'- VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs1a,t,5 r+ 1341 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs13,Daa,,+s ,31,4., 53301,0ry 58495 58495 VIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1111157,1 7i+5839., IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexll1gton IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexingtpn s6n,;n,aa, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIII16111137155a a8a +$9,n7Gi 55371 Burllingtam 55371 Burllingtam Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 3109' RE S2,alOn.O,Yu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV s 17F +$11,931 I VIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV s8,48ui+$17 '401 52.1,240 $21,2401 $1son.ob,lu IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs29',328 + 1n,E1_1 ED 5'4,6 r+413.`1.1 519,L"6 ;49,1:6 • 5P,60r1,003 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII s2_a:,a r+ss a:,sr VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII530,'8 ,,+51-'43., 51F 43; 51E n92 .„„ 51,40n.011u VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVI NI11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s 2.1.6 4+$t 7651 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111152F q 5'1+SI,'0881 514,8F7 114,857 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII517 784 +$5,1411 VVVVVV 11111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111115e._,0'87 r+'410.1441 $1,2011,0103 SP_753 312 743 $1,0103.61}u 11111111111111111111111111111111010000000000015,13.'r,F +$ _6r VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII3P9,230,,+$86201 slo,c.2G ,POJ:-0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111115 da,ORB,,4$1,'59.1' VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5P_391'1+S,.995;, sano,aa, 55'496 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex!ngton roA,495 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexl ngton 56,,,,a„,, 11111111110156,_ori I-¢1311 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1111111111111111111551,'543 +$5,1 'r 56 3'1 Burlongtam 51 371 Burllingtam Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes 59 The upper right chart, above, shows that Burlington not only has a lower tax rate than Lexington ($10 62 v $14 30), but a substantially lower average single family value (at $477,504, less than half the Lexington average) The result of these two factors is that the average single family tax bill in Burlington is $5,071 compared with $14,169 in Lexington Starting with such disparate property values and tax bills, it becomes more difficult to evaluate the impact of a residential exemption A wide gap exists today A residential tax exemption could lower the tax gap for a $600,000 property, although one would continue to expect to pay less tax in Burlington because of lower property values Conversely, the owner of a $2,000,000 home would be further penalized by an SRE relative to Burlington, and could find greater reward in shifting ownership to Burlington with lower home valuations and taxes 60 Migration Target Boston Anecdotally, some Lexington residents choose to downsize to condominiums or townhouses in Boston What is the impact of a residential exemption for Lexington upon competitiveness with the Boston market? Lexington v Boston FY2018 Resudenitial Property Tax Demographics and Residential Taxes 5.,a,4n.6,00 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVI1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111528,bua r+$14, LB ^7 ,mil= "7 E ,,.g4 SL,8an.G,ya IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5,_748 +$9,5491 CO BL,GO,I,,a,Gn VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVIIII�IIIIplll41111111�111111 111111111111111111111115-- X80,+'SB 795) 5101° ��������'"�11'ul"''"'Sq q'U'8'S ro > S1,40n.G,ya VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$20,020 0+•E,OA /22 511,qq9 V11,).V',li1 1$44,1,q oSL2nt,,a,Un VVVVVVVVVIallllllllll $17,16U +57,-577 5'324 g $1,a,6n,G,ya VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVI$7,,,,,,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 514,30-a,,+$6 4931 VIVI�i'.",.ilk I!'i"14 9p z VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV11111111111111111111 11111111111 S12.440 0+15,729) 10 50 5a0B,,aGO 45"la 111111 LexinL�tan Enedmpk al'mau,nv IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LexinL�tan 5r,u0rnya, ������������ .".E lE `8'n +549& Y IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 50 5�".E1` Bastan 52540908 Bastan II11 111 a 0 111 ON '111'1 YI,00',11 'I II11 0 1 I' 01 10 1111 dl 0 11'0110011 `u!'1 H Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE 42•a,Gn•Goa VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S29,543 0-$11. , VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S' 29`0+$10, 20; 418 2"7 $20 400 41,8Un,G,Yb VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 526 715,1+51,0,5,40 VVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4,E,1_ .1+58 'SF 516,191 518,964 S1,600,00n D111111111111111111111111111111111111111111$2,3,557 +$9,492 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISa_,0246+$8,e5b7 73 514,09` sl€786 ,L,gon.D00 VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,20459 +$S 4601 VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS21, 96 +$7 247 $11,g"7q VA,b," Gn 51,2ni,,0,Un �I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I�1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111547 :1 +5 428 �I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$➢9,768 +56 llB,.) o 59,94= 112,5-F. SL,O,Un.G,Yb 01101IVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIFIIIIIISI0:111111111111000514,2130+5E 516' VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S P_.640 +SS 160) 510 480 5800,00( VIVVIV IVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS L1,0'5.1+5-584, VIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS L_,'5_ '+54. '8', '1' 1111111 Lexi ngtan ,8 64 0 1111111111111111111111 Lexi ngtan ,,,,,,,Jo IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111111111111111111111111111111115794',+$4,3^2r VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVI1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,9,33'4,+s_,O,rLr 5,til` Bastin SE";6 Bastin Owner-Occupied with a 20%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20%RE 41,8Un.G,ya VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIII S' a,,+$12'n4- VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV 534,50"0,,+$11 .401 IMM 420 qG8 S L,EUn.G,, VIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111115,7 B. 0+ 11.5 91 1,110WWWWWWWWWWW0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000S ,nSG 0+11-.18,, slE,191 5.111,864 Cr 41,G4,I,,a,Un 01101IVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVVVVVV0000000000000000000s,4,4'81+'510, 351 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115-7,bel,,,+810.8'2, 3 514,rer' S16 766 SL 4U0.G,ya VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114145 98' ,+'$8 581, VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII44.4,1-.0 +$ 47,) 4il,gg9 514,6=" 51,200,800 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5 L7,'5JLI +$7 "7) VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S207010+'$8,1241 50 5,1,q,0- 41.2,57,5 N s1,8aa.00a VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VV111111111111111111111111110000 L4,0'8,0,,+58,27'1 �1����1��1����1��1����1��1����1��1����1��11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 S17 5,1 +Sm 7701 57,807 $10 450 IVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVI1111111111111111111 1111111 sic,,b +84,9+41 linIMMINUM111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s i_sua,,+s`41E4 5800,080 11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S8 084 IVVVVVVVVVVV47,lu„+$ Sr 1 111111 Lexi ngton IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexi ngton s,u0 No VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISeG .0,+$4,0S 5 .hl_ Boston sy 208 Boston Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE 92•8Un•Goa 01101111111111,Viiiiiiiiiiiiii000IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1=10IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS_ 17F +514 98,1 �I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I�11111111111111 111 11111111111111111111111111111539,4871+S1 207 18,2'97 S2:-l60, 4.0.,SUn.G,ya VIVVIVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS29,3'28 +$1_,1]77 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS I4,h-,_t+115.7' , 616,191 sia,84 010 SL,6ai,,8Un �I��V�I��I����I����I������I��I��I��I����I����I������I�� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS,_481 0+111.3E'50 �I��V�I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I����I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I����I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS'o,"8 ,+114015 514,U9` $18 763 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1111111411,E +59.6.37 IiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinEMENTENEMES26 q- +$11,2630 s1,4aa.0,Yb /71 suu,g09 S14 ' VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 17 784 +S7 981!, VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII $23,08'0+'$10. 11) $L,2 rrr,,,4,Un 19,,08'0001 SL2.5'6 Ul �1,0,Un.G,Yb VIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVV1VV1111111111111111111111111111111115.4308 i6 +$b,1 gS 11111111111111000011111111115,19'.240 +$87R01 �n 5,7,507 510 480 .1'4[ ,3010•000 VVVVVV55'1Ip-,URE,,+54, 771 VVVVVVVVVVi111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S L_,31 +$7;00,77 S9 984 11111111111111111 11111 Lexi n[gton 1111111111111111111111 Lexi n[gton Sic,,,yn,Ja VIVVIVVIVV11110000000.1111111111115a.4o145, ,b 51 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111',11,A3 +$5, 57 61_ Bacton 5.6";8 Bacton ResIIdentlal Property Taxes ResIIdential Property Taxes 61 Unfortunately, the state does not provide data on the average single family assessment and tax bill for municipalities such as Boston which have adopted the Massachusetts Residential Exemption (SRE) 18 The upper right chart shows that Boston's tax rate is $10 48 (relative to $14 30 in Lexington), and that rate applies after an exemption of$254,969 Thus, the effective tax rate in Boston is far lower than Lexington, because as demonstrated earlier, the $10 48 tax rate is the scaled up tax rate that makes that exempted amounts revenue neutral If Lexington were to provide an exemption of$254,969, then its tax rate would be about $18 00, thus it appears that Lexington's tax rate today is effectively about 70% higher than the Boston residential tax rate The status quo chart (upper left) shows that for a $1,000,000 property in Lexington the taxes are $6,493 per year greater than Boston For a $600,000 property the gap is $4,965, which is 137% greater than the Boston tax bill because the latter has a residential exemption, and therefore tax ratios do not scale linearly For a $2,000,000 property, a Lexington taxpayer pays $10,313 more, which is only 56% more than a Boston taxpayer owning such a property With a 20% residential exemption, the $1,000,000 owner-occupied property owner in Lexington pays $6,273 more than a Boston property with the same valuation, about the same as the status quo If the Lexington property were not owner-occupied, the gap grows to $9,443, 121% more than their Boston peer Because a 20% SRE benefits lower value properties, the $600,000 property owner would see their relative tax burden shrink to an additional $3,565, in this scenario -- "only" 99% more than a Boston taxpayer But the $2,000,000 property owner would then pay $13,043 more, an increase to 71% above Boston taxpayers Because Boston has a residential exemption, the Boston property tax values shown in the left column assume an owner-occupied home and in the right column assume a non-owner-occupied home The Boston tax for a non-owner-occupied $1,000,000 property is $10,480 A Lexington non-owner-occupied home is today taxed at$14,300, almost $4,000 more than the Boston home This gap is smaller than other gaps because Boston's non-owner-occupied residences pay the scaled-up tax rate without benefitting from the exemption If Lexington were to adopt a residential exemption, the property tax gap to Boston's tax on non-owner-occupied properties will increase as exemption levels rise 18 The average single family tax bill is available in Boston's own report, and it provides figures for Cambridge (FY17) and Brookline (FY18) used in those diagrams The Boston report contains useful history and also demonstrates that the majority of Boston's residential property is classified as condominium httfc www 1,0gstQru oov site s,default'fl s irnce .uoload.s 2018..0Av<Q1 8 m t.sp.at,lu s jpelf 62 Non-Owner-Occupied Impact As described earlier, residential properties might be non-owner-occupied because they are undeveloped land (low value) or because they house a commercial-style operation (medium to high assessed value) With an SRE, non-owner-occupied properties will experience the scaled-up tax rate which is required to make the exemptions revenue-neutral but will not benefit from the exemption The chart below illustrates a previous table, showing the percent increase in residential property taxes which would apply to a non-owner-occupied parcel, based on the residential exemption percent set by the Select Board (zero to 35%) Tax impact on Non Owner Occupied Properties 35 42 P°r 301' 14`9,'D 2'5 27.2% z 15 14 7% RriLtLt lu% 5% 4 gra coVS ]u% ]5 20% 25 909' 35 409' Non Owner Occup ed Ta (Increase 63 Indirect Consequences of the State Residential Exemption While the logistics for verification and calculation of taxes can be easily described, the Committee focused on learning about the indirect and long term consequences of adopting an SRE Little academic research appears to have been published on this topic, and therefore the Committee interviewed various experts and undertook its own survey and data analysis In this section, we will first introduce the opinions of experts that framed the Committee's analysis, the concerns raised, and ultimately the conclusions reached in this area. Perspectives from the Lexington Real Estate Community The Committee invited Real Estate Brokers with experience in Lexington residential real estate Participants were Diamond Hayes (William Raveis Real Estate), Robert Cohen (Co!dwell Banker), and Beth Sager (Keller Williams Realty) These subject matter experts were asked questions about property tax stress and how people make decisions to buy and sell Lexington residential property Do High Lexington Property Taxes Drive Migration? The brokers agreed that downsizing has been the primary reason for migration from Lexington in recent history, however downsizing square footages doesn't necessarily mean downsizing financial investment in real estate Brokers had a mixed view of the role of property taxes as a motivation to sell One broker indicated that buyers who are trading up within Lexington don't care about taxes, but for sellers who have lived in their homes for 40 years, taxes are a primary issue Other brokers saw property taxes for this older group as secondary to the personal challenges of stairs and upkeep Property taxes were discussed as part the overall financial picture for some senior homeowners, factoring into whether they can afford to maintain their houses After paying their property tax, fixed income home owners may not have enough funds to maintain the home and things start to fall apart. Houses in need of much repair are more likely to become tear-downs, which present an easy exit plan The brokers discussed whether tax breaks, even as much as $3,000 would change the selling decisions of homeowners who are considering leaving Lexington The brokers felt that this was not likely and that, overall, many residents support the higher taxes The brokers felt that Lexington's existing tax deferral program, which could improve a senior homeowner's cash flow by the entire amount of their tax bill, is not taken advantage of by most who would qualify They indicated that most residents do not know about the tax deferral program Lexington's House Rental market Brokers indicated that the Lexington house rental market is very strong, with even some high-end houses being purchased for the purpose of renting them out. Some house purchases are made as an investment vehicle, where Lexington residential property may be seen as a more reliable investment than liquid capital markets 64 Not all renters are families with children The desirability of living in Lexington, aside from the value of the public schools, drives motivation to live here Monthly rents of$3,500 are typical of single family home rentals, although some rents are much higher All brokers agreed that any property tax increase on private homes would be passed on to renters In contrast, anecdotal evidence from assessors and appraisers has indicated that the sophisticated algorithms used by large rental property owners allows them to charge the highest rents the market can bear, leaving little room for tax increases to be passed on to renters Property Tax as a Disincentive to Buy in Lexington The brokers had varying responses about the level of concern expressed by home purchasers regarding property taxes All agreed that Lexington schools are the top motivating factor and that many buyers will "do whatever it takes" to make it work. One broker pointed out that for every lower priced home on the market, there are 10 to 12 potential buyers Home buyers looking to move from Boston or Cambridge for better schools often question the tax rate because Boston and Cambridge property taxes are significantly lower However other towns close to Boston and Cambridge with highly regarded schools, such as Winchester, Concord, Newton, Brookline and Belmont, also have high property taxes Property tax concerns for school-motivated buyers are mitigated by the high cost of paying private school tuition which exceeds what could be saved by moving to a town with lower property taxes and less desirable schools Other Effects of the State's Residential Exemption in Lexington The brokers agreed that increased taxes on higher cost houses would not change the business model for developers Developers pay property tax on the knocked down house's assessed value, not the value of the newly built house The buyer is the one who pays the new, higher tax rate The brokers also agreed that the SRE property tax reductions at the lower end of house values would not be material enough to slow out-migration, and the increases at the higher end house values would not be material enough to discourage buying Perspectives from Economists and Housing Policy Experts The Committee invited four experts on housing policy and economics to a round table discussion which took place on October 5, 2018 The participants were Peter Enrich (Northeastern University law professor), Jonathan Haughton (Suffolk University economics professor), Chris Herbert (Managing Director of Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies), and Chris Kluchman (Housing Choice Program Director, Massachusetts Housing Partnership/Department of Housing and Community Development) The panel agreed that the intended primary effect of the Massachusetts Residential Exemption (SRE) is a tax burden shift among homeowners from lower valued homes onto higher valued homes and onto non-owner-occupied residential properties They noted that an underlying assumption behind this shift is that people with lower value homes also have lower incomes and 65 experience more financial stress—exacerbated by continually increasing property taxes However, the panel also noted that that income and property value are not perfectly correlated Another effect of an SRE that was discussed would be an indirect shift of some of the property tax burden onto renters, who may be a financially vulnerable, asset poor population in Lexington Increases in the property tax on apartments and multi-family homes may create an incentive to convert rental units into condominiums, capturing more tax benefit from the residential exemption This could reduce the size of the rental market in Lexington, depending on the size of the exemption (incentive) and the market response Owners of rented-out single family homes may prefer to sell the home because market conditions may not allow them to pass along the increase Because the Lexington rental market is already very small, shrinking the rental market could increase monthly rental rates If the goal of this Committee's exploration is retention of financially strained current residents, the panel discussion indicated that shifting more of the property tax burden onto renters could increase migration It was pointed out, however, that property taxes can also be viewed as a services fee—which would reasonably be passed on to renters Lexington provides excellent services, which is part of why it remains a desirable place to live Panelists observed that implementation of the SRE would have implications for all facets of the housing market. An important hypothesis is that property tax changes would be capitalized into home value, increasing the property value for lower valued homes and decreasing the value of higher value homes Capitalization can occur both because a buyer is shrewd in analyzing the impact of taxes on an asset purchase, or because a buyer has a budget and the sum of mortgage and property taxes determine the maximum amount which can be invested in a home purchase 19 A first ramification of capitalization is that future homeowners would not receive any benefit or penalty from a residential exemption, and the effect of the SRE is twice impactful to existing homeowners For example, a typical Lexington condominium owner would benefit doubly. first with a property tax reduction and second with an increase in property value due to the fact that potential buyers could bid higher when a lower tax bill applies Conversely, the owner of an expensive home would be twice cursed they would face a higher tax bill and their property would be less attractive in the housing market, lowering sale price The future home buyer confronts these higher and lower prices, respectively, and therefore would experience an investment/mortgage cost which offsets the impact of the tax policy change 19 The only evidence of capitalization directly presented to the Committee was the representation by brokers that buyers may have a "budget"which has to cover all monthly housing costs for a prospective property General understanding of housing market forces is that home buyers' budgets impact their offers for purchase, and thus housing prices Members of the committee diverged in accepting market capitalization as a fact, with some members accepting general economic principles and others pointing out the lack of any specific evidence for these claims This text refers to market capitalization as a hypothesis to represent the varied reactions to this argument. 66 This first ramification is reasonably well understood, and anecdotally can be observed in Cambridge and Boston where entry level units have risen in price, reflecting their low tax rates 20 A second ramification was introduced by Dr Haughton, which is that the initial capitalization would change the home price and that in turn would erode the property tax impact promised by static analysis Example A condominium owner is told that their$600,000 assessed value condominium will have a decrease in property taxes from $8,580 to $7,180 ($1,400 less) with a 20% SRE However, within a few years and a full assessment valuation cycle, their$600,000 condominium has increased in value to $640,000 while more expensive properties have not increased as much or may have declined This same homeowner sees their$7,180 tax bill increase to $7,582 due to the fact their property is now more attractive 21 Dr Haughton developed a mulltu stop model and estimated that about 28% of the residential tax exemption effect would be lost due to change in property values in the opposite direction from the tax effect.22 For policy makers concerned about affordability for Lexington decades hence, it may be disconcerting to realize that a residential exemption is a double handout to existing homeowners of lower-valued homes with no expected long term benefit for affordability by future residents There was a clear consensus among panel members that the State Residential Exemption is a blunt instrument, affecting the entire residential housing market in both potentially desirable and potentially undesirable ways None of these experts advocated adopting the State Residential Exemption to address the challenge of assisting lower income seniors with remaining in Lexington, although two panelists said they could support it being implemented at a low level (i e a 10% exemption) as either a progressive tax or a symbolic consideration for passing a contemporaneous override To address the core challenge, these experts preferred the Means-Tested approach and urged increased promotion of Lexington's Tax Deferral Program Aggregate Residential and Commercial Property Value in Lexington Under Proposition 2 %2, the total tax levy in Lexington cannot increase faster than a calculated rate Each property class (residential, commercial, industrial, and personal) pays a percentage of the levy But any change in the percentage of the tax levy that each class pays is driven by the change in assessed value of each class Because residential properties have been 20 This capitalization effect undermines the ability of the average citizen to compare home prices across markets Boston home prices are often cited as indicators of the high cost of housing in the Boston area when tax rates are lower than many comparable cities A corollary is that there are no "free lunches", so a Lexington home buyer cannot save money by shifting assets to another city, but instead is shifting property tax costs to mortgage or investment opportunity costs These capitalization effects seem true in principle but are difficult to accept at face value given varied circumstances of home buyers This deserves further theoretical and empirical research 21 According to the Haughton model in the years immediately following an SRE, assessments and therefore tax bills would increase more rapidly for those homeowners who received an SRE benefit. 22 Hypothetical example above uses 28% to give the reader a sense of the magnitude in practice 67 appreciating in Lexington more rapidly than commercial properties, a "tax shift" occurs where residential properties in effect absorb most of the town tax increase, and therefore homeowners experience tax rate increases higher than the aggregate levy limit increase Adopting a residential exemption will impact home values in Lexington, but the Committee has not determined whether the aggregate impact of the dynamic system would be to increase residential aggregate value or decrease residential aggregate value Any change in aggregate value would further impact the taxes paid by each class of property A change in aggregate value is a secondary effect and should therefore be small, but to homeowners stressed by a 5% increase, a change to 4% or 6% might be seen as psychologically material Condominium Conversions Neither the Committee nor the roundtable experts have conducted empirical studies of the factors which drive Massachusetts condominium conversions It could be that market forces beyond property tax policy largely drive this phenomenon However, in observing the extent to which condominiums have replaced apartments in formerly large rental markets, one should be concerned how tax policies impact conversion The potential for applying a full Residential Exemption to each condo unit makes condos more valuable with an SRE in place than without an SRE in place This creates an incentive to the building owner to reap that higher value by converting each rental unit into a condominium and selling it. By itself, this might not be sufficient motivation for conversion, but when combined with other benefits it could serve as a tipping point. Some two-family home owners may convert to condominiums in response, decreasing rental availability and changing Lexington demographics For a larger property, the incentive to convert to condominiums could yield a significant asset, as illustrated below. Assumption Lexington Select Board Adopts 20% SRE Illustrated Impact: Katandin Woods (128 units) Direct, Immediate SRE Effect 20 6% increase in taxes ($362,963 to $437,732) No exemptions would exist for this apartment complex as it is not owner occupied Conversion Benefit: If all 128 units were converted to condominiums, each owner occupied unit would be entitled to a 20% exemption ($194,761) The total exempt property would be 128 * $194,761 = $24,949,408 At a 17 03 tax rate, this is a reduction of$424,888 in property taxes This illustrated exemption amount would substantially equal all property taxes due from the apartment, and a greater amount than paid by Katandin Woods today In practice, market forces would be expected to increase the value of these new 68 condominiums, so it seems likely that increased property taxes would be paid by condominium owners However, accepting this argument means recognizing that Katandin Woods would be rewarded with a substantial increase in property value as a result of a condominium conversion under SRE Net Present Value (NPV) The simplest valuation process is to calculate the NPV of the $424,888 net exemption The NPV of this reduction depends on the discount rate used 3% $14,162,933 4% $10,622,200 5% $8,497,760 Katandin Woods assessed value in FY2018 is $25,382,000 23 Hence, SRE adoption could create a material incentive for condominium conversion Significant condominium conversions may increase rental rates by reducing supply and change the demographics of Lexington by excluding renters without the resources to purchase a condominium These newly owner-occupied conversions will erode the benefit of a residential exemption for existing beneficiaries because the tax rate will have to be further increased to cover the cost of the new exemptions 24 The Committee is therefore concerned that direct implementation of the SRE could negatively impact Lexington's diversity and housing goals, and even fail to provide the forecast financial benefit once second order effects occur Effects of the SRE by Income Profile Those who lose most with an SRE are owners of parcels which are not owner-occupied We do not have detailed information profiling owners of single family homes However, using the Committee's survey of residents, insights can be offered about who benefits with adoption of an SRE 23 The Committee did not examine the relationship between apartment assessed values and market values, a concern raised by some residents Katandin Woods was selected as an example because conversion to condominiums is possible, but this illustration does not reflect any restrictions associated with affordable housing or prior Special Permit. 24 Certain Lexington apartments have restrictions associated with affordable housing At Avalon Lexington Ridge and Avalon Lexington Hills, by law or by binding agreement, presently affordable units must remain affordable in perpetuity Under the Special Permit by which Katandin Woods was built, if the complex were to convert to condominiums, the Town would have to purchase Katandin's affordable units to retain their affordable status 69 Using self-reported income, this chart shows the frequency distribution for homeowners Home Vallue v Income (Homeowner Survey Respondents) S. OW U11 Yard rim, 2 3 2 40 1,1V11,1,1,10.1—1 999 r Wf 1 1 5 36 JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ 11111 1,`",LII.1,two_1 49 r i(; 2 3 4 12 53 m 1 75 1 5 11 17 1, '�,fY,fYYJYJ—i�uc�ca;g..., 1" To 0 1,uu1,1,I.uii-1 49f'1(! 14 11 �i ��. ..... Breakevenpoint HI, mm J c cY1j-999 E°°45 1330 29 l � 118 ,-,00,In1ou- 4.9 I/1,, 6 10 16 35 44 32 21 -ry�, L. 1har s5011 J '1 4 5 7 4 4 1 1 II ^I .k I Ib r n C G _ m ip VI VY —, rJ u"Y Income In each cell, the number represents the count of respondents who had the income and home value at the intersection shown The coloring of the cell is simply a heatmap (bar on the far right) with darker blue colors showing more frequent occurrences A few observations are noteworthy. • Below the breakeven point (about$1,150,000 for this chart), all income levels are represented and most households report incomes over$100,000 • For those living in homes assessed below $750,000, only a minority have household incomes above $200,000, while this income level is more prevalent among higher valued homes • Some households live on very limited incomes (under$75,000) in homes valued as high as $1,749,999 Households above the breakeven point with limited income may struggle to pay increased taxes under an SRE 70 One might also review the ability to pay property taxes directly for homeowners versus the indirect payment of property taxes by renters Among survey respondents, owners reported household income as follows Income(Owners) 457 $200,000 and over 43% $150,0004199,999 168 16% $100,000-$149,999 209 20% $75,000-$99,000 90 9% 74 $50,000474,999 7% 36 $35,000-$49,999 .3/0 Less than$35,000 21 2% OI :Id - dLbIIfor ,ts o 100 200 300 400 The majority of owners have household incomes above $100,000 per year Renters reported household income as follows Income(Renters) $200,000 and over 12 14% $150,000-$199,999 12 14% $100,0004149 999 15 17% $75,000-$99,000 10 11% $50,000474,999 12 14% $35,000-$49,999 12 14% Less than$35,000 14 16% m_ludes IP,Dndents r,ron,ble h.sIng =,5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 71 Slightly less than half of renters have household incomes above $100,000 per year As shared earlier, renters pay far less property tax than owners, even on a pass-through basis However, these statistics demonstrate both a somewhat lower ability to pay property taxes among renters, and also that the incomes of renters range from very low to high The Committee's hypothesis is that some portion of increased property taxes could be passed through to renters, except for renters living in rent-controlled housing set at regional rates However, if owners react by converting to condominiums, such change could be especially difficult for those with incomes below$75,000 (with presumably low asset levels), a group which represents 44% of renters as compared with 12% of owners Residential Exemptions in Massachusetts Communities The Committee examined towns which have adopted the SRE to understand their procedures and whether they are solving issues similar to Lexington This table shows the municipalities in Massachusetts which have adopted the SRE 111,011:::otitell11; 1101121614 "Ir mmilml In mil 1111 do d dotBoston 35% Brookline 21% lilli:0111111711111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Cambridge 30% Chelsea 30% Everett 25% Malden 30% Somerville 35% Waltham 35% Watertown 23% Barnstable 20% Nantucket 25% Provincetown 25% Somerset 10% Tisbury 18% Truro 20% Wellfleet 20% 72 The first set of communities are cities, which have large rental populations For these communities, the SRE serves the purpose of shifting the tax burden from homes to apartments With the exception of Somerset, the listed towns are vacation communities on the Cape or islands with significant numbers of absentee owners of second homes The effect of these exemptions is to shift financial burdens from the year-round owners to the seasonal owners The Committee has not found any published studies from these communities justifying a residential exemption 25 Two municipalities have discontinued the SRE Marlboro and Weymouth Summary This chapter describes the implementation of the State's Residential Exemption (SRE) including the anticipated verification process It provides a static analysis of which property owners would pay more and which would pay less, and provides three series of charts benchmarking Lexington to other communities with and without a residential exemption, with further examples in the appendix. Beyond static analysis, many issues are raised about indirect and long term effects of adopting an SRE • A tax shift is expected to be capitalized into home values, providing a "double impact" on existing homeowners and eliminating any economic benefit for future Lexington homeowners • A dynamic and ;sus of the oroperty tax effect supdests that 28% of the statue change vvoulld lbe eroded ,; a shaft un propert; vauues The actual impact on homeowners will be less than stated in the static analysis because properties at the lower end would inflate some amount while high end properties would suffer some deflation • There is speculation on whether these tax changes would be passed through to renters In the short term, it was reported that large rental complex owners already charge the maximum amount possible, leaving little room for further increases Private house rentals might experience pass through of tax increases • Over the long term the rental market might be reasonably expected to shrink with an SRE Absentee landlords would be less likely to invest in Lexington real estate for investment purposes (due to differential to peer towns) and two-family homes and apartment buildings would have material incentive to convert units to condominiums Conversion to condominiums would shrink rental inventory and likely drive rental rates upwards, changing Lexington's demographics 26 25 Several communities which adopted a means tested exemption instead of the SRE published studies 26 Qualified subsidized housing inventory (SHI) could be reduced by conversions as well 73 6. Massachusetts Model Means-Tested Residential Exemption Laws Five towns27 in Massachusetts have adopted a local alternative to the State Residential Exemption (SRE) known as a Means-Tested Residential Exemption (MTRE) Unlike the SRE, which applies an exemption to all owner-occupied residential properties without regard to the income, assets, age or residency length of the owners, MTRE's grant property tax exemptions to seniors which meet income, asset, and residency criteria. MTRE's are subject to specified caps on house value and overall cost to the town's budget. Most MTRE's are revenue-neutral to the town, with the cost of the benefit redistributed among all residential taxpayers by a commensurate increase in the tax rate The appeal of means-tested exemptions is their higher precision in targeting residents in need of assistance Moreover, providing tax relief to a more limited population reduces the magnitude of tax shifts, and may be expected to have a smaller impact on housing markets Existing MTRE Laws in Five Towns Through a Special Act of the State Legislature in the year 2000, the Town of Wayland adopted the first means-tested Residential Exemption in Massachusetts Under Wayland's MTRE, homeowners who meet the State Circuit Breaker's eligibility criteria (see second table below) receive a match of up to a 100% of the Circuit Breaker limit (presently $1100) The towns of Reading and Hopkinton have adopted a similar version of this model, providing a benefit that is between 50% and 200% of the Circuit Breaker benefit. In 2012, Sudbury created a new model of means-tested exemption, which has its main elements copied by Concord (see table, below, with distinguishing details among these models) Under the "Sudbury model", a taxpayer who is 65 or more years old, possessing home and asset values below a modest level, and at least ten years residency could receive a property tax reduction calculated to bring their property tax obligation down to 10% of their income 27 After Committee acceptance of this report, information was received that the Town of Harvard has also received special legislation for a means-tested exemption It is similar to the Sudbury model, but paid for from the municipal budget without reallocation A local committee evaluates the applicant's assets for eligibility 74 Massachusetts Model Means-Tested Exemption Laws 1,11,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I Ifir montotilin Income Limit Per Circuit Breaker Per Circuit Breaker Per Circuit Breaker Per Circuit Breaker Per Circuit Breaker Asset Limit 'Excessive 'Excessive 'Excessive 'Excessive 'Excessive Age Per Circuit Breaker Per Circuit Breaker Per Circuit Breaker Single 65+ joint 60+ Per Circuit Breaker allowed House Value Average Single Family <Median SFH Per Circuit Breaker Per Circuit Breaker Per Circuit Breaker Home(SFH)+10% Residency 10 year consecutive 10 year consecutive 10 year consecutive 10 year consecutive 10 year consecutive Benefit Exemption of the Exemption of the 50%to 200%of the Set annually by Up to 100%match of amount that property amount that property amount that the Selectmen-benefit is the Circuit Breaker tax exceeds 10%of tax exceeds 10%of homeowner qualified 50%to 200%of State income less the income less the for under the Circuit Circuit Breaker Tax may not be amount that the amount that the Breaker reduced to less than homeowner qualified homeowner qualified 10%of household for under the Circuit for under the Circuit income Breaker income limits. Breaker income limits. Benefit Cost Cap Maximum total of Maximum total of None benefits is 5 to 1 %of benefits is 5 to 1 %of levy pre rate-setting levy pre rate-setting per Selectmen per Selectmen Who funds? Residential Residential Residential Residential Municipal Budget reallocation reallocation reallocation reallocation not reallocated Massachusetts Circuit Breaker Parameters, 2018 Tax Year Income Limit Single $58 000 Head of Household:$73 000 Married filing jointly.$88 000 House Value Limit $778 000 Maximum Credit Given $1 100 Adoption Creating an MTRE requires a town to write a home rule petition asking for a Special Act of the legislature Because the Committee was inclined towards action, our initial intent was to construct a local proposal drawing on elements from these models However, as we delved deeper, we discovered that assessors were dissatisfied with aspects of adopted legislation, and these models had critical drawbacks which concerned the Committee The next section provides additional details about existing implementations, while the following chapter proposes possible models for Lexington 75 Offsetting Loss of Circuit Breaker Tax Credits As the Committee learned more about MTREs, we encountered evidence that both the SRE and MTREs would be funded locally but that some benefits would be offset by reduced State-paid benefits that local residents would have otherwise received For example, 447 Lexington household might already be receiving a property tax rebate on their state income taxes from the ;�i chuu ett c"cruor Cdreat li ro kor x Groat (2016) This rebate applies if a household's property taxes exceed 10% of their income, up to a maximum of$1100 (2018 tax year) For some households which are close to the 10% threshold, a reduction of property taxes would reduce benefit from the tax credit. Current recipients of the tax credit may be in one of two situations, with these effects 0000„„ ��,,,,, o000�u�m 0016540 om ,gip !�f(l1. aiin(u (f -,u "”. OW1}„l,,,, � �� � ��u � �����. aropoovio ''''' Ill 1 1 1159111 rem 1 N I AM loiRioduloujorlo4 Property taxes far above 10% of income No offsetting reduction Property taxes just above 10% of income Reduction in benefits as much as $1100 The concern is that Lexington would provide property tax reductions to a household just above the 10% income threshold, and the household would not receive full benefit because it would lose some or all of the state circuit breaker credit from the state Thus, a portion of local tax relief monies are wasted as offsetting reductions occur The Committee does not have direct information on how many households are near the 10% threshold Indirect information suggests that households may be near the 10% threshold The number of Lexington recipients of the circuit breaker has been steadily declining, and a possible cause is proximity to the 10% threshold In discussing the MTRE with the implementation expert in the Wayland Assessor's Office, it was confirmed that several taxpayers receive a Wayland Circuit Breaker match on an every-other-year basis, as the local funds not only displace the State funds, but in fact make the taxpayer ineligible for local reduction on an alternating year basis Thus, legislation could reduce predictable cash flows for residents and cost the town money which serves no net benefit for residents Funding An MTRE can be funded by reallocation to the residential property tax class (as the SRE does), to all property tax classes, or funded within the tax levy Because MTREs typically require less than 1% of a town's revenue, either approach might prove practical As the MTRE comparison chart above demonstrates, communities following the Sudbury model have funded their 76 exemptions by increasing the residential tax rate, while Wayland funds exemptions from their Overlay Account. An Assessor's Perspective on Means-Tested Residential Exemptions Lane Partridge, the Concord Assessor and the Chair of the Massachusetts Assessor's Association, met with the Committee on November 16, 2018 to share Concord's experience with the implementation of a Special Act that granted Concord their own version of a Means-Tested Residential Exemption The Concord law is based on Sudbury's means-tested exemption with the exception of capping Concord's eligible house value at the town's median single family occupancy (SFO) value rather than the average SFO plus 10% limit utilized in Sudbury Otherwise, both Concord and Sudbury's eligibility parameters match those of the State Senior Circuit Breaker Property Tax Credit. The first year of Concord's implementation was FY2018 which based applicant income and property value on Calendar Year 2017 figures Implementation Issues Experienced by Concord Massachusetts MTRE models use the State's Circuit Breaker income worksheet to determine eligibility, but the Circuit Breaker worksheet adds Social Security and other distributions not taxed on the State tax return This complicates the process of vetting local MTRE applications The Concord assessor hired a CPA to assist their office in understanding the Circuit Breaker worksheet. In their experience, taxpayers routinely make errors in filling out these complex worksheets, and the assessor's office has a duty to review each application for accuracy, which is a time consuming process As with other means-tested exemptions, asset limits are not specified by Concord's law Instead, the law gives the Concord Board of Assessors the authority to set policy on the level of assets they determine to be "excessive " The Concord assessors exclude applicants with more than $250,000 in additional assets The assessor shared with the Committee that external asset testing was made difficult by the lack of accurate reporting by applicants The Concord assessor specifically highlighted that the population that a means-tested exemption targets may have lower levels of financial literacy and be unable to self-assess eligibility or provide accurate information to an assessor without further support. In the end, a large effort on the part of Concord assessment staff was required in the first year of implementation which yielded a small number of property tax exemptions While 250 Concord residents were approved for the State Circuit Breaker in 2017, only 59 applied for the Concord MTRE The assessor indicated that multiple announcements and mailings had been distributed, so their office believed that most eligible residents had been notified They hypothesized that the $250,000 asset limit had discouraged many applications Of the 59 applicants, just 49 were approved in FY2018 Thus, the Concord effort reached only 20% of Circuit Breaker applicants in the first year This provides a benchmark should Lexington adopt similar provisions 77 Perspectives from Economists and Housing Policy Experts As referenced in the SRE section of this report, the Committee invited a panel of four experts on housing policy and economics to a roundtable discussion on October 5, 2018 The panel noted that MTREs differ from the SRE in that the benefit is based on the taxpayer's need rather than on the value of the taxpayer's property It benefits a smaller, but more targeted group of beneficiaries and, unlike the SRE, it doesn't have the significant unintended effect of impacting home values The MTRE approach can assist lower income seniors at thresholds determined by Lexington itself The panel described a few drawbacks of existing MTREs as well One is that the ten year residency requirement in place in some communities may violate federal standards on mobility (A second issue with this residency requirement was voiced at the Lexington public hearing, which is that a long residency requirement might have the unintended side-effect of promoting Lexington's existing racial and ethnic demographic over groups outside Lexington ) On the other hand, a residency requirement can satisfy taxpayers that an exemption intended to help residents struggling to remain in their homes would not be consumed by newcomers who might deliberately purchase properties calculated to take advantage of these programs Panel members also discussed the Lexington Tax Deferral Program as an important property tax relief tool that seems to be under-utilized The panel felt that effort spent on promoting and explaining this program might be the most effective approach for assisting lower income senior residents Summary In short, the Committee examined the five existing means-tested residential exemptions (MTRE) in Massachusetts The direct consequences of these programs were not always efficient, with local tax reductions offsetting the State Circuit Breaker These discussions made the Committee aware that even the SRE would result in decreased local eligibility for the State Circuit Breaker, another example of how local exemption dollars could fail to land in the hands of local taxpayers and relieve tax burden The Committee felt that none of the existing programs were suitable for direct replication in Lexington Interviewed assessors and staff shared that they had wished their communities had studied legal provisions in detail before adopting legislation Therefore, the Committee undertook to provide broad outlines to legislation which could be created for Lexington, a subject to which we next turn 78 7. Lexington Means-Tested Exemption Proposals An early straw poll found that the Committee had mixed reactions to the SRE but were generally enthusiastic about Lexington adopting a variant of a means-tested residential exemption The Committee recognized that existing means-tested statutes have certain gaps or flaws and broached the idea of creating a Lexington-specific means-tested measure A first obstacle was that the Committee does not have a specific charge for which segment of the population should be assisted, and opinions varied about who should be helped Should a Lexington proposal help lower income or house-poor? Should it help the homeowner or the renter? Should it treat the long term resident the same as the newcomer? After initial research, the Committee modeled two examples of possible means-tested exemptions, recognizing that the development of legislation appropriate for Lexington would first require an extensive public process to determine the will of the community, including who should benefit, the level of benefit, and who should pay for it. Only then could legislation be drafted, analyzed, and pursued for enactment. The Committee gave the Select Board an interim update in January 2019, and based on their input have decided to outline these two exemption models without drafting exact legislation Therefore, this chapter is not intended to be a comprehensive blueprint or legislative draft. It will require community participation to determine a course of action and then additional work from a future body to evaluate and propose the details of the final legislation This chapter will first review the eligibility criteria found in typical means-tested proposals, and share what the Committee has learned or recommends in each area Then the chapter will describe two types of proposals one proposal focused principally on residents with limited means and a second focused primarily on residents who have reached a certain age An overview of what these proposals could contain and simulated financial impact provides policy makers a starting point for these models Drafting legislation and pursuing support for these proposals is expected to be time consuming The need for these proposals stems from inadequate property tax relief for Lexington, and it should be noted that an alternative path would be for the Lexington Select Board to lobby for changes to existing State laws (such as the Circuit Breaker tax credit and tax deferrals) Lexington Proposals Many considerations impacted the design of possible proposals Here we outline rationales which informed the Committee Following the rationales, two proposals are introduced and evaluated against criteria. 79 Rationales for Eligibility Age With an aging population that is staying healthy longer and retiring later, using age 65 as an age cutoff has the unfortunate effect of making so many residents eligible that levels of financial assistance become diminished It makes sense to start financial assistance at age 70 or later to balance the desire to provide assistance with the number of individuals who may feel that their age justifies assistance As an individual ages further beyond 70, access to new sources of income may generally diminish Home Value Capping eligibility based on the median Lexington home value may make political sense, so that taxpayers are not subsidizing those who choose to remain in better-than-median homes Asset Level Households with material asset bases may be reasonably expected to tap into those asset bases before receiving a Town subsidy We may reasonably expect younger retirees have need of more assets than older retirees because it is assumed that their assets will have to last them for a longer period of time However it is not clear that this would require applying higher thresholds for younger retirees Maintaining a consistent asset level across ages would have the effect of providing more relief for senior retirees and less to younger retirees who should have a larger asset base Income Level Combined with assets, lower income is commonly thought to represent need However, with the advent of Roth IRAs which do not have required minimum distributions (RM Ds) from IRAs, households may be able to better control the years in which they receive income and through financial planning create evidence of a need for financial subsidy Therefore, income should not be the only means-testing criterion We have also learned that the Circuit Breaker income formula includes non-taxable sources of income, and therefore it also seems important to follow that pattern rather than using adjusted gross income (AGI) from a tax return Ownership The guiding principle is property tax relief, so the notion advanced is that someone paying property taxes is (by definition) an owner and would be the one receiving relief Therefore these criteria collectively focus on access to income and assets for the actual beneficial owner(s) This also avoids a "rent-a-senior" situation where a senior citizen participates in the household specifically to provide relief for an otherwise unqualified owner The Committee also discussed whether Lexington should follow the state Circuit Breaker pattern in providing tax relief to renters as well From the Wayland Assessor's Office we learned that providing financial assistance to renters involves assisting a resident who does not pay local property taxes, which then is neither a direct rebate nor refund of taxes Therefore the Committee does not recommend directly undertaking property tax relief for renters despite survey evidence indicating significant housing stress Residency Length in Lexington An argument for longer residency requirements is to benefit those individuals who have been supporting the Town by "paying into" the local tax system and not simply moving into town for tax benefits An argument to waive residency requirements was 80 a concern raised by Peter Enrich that such residency requirements might be considered discriminatory under federal law All towns with existing means tested exemptions have residency requirements The Committee feels that a 5 year residency requirement is a compromise between contributing locally and yet maintaining openness and support for newcomers Proposed legislation should specifically address whether the length of residency should additionally be required to be contiguous or recent. Rationales for Benefits Materiality Benefits should be material enough to have an appreciable effect on the beneficiary's financial decisions A program with immaterial benefits and significant administrative costs makes no sense Supplemental The benefits received should be assumed to accompany other remedies and breaks available to a household, such as the State Circuit Breaker and Lexington's Tax Deferral Program Lexington's proposal should avoid displacing other financial assistance available to the homeowner, and instead be crafted to add to existing financial supports Justifiability to other residents The survey indicates that a large part of the population has difficulty with housing costs, so any benefits should be justifiable even to another resident struggling with housing and not receiving a benefit. Targeted Benefits should be targeted to individuals with demonstrated need Housing Price Impact Benefits should be designed so that they attach to the individual rather than the property, and thereby avoid adding material distortion to housing prices Financial cliffs Critics of existing State and local policies point to financial cliffs, causing a household slightly above a criteria to lose all financial assistance Legislation should provide smoothing as possible, yet avoid excessive complexity Predictability Total benefits offered to a household should be relatively consistent from year to year, avoiding every-other year effects or other oscillations due to interactions with other systems Surviving Spouse Protection The benefit system should avoid penalizing those who become widowed (Existing systems tend to lower income and asset thresholds upon death of a partner, and fail to reflect that many household costs continue beyond that event.) Understandability Taxpayers and beneficiaries should be able to comprehend the benefit system being proposed Flexibility for Government As benefits are indexed to other legislation (such as the Circuit Breaker), enough flexibility should exist that town government can respond when material changes occur to demographics or to related legislation, such as elimination of the Circuit Breaker or significant changes to it. 81 Flexibility for Individuals Avoid restrictions that impose undue burdens for beneficiaries who seek to relocate within Lexington or remodel their home, especially for home modifications which allow homeowners to age in place Impacts on Town Budget The beneficiary pool should be small enough that material support to targeted individuals could be absorbed with a relatively small impact among non-beneficiary taxpayers or within the town's annual budget. Proposal #1 Circuit Breaker Style Means-Tested Exemption This proposal was developed with the intent of reflecting the goals of other MTREs while adjusting for limitations such as addressing the needs of surviving spouses and avoiding local tax abatements which result in reduced State Circuit Breaker benefits and are therefore wasteful uses of local funds Goal Provide material assistance to seniors with demonstrated financial need as a supplement to existing programs such as the Circuit Breaker and property tax deferrals The objective is to lower a household's property tax contribution closer to 15% of income for those households experiencing high levels of property tax stress, a percentage which avoids adverse interactions with the Circuit Breaker Eligibility • Age 70+ years • Owner Oldest owner of household, with 50%+ beneficial ownership • Residency 5 years, with 2 continuous • Home Value At or below the median value of Class One residential properties • Calculation Basis The State Circuit Breaker has three income thresholds The highest income threshold is designated for taxpayers who are Married Filing Jointly (MFJ) The lowest income threshold is designated for Single Individual taxpayers (SI) Both the MFJ income threshold, currently $86,000, and the SI income threshold, currently $58,000 form the basis for setting qualifications for the Circuit Breaker Style Means-Tested Exemption These thresholds will be used for all households independent of filing or marital status 28 • Asset level29 A multiple of the MFJ of between 1 0 and 5 0 as set by the Select Board annually • Income level See formulas below 28 One issue to resolve is whether household assets should be prorated for beneficial interest or another adjustment to remove incentive to divorce to bring household assets under this threshold 29 Asset level excluding primary residence, personal effects, motor vehicles and cemetery plots (as in 41C) 82 Benefit Home owners For households with residential assessed value at or below the State Circuit Breaker maximum level • Households with income below the SI threshold (currently $58,000) can receive up to N times the Circuit Breaker value The Select Board sets the value of this Circuit Breaker multiple annually, to be between 1 0 and 3 0 The multiple of the state Circuit Breaker is the planned reduction in an individual's property tax bill, provided the reduction in addition to the individual's prior year State Circuit Breaker, does not depress property tax to income ratio below 15%, and in the event this would occur, the benefit is adjusted downward to the figure which matches 15% • To reduce the financial cliff effect, households with income above the individual threshold but below the joint threshold (currently $88,000) would receive 1 0 times the State Circuit Breaker as a property tax reduction, provided the reduction in addition to the individual's prior year Circuit Breaker, does not depress property tax to income ratio below 15%, and in the event this would occur, the benefit is adjusted downward to the figure which matches 15% • For households with assessed property value above the State Circuit Breaker maximum but below the town median The same 1 0 level benefit is proposed as for those who are at or below the State Circuit Breaker maximum (In effect, the town benefit extends to the town median residential value when that value is above the Circuit Breaker limit.) These households would receive the full Circuit Breaker amount rather than a multiple of it, but provided by the town Renters. No benefit Annual Action by Select Board • Determine the maximum asset threshold by setting asset multiple of joint income to a figure between 1 0 and 5 0 • Determine maximum Circuit Breaker multiple, by setting this figure between 1 0 and 3 0, for households meeting all criteria with total income below the individual threshold of the State Circuit Breaker Funding Levy or tax rate adjustment Estimate of Financial Impact Estimate 450 Circuit Breaker households Estimate 50% meet asset criteria 225 recipients Estimate that 1 15 times Circuit Breaker is average benefit received (due to 15%, and income thresholding applied) 225 * 1 15 * $1100 = $284,625 Further, estimate 350 households would meet Circuit Breaker income criteria but do not meet market value criteria due to $778,000 cap, but would have a home between that value and the Lexington median assessed value ($950,000) 83 Estimate 40% meet asset criteria 140 recipients Estimate that 1 15 times Circuit Breaker is received 140 * 1 15 * $1100 = $177,100 Total cost to town $467,725 Total beneficiary households 365 Average benefit/household $1,265 Proposal #2 Octogenarian Means-Tested Tax Exemption This proposal was developed in response to a concern voiced in the Committee's second public hearing about meeting the needs of older seniors Existing tax policies do little for an aging population and do not seem to reflect the needs of the oldest seniors It seems that Lexington and Massachusetts could provide more support for this population which uses few local public services at little net cost to taxpayers Goal Life expectancy in Middlesex County, Massachusetts is 80 years Older seniors may struggle to balance retirement savings and asset levels with increasing and unpredictable property taxes The guiding principle for this proposal is to reduce housing stress by substantially freezing increases in residential property taxes for residents upon reaching age 80, while providing the flexibility for 80+ year olds to adjust housing within Lexington Eligibility • Age 80+ years old • Owner Oldest owner of household, with 50%+ beneficial ownership • Residency 5 years, with 2 continuous residency and ownership • Property Value At or below median residential property • Calculation Basis The State Circuit Breaker has three income thresholds The highest income threshold is designated for taxpayers who are Married Filing Jointly (MFJ) The MFJ income threshold, currently $86,000, will be used as the basis for setting qualifications for the Octogenarian Means-Tested Exemption The MFJ will be used for all households independent of filing or marital status 30 • Asset level A multiple of the MFJ of between 1 0 and 5 0 as set by the Select Board annually • Income level A multiple of the MFJ of between 0 7 and 1.2 As set by the Select Board annually Benefit Two types of benefits were discussed by the Committee One, based on an index factor, is straightforward to calculate but does not ensure that taxes are frozen Another would freeze property tax contribution amounts, but then include provisions for intra-town mobility, material reassessment, remodeling, etc In this section, we estimate financial impact using an index factor method 30 One issue to resolve is whether household assets should be prorated for beneficial interest or another adjustment to remove incentive to divorce to bring household assets under this threshold 84 Calculate the "Index Factor" (IF) as follows IF = (Oldest owner age - 79) * 03 Property tax reduction = IF * property taxes Examples 80 year old owner 3% reduction 85 year old owner 18% reduction 90 year old owner 33% reduction 95 year old owner 48% reduction Annual Action by Select Board • Set maximum asset level multiplier • Set maximum income level multiplier Funding Tax Shift across all classes of property Estimate of Financial Impact Per Town Census 2,031 Lexington residents age 80+ 547 are in housing types where residents are not subject to individual property taxation 1,484 are possible owners and renters, and occupy 1,128 distinct addresses Taking the oldest householder at each address, we calculate the mean age as 85 8 and the mean benefit at 20 5% Assume the Select Board set the asset ratio of 5 0, for a maximum asset level of 5 0 * $88,000 = $440,000, and set the maximum income ratio of 1 0 for 1 0 * $88,000 = $88,000 We may estimate that 65% of households would meet the requirements of residency length, maximum home value, maximum asset level, maximum income, and are owner-occupied 733 Households = 1,128 * 65% FY2018 average home assessment $918,772 Assume average 80+ year-old lives in a home valued at 80% of the average assessment, then average 80+ year old home assessment is $735,018 FY2018 average tax bill would be $10,511 With 20 5% reduction, average reduction $2,155 733 households * $2,155 per household = $1,579,398 total cost to Lexington Total cost to town $1,579,398 Total beneficiary households 733 Average benefit/household $2,155 Town perspective A medium-sized property tax shift would occur in the year of implementation, but in subsequent years it would appear as if the tax increases were not landing on 80+ year olds with modest or medium means Younger age-range households would 85 absorb slightly higher tax increases to offset. If the program retains more octogenarian seniors or life expectancies increase, then reduced town expenses due to the non-use of public schools by the 80+ population will largely offset further benefit increases to octogenarians If the program does not impact migration patterns, then only a nominal financial impact would occur after the initial property tax shift. Household perspective Because property taxes increase 3-5% per year, these scaled increases would have the effect of keeping property taxes relatively stable for a household after its oldest owner reaches age 80 In the year of implementation, some households would see a large drop in property taxes, which could even be more than 30% But in future years, households with an owner aged 80+ years would no longer see property tax bills with cumulative and material increases from year to year This would give octogenarians comfort when aging in place Tax deferral should remain an option as well Known Non-Owner 80-Year-Olds Living in Lexington's Residential Zoned Property (2018) 1"111#0811ir i90918111111111111111111111111111 w Brookhaven (1010 Waltham Street) 297 10 Pelham Road 90 William Roger Greeley Village 50 178 Lowell Street 30 30 Watertown Street 28 Main Campus Drive 27 840 Emerson Gardens 19 Katandin Drive 6 Total 547 86 Property Tax Freeze Models in other States While Massachusetts has modest programs to assist senior citizens, some states have more robust programs to protect seniors against property tax increases While we do not advocate directly adopting any of these programs, they are cited as evidence that creating an age-based program which targets the elder population may have merit. Lexington could promote such a program at the state level, or it could seek its own Special Act through home rule petition and create an opportunity for other communities to follow The following chart compares potential models for tax freezes from New Jersey, Texas, and Tennessee The age eligibility for all three starts at 65, and New Jersey and Tennessee have income limits In New Jersey, the difference in dollars from the first year is reimbursed, while in Texas and Tennessee, the rate is frozen at the first qualifying year Frozen tax levels are adjusted if home improvements occur mg 00000 ag IImm Age 65+ 65+ 65+ Other Eligibility Lived there for 10+ n/a Income below Requirements years, income less threshold than $87,000 (2017) ($29,000-$52,000 depending on county) Benefits Taxpayer reimbursed Property tax amount Property tax set in first by state for property set in first qualifying qualifying year tax levels above year amount paid in first qualifying year Evaluation The Committee charge does not explicitly state that Lexington's elderly are the focal subpopulation However, the particular circumstance of retired, potentially less-mobile community members who purchased their homes when residential property values and property taxes were a fraction of what they are currently, is a concern of this Committee and of community members who have communicated to us over the course of the past year Testimony by particular individuals highlights how vulnerable this population can be, motivating creation of Proposal #2 above Although a Committee concern, we must highlight that Lexington survey data does not lend support to the notion that the elderly experience greater housing stress than other age categories, nor that they are more likely to migrate away from Lexington The Committee's decision to focus on this age cohort instead reflects our view that these residents are less able 87 to migrate or gain employment when financially strained, use relatively few town services, and deserve some predictability in financial expenses For that reason, both proposals contain age thresholds For potential beneficiaries, the primary differences between these two proposals are that Proposal 2 restricts benefits to "super-seniors," an older group of than specifically addressed in Proposal 1, and Proposal 2 provides a larger benefit, which continues to increase with age For cost and implementation considerations, the number of beneficiaries and the cost would be much larger under Proposal 2 Implementation costs are likely to scale with the number of applicants To fund Proposal 2, in particular, a redistribution of costs among younger and wealthier residents would be necessary These other residents may not wish to fund the preservation of their elderly neighbor's equity in their home, equity that will be inherited by their heirs Some degree of participation in the property tax deferral program could be added as a requirement to mitigate this issue DW)� iii 1 0 ,ffeighor Property Tax Related Fair precision if objective is High precision if objective is Housing Stress Precision helping those with limited helping 80+ year olds means Property Tax Related Low recall if goal is to relieve Recall high for 80+ year olds Housing Stress Recall housing stress across with limited income community Total budgetary impact - None Possible reduction in Lexington budget aggregate demand for schooling, but less than size of tax shift to occur Short term Housing Market None None Impact (Prices / Rents) Optimal Allocation of None Goal to support 80+ in home Housing (&flexibility for may reduce optimal allocation future) -who's in it and of housing ownership assumption, condoizing, tear down Equitable Taxation Small Debatable Migration ? ? 88 8. Conclusions and Recommendations The Committee has appreciated the opportunity to dig deeply into the subject of residential exemptions, an area which has relevance to Lexington's long term success as a community We have been privileged to have the time to learn from many subject matter experts and policy makers, conduct a detailed survey, and talk with numerous residents Through this process, we have learned that many Lexington residents are concerned about local taxes, and yet there is widespread support for thoughtfully taking the time to develop the right course of action for Lexington After debating the State Residential Exemption at length, the Committee agrees that no single exemption or other policy tool alone can address the existing property tax stress in our community, but rather a multi-pronged approach that includes more targeted tools could provide substantial benefit. We additionally agree on the following set of policy recommendations, and recommend continued attention to this challenge by the Select Board in view of planned debt exclusion projects Local Tax Policy 1 Do not adopt the Massachusetts Residential Exemption 2. Develop for community consideration a proposal for a means-tested and/or age-based residential exemption 3. Promote awareness of existing programs such as tax deferrals, exemptions, and the Massachusetts Senior Circuit Breaker Tax Credit. 4 Evaluate increasing eligibility thresholds significantly for the Lexington Tax Deferral Program State Advocacy 5 Advocate for expanded access to tax deferrals for homeowners with existing or future mortgages and home equity loans 6. Advocate for expanded access to the state administered Senior Circuit Breaker Property Tax Credit for surviving spouses and those with home values above the current eligibility threshold, as well as expanding the level of rebate. Further Study 7 Further study the financial needs and supports necessary for Lexington's population of older(80+) seniors to "age in place" 8. Further study methods to retain middle-aged residents who have the highest rate of forecast out-migration On March 22, 2019 the Committee voted separately, and unanimously, in support of each of these recommendations 89 Appendix: Property Tax Benchmark Chart Lexington v Boston FY2018 Residenitlal Property Tax Demcrgraphu'cs and Residential Taxes Aron,s,Yr 111V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V01111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111529,$00,+$ic 1.,,,33 "7 Ya' 7 63=,,Y,4 4Il,8on,„r 11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V0111V0111V0111V111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s2.740,,,+a9,`.4Sr 4Il6,131 ���,,,u,,,p,,, 11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V01111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s2.39` +$8 78 ldk',',' 396 5 5P,6ri,,gE,a 514,n3' 51110 • 5Il,4on,,r,1r 111V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs2q,0,4. +Se,n_1, 10511335 11VII11'1$1,i111$111115/46',9 61• 5n.c,,coc 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I1111p11111111111111111111111111111119L7,16,1 +57 5 , 5., 24 ,,,,,,on,,r,lr 111111V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11111110IIIzIIIIIIIIeII01111Flllllllllllllllllllllll1411,5,10,+'$64931 11V"11 „1 6161,1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111511,44c +$`7- la W.8 ,3▪ i-1.0,,,,„/ g='lIl 111111 Lex ExErnGk,3 mount IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lc'%Ingt'6n 4r,F,Y 712„ 1111111111111111111111111111111111111115'F do 1,+54,99.I (IIIIIIIIIIIIII 54 4.1,61= Bast°n, 4_54,963 BOSton, 'III dfl u' 1 1111'1 III ,III I, ,I II III f 1 1 ,1 1, I'll, .il 1 11 111 11 11'1 11 1 Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Ownler-Occupied with a 10%RE 4 ,,,on„Yr 111V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V011419111111'11111111111111111111111111111521,,43 I+al1. ,, IVIV11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V0111111111=11111@ 11111'911111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115.1, r+^lu•e0' 51,0,0n,,„r 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111$26 715,+E1J,_241 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111569,1_ +$ 51[,131 519,^64 CU 51,61,,,,0 0 111111V111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111523,`87 +$9,43. 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 ,r 14 +$,25b 5/4.09 ,1E 76 • 51,400,(1 1,5 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111142u 459 +46 48c 111V11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115_1,967+s7 441 111 411,399 N 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s Il7 :1 +r 4.181 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s Il8.79E +5„ , 54,1r�;,,000 43,?a' 51:-71; CU 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111II 514,203 +5E arp 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115n- .a„ +r lruy 4P,q,Un,s,Yn 4'_07 $1'484 4 48n q,,r(,a 11111V011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115Y1,o, +a=1641 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115,/..,S- '+54, ,, 71' 111111 Len,ngton s$389 111111111111111111111 Le xi n qt n 4/r my 9„ 111V11V11V11V11VI1111111111111111111111111111111111111579,47,+'$4, 31 111111111111111 111V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V1111111111111111111111111159,841+4 0981 .E1` BC/870 n, 4E 938 BJ7t On Owner-Occupied with a 20%RE Not Ownler-Occupied with a 20%RE 5,0,5x,,1,11 11V11V11V11V11V11V11V1V11V1V11V1V11V1V11V1V11V11V11V1V11V1V11V1V11V11V1V11V11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114- 3'_q,+$1.0431 11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V01111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115,4,90,,,+41.440 419 ' 420x50, 51,55,,H, 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115,27 39° +$11.6591 111V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V01111V01111V01111V01111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115_1,0` r+$1..18, ,1E,191 31.51,^n4 = 51 E,c„Doc 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!1,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115.4,4,10,.+$10, 351 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 7 S,01, +$10,a22. 5Il4,E,3' SIl6 76E • 54,40x,,r,1r 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 S2. ,+'$8391, 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115=4,15,, +r 4751, 541,935 4166 4, '" • 41,,n,,300 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111417,530,-1$' "71 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114x0,7,1,(,+50,1_'41 trytr2 3,4 1 6" d =7G 4Ilq,on„yr IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVI11111111111111111111111111 5/4 G'Fa,.+2E 11111V11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.11,28u 1+Sb 7n1 to 4T 307 s/0 480 . 111111111111111VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII s I@,,,tui+44,3.91 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111115,u.3,3uJ,,+$ 41E son0,,ca( s"1Y 4E54 IIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111111 1111111 Le n ington ,,6,,y„0„ 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111147,110 I+$ `65I 1111111111111111111111111111111114dU 0 ,+$9,09 111111 LeXlnntnn Basta n, Bo stars Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE 5,e,oq,r,,, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV11V01111V01111V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V0111111111111111111111 4_ ,I 7G +$14.9 E31 IVIV11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 S3,4E0 I+$ 2r 548,2'67 q" n 51,900.,o,c 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111529,306 +11,1 .1_ , 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115,4,6 ++",13,7$ 51E,191 519,^s4 D 516,0060 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111154113II111111111111111111111111s2.4. ,+_11.'B'5, 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s00,'8-1+$1401_ sl[ 7E,8 • 51,45x,s,yr 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115.11, 1+s 6_3,, 11111V011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115x6, 1+512, te, 411,399 61 • $1,21-0,000 1111111111111111111111111111119q1'11111111111115/7784 +5 ,a1r 111110111011101110111011101110111011101110111011101110111011101111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s 3,oF r+^lu• 11, 41,'575 CU ) ,1 0,007 sqc 010101010101010101010100040!!100000005.Il3,9,6 +1, Il 3) 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114u.0'�•40 +a 7801 ,,,'Ss Il0 480 4snq,,nan 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111s to,f1F8,+$4,'97 I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111114Il_,3'31 7+47:9077 58 'lIl 111111 Lexington 3Fa IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 4,F,Y70„ 11111111111111111111111111111111111se.461+s,b1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111511543 +15 597 ,61= Bo.to n, g,6"-- B7,9tars (Residential Pra,perty Taxes Residential Property Taxes 90 Lexington v Brookline FY2018 Resudentual Property Tax Dernergraphucs and Residential Taxes „,0,01B0„, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIIFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII428,901+$12.81-0 I110.uV11il'r,I,J•i1,102 '7 0,1_ 01,50C.0,Yo VIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII II IIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIII II III VIII II IIIIIII IIIII5.2.740 +Si/,,'471 914,33 0 H IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNE"Ii' d'W,i:':ii"""" 111.'."1'II""'u499G 3` 51,1un,aon IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII92_ '+$1C a,a•, 511gllllllllllll 51_`31 "' 520,0,11+^S 111, �1,4o0 0'OO IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 011"'g9' 115'!''1 “Irl.dB' '1iv"¢.,!l,IV5n4,1. ,T,,'• „l,.on,aa„ IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIgIIIIIIIIIIIIgIIIIhIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1.17,1911 +, 14- S14,9t ,,AC'' 01,G00.O 0 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV ht 519,7�G'31i 4-0 ,1, VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIII I.IIu 1�'ul..j,,,�'1141,, "Z IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII411,441'+$6,+u' 946 IIIIIIIIIIkku Le Kin gtrn Ex ein$pt alnawn NOMEN Lex'ngtnn ryq, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII9a 900 1+5` Si 5 5 941 Brookline .41 5 Brookline 1 1114 O. ill pl, ,I'1 lot i kills ,'il 11 il i. Ill 11 I i.'lliiiii'll 111 Ll Owner-Occupied with a 109^ RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE 02,001.00o VIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV .29,,45 1+$13,5' VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5, 360 1+$12.113,1' 516".80 01,000.L'0u VIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1257' '+41_,02_1 VVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$13,1_ 4+011,1241 :,i4,00` 517,028 g1,1Gn,gG1, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4,3, -7 +$10. 0E1 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISd_,0,4 +50, 85 Si_-31 010,131 S1,4GC.00u VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV -2-450 1- 4 So) VVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII521.-86 +58,d 011 909 $62_244 ,`$',1 51,don,000 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5v,3.1 +88 14, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII519,7s0 +5'416 I, $9,04' Sn1,30 N 01,0,,00.0,w IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1111111$IIIIIIIIIII11111I111111111111111111111111111111111118/4,210 r+5`Ii' IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 51- 40 +566 30 "9,411 'a IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs11,0 +s 842' IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEl- '+,44441 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII v7`58 1111111 Lexington 1111111111111111111111 Lexington u„Eon, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5 ^47,,+'$4,,_'x51 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIsI, 741+5.700) S3 741 Brookline 59,616 Brookline Owner-Occupied with a 20%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 200' RE 92,iG0.a,,Yu VVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS0 i+014, 4L 010VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 4''4,SI n0,+$1L Bo; 546,599 519,120 g1,80C.0,YG VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S,, 0 +'$13 "7' VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 1,0911+514,,1-•7 X14,',93 Sn7,0213 a 01,14n,g01 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111524,430,,+811.6$91 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII527,80 +812,464) T7 4n_^'31 510,131 > IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 520-'6i 1+'1C'O'1. 10' +813.9161 TO01,400.0 6 411 909' 013,'44 • 51,don,aG1 VVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S/ .5sn +51=_1. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 52-7n1r+4a,•aeI In `9,01' _,1,00C.000 VIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII614,0801,+86 9` VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 517 ❑Y +' -6' � 57,12= P9,46n S Ceo.,=ur+ VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs 13, 70,,+$E S.7`+E 1111111111111111111111 Le x111 gtSln 1111111111111111111111 Le xllx gton "Eo°' Thilin IIIIIIIIIII,II 991$ it:11+S ''1 Brookline IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs11 s11+$4,1'41 49,176 Brook-line Owner-Occupied with a 30°' RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE ad,DOC.000 VIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS .1-61,+$1F ant 0110101VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV S 429 r+$--V,SBo) SIE,580 549'-D _,1,90C.000 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV5,9,3 91,+$14.E ..1 VVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIIIII S'4,F 1+517.604) $14,69` 517 r„ • 01,160,001 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 92_4E +$1-,.8'.0 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS-'3, ,,+$1_ ,4- EL'_ 01 slE,176 "> 01,4,0.0,w VIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 521, +s1t1, ,1 VIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII52E a- +S1_,E.Y1 'o sn1 909 Si:244 ill N ,,L,10C,a01VVVVVVVVVvaql'IIIIIIIIIIIIs177F4',+$ 76' VVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5,3,08-r,+411.735} 5/1.3`_ _,,1,00C 001 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII n_ iE +,-.c 8il) IVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs1.9,.4„ +$• -901 u1 $7,1.` 59,4F9 x Sno,EIF +$4, sl VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII l_,3914+$7 -3u 55, IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 7 8 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington „Eon, IVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII56.4'9 r+$ 901 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIsll,s43 +$`967) 5:941 Brookline $9,616 Brookline Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes Brookline average single tax bill source rfltp "wPPOPN I P5tQPp g.P,Prue .dOet'gu Utd' lie )iitice"'bJ.PlId .t24)1 .1:iItY.,2Q'n, facts foci ures p t 91 Lexington v Burlington FY20118 Residenitilal Property Tax Denlargraphllcs and Residential Taxes 52,a10n.000 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII521,24 a1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5,8 J",'11+5 -.60 I„1.'11,d'!'3LI!""11111d13933"7 sP,Ban. ,u IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII59_749, +56, .‘c sP,ca,;,,son IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIhIIIIIpIIIIIFIIIIIIIInlllllallllllllllllllllllllll s2,,,+a' r+g asspsisJus od VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIII IIIII!I','dr as .Iliiiil'lilllll' '11115.9on a s > VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVV1111�111I11�1111111s1111111111111111520,02_,'+'s 5.1_;1 1"i "'w uullill�'Ijjj"i;.tl,1uu 111, 5P,40n.01 Yu VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi�:.i^,ibalWP, 111.111514,1.4, g/ 5P,20u,aon VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 017.16, +$4,4173 5`a'1 hp11 51 aeon obi}u 11111111111111111111111111111111111111000000000000000000511.;301+SR.b;arVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV iiill""N1111d11 C'';';',14 iI "LA 510,6201 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VV1111111111111111111111115P1,443 r+'$ 5441 10 E2 307,0,00 58 455 1111111 Lexington Exelmptalm�aunt 11111111111111111111111 Lexington „6,-,,,,no, VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVIVVIIIIII0II3Sa .00 I,F$ 2n+111111111111111111 50 5537' Burlongtam 50 Burllingtam I 10 I, 1r I '0,, II'I 11 'II'I r 1 I 1 P I I 1 n I 0 II oii F. I I Y u u,II I Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE 5,,000.0,1u VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 5,5,"43 r+55 .031. 11111115 35. r+$30.340 II 521,240 521,340 5,1,1300.016. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII s2F 715 I+s7 89'1 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 525.1_ 1+5'133E') 514,116 519,116 cu • 51.60r,,00n VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 5�3,.87 +$6..951 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII0005,2_,n24 +$8 0 I -rZi $1F SOSS 51F 49,2 $1,ion.b,lu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 525 484 +55,.92} VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S21,006'1+07 IL c) 514,307 514,367 V7 5P,20iI,a10n VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 517,3'1 +$4.,85 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 518 7E8 +$b p_ 60 512,743 552,743 ▪ 5P,00n.allu VVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 514,2.,,r+$3.5331. 11111111111111111111111111111111111100000000000000001000051_.640 +45,0201 63 510,6+ 510,630 < 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111511,075 +52 9', VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIII1111111111111111111111111111111115P_,51 I+.4'716} 5330,0.,11 SAi 493 11111111111111111111111 Lexi 11$ton S849a 11111111111111111111111 Lexi l'l$ton 5531„0,aa, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIII111111111111157 4VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII59,354 H'$ aa_ 7:471,451,57E4Burllongt0n s6371 Burllingtam Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 52,son.011u VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS 1 3^31,+$10,1301 0111111VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 5-4,500,,+$13'260; 521,240 521,240 5➢.,6Gn.0,1u VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111527 a5' r+$8 7540 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s 1.050 r+'411.434} 513,116 514,116 Clx • 51,60'' son VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 5e..4,3'0,,+'$7 a38r VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5e7 .00 +$10.F08, 76 I-IF 49,2 5 1 F 492 >„„ 5„,40,,,, VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII52_aa' r+'$E.1131 VVVVVV111111111111111111111111111111VVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIse..4,150 +49,28'4 , 514,867 514,857 wgi 51,10,;1,0,03 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111115 P7,'570 +&4.78'1 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII52O 7'I'r+'4'q`7' 60 $12,743 542,743 51.710n Lou VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIpIII�IIIIIIIIhI5014,0'80,,+2.3,4501 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111111111111111111517,2,11 +5t 6$0'r S10,n'- VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs1a,t,5 r+ 1341 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs13,Daa,,+s ,31,4., 53301,0ry 58495 58495 VIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1111157,1 7i+5839., IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexll1gton IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexingtpn s6n,;n,aa, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIII16111137155a a8a +$9,n7Gi 55371 Burllingtam 55371 Burllingtam Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 3109' RE S2,alOn.O,Yu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV s 17F +$11,931 I VIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV s8,48ui+$17 '401 52.1,240 $21,2401 $1son.ob,lu IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs29',328 + 1n,E1_1 ED 5'4,6 r+413.`1.1 519,L"6 ;49,1:6 • 5P,60r1,003 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII s2_a:,a r+ss a:,sr VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII530,'8 ,,+51-'43., 51F 43; 51E n92 .„„ 51,40n.011u VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVI NI11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s 2.1.6 4+$t 7651 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111152F q 5'1+SI,'0881 514,8F7 114,857 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII517 784 +$5,1411 VVVVVV 11111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111115e._,0'87 r+'410.1441 $1,2011,0103 SP_753 312 743 $1,0103.61}u 11111111111111111111111111111111010000000000015,13.'r,F +$ _6r VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII3P9,230,,+$86201 slo,c.2G ,POJ:-0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111115 da,ORB,,4$1,'59.1' VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5P_391'1+S,.995;, sano,aa, 55'496 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex!ngton roA,495 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexl ngton 56,,,,a„,, 11111111110156,_ori I-¢1311 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1111111111111111111551,'543 +$5,1 'r 56 3'1 Burlongtam 51 371 Burllingtam Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes 92 Lexington v Cambridge FY20118 Residential Property Tax Denxographllcs and Residential Taxes ,2,0,0,,,0,ly„ IVIV11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII5,8,b;n r+51 5 l„I'II"i',^14"1'1:i..d1i�33 7"7 414 44' 11_,b 1 4P,,o,.0,Y„ VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1000IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII2c_74„ +$16-,5_1 4,1'9 sP,e,,;,,q,c,n IVIV11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11 i0111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111142J,35 r+'414 949) hllllalllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:'1iC1ir i,11111lll''iii 1I11:1A/C+"'';014990,x1 37 93A "r 41,400.41N1,.. VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_24,02_i+'413,147] 3!,67 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVr°:''li^i' i'i Pa,1. a,' $j,34I,,Q14n IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIhIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIV 17.161: +41174`_Y 204 CU $P,Q04.4g4 VIVOIVOIVOIVOIVOIVOIVIIIISIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII004 P4,31-10 +$10 1431, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1H111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,,Ir""""^1111�1'"1i'�'!!1111143,1 57 .t VVIVIVIVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII411,441 +$8,-,41 629 45x4,04"' .2,0,99 VIII Lex.lncp/on Exempt a 1m1,II-1rc 11111111111111111111111 Lexi nct0n 043 1111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111114'9 00,+$t '44 5 1, ^2PE4P Car46'rudge 4_48 993 Carnbrudc e 141 x11404 1. 411 11 101 I 111, it 0414 1 1 1 1 411;x1 11 111111 44 111 101 Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 109' RE �9"43 -F419.3964 291 + 1 7,N0' 42,000.1'1 k4 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 11111111111 11111111 4 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV IIII12,50 4 $ 2Y4 447 412,50 G 41,844.4,441 VIV11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11Vi000IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 424 7-5 1+31..26 11VOIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 424,1_ +$16 5341 39,109 $11,32' 41,60,,1,0011VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000423,587 +$15,6561 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVi0001111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111142_,n J4 +$149b a `7 x,31 434,064 • $P,404.4U4 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 324459' +$1.7511 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 421, 96�1+$1.044411 8.6,47' 48.006 W 2P,l0i4Q0n VIVOIVOIVOIVOIVOIVOIVOIVOIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 P 7,3_1 +611, 161 VVVVVVVVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114167',8 +$11,.20'1 99) a 49 415 57 544 '^, 4P,4401,u1k4 VVVVVVVVVVVVV .1111 4P4,ad,3 +$14.x41"] VIV11V11V11V11V11V11V11i11VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 41_,690 +4- , 501, $4.15' 4+_'94 "X VIVVIVVIVVIVV111111111111111111111111111111111111115.11,11' '1+5 1'6] liiiiiiii000000000000000000000000000000000S1_5_ ,+v7480] 4800,00' 52,E 97 VIII Le'In cyton IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex,ngt0n 3, b1,n,OO, VV1V1111111111111111111111111111111111111s79'47,4+56,39BI 111111111111111111 VV1V11V1V1V1VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII159,364,,+s=,6P01 4P54Il Carnbrudge 4".774 Carnbrudge Owner-Occupied with a 209' RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20%RE ,a n' ="4,+ 2 5e= 4544,+ 21, 2 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 $ IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 $ 42,1�04.0,N41 3140,447 4/2,541, 41,444.4,4 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 427 454 r+$1 6917 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4 ,45 r+'419.72 1 39,1-9 411,3=" 51,6,00,a,,on VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111324,4=31,+$1b 4991 Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000527 .00 +$17-,3'61 47 931 411,054 • $1,441.4,441 IVIV11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII32_-18' r+$14 ,17' IVIV11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII424,150 +$1 3441 10 311,47- SF.80E- 4P,10,u,0,,U„ VIV11V11V11V11V11V11i00111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114174'570 +61, 11.1 VIV11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11V11VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11192a 7d la,+$13. 1.,,l a 4`41_ 57 54' 4P,a'0n,,1k4 VVVVVVVVVVVVliiiiiiiiii1111111�11� 414,4'8x1,+49,9__ VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII417 .Q +51:,,96x'1 3.6'43 "X VIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII411,1_,1 + 731i, 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111513,0aa 1,+48,7.461 4500,00' - '899 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Le".I ncpton IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex,ngbjn 3, ,,,:no a, VIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII3 1 711+$ 91 Iiiiii0000000000000000000000000005 P4 i41'+56 717 41,641 Carnbarudge x- 74 Carnbarudge Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 30% RE I7E +$22, "8 46;1 1+ 5 9„0, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 '+1 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4 $ 42,1�04.0,N41 514 44' 4/2,580 $1,601.4,441 VIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII329',328 + 20.1_91 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3.4,b 4+$.3. 10: 49,1°9 411,3^" $1,E014Q0n el VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 32.4' +$17 5491 VVVVVVVVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111113 3,'8 ,,+$10 719 47 9'1 411,064 • 21,401.4,44 10 SP 'I+514,9'm'i1 VIIVIIVIIVIIVIIVIIVIIVIIVIIVIIVIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII42E 4 'I+513,1291 0,E7- 48.8116 f ,120,q,0„ VIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVII IIIIIIIIIIII;II111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111917794 +$1n,11.9'1VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVV0000000000500400�00000000000000000000000000000000000000052_,0'871+$1'5 9} W Iiiiii10000000000000000000000000000000000000000S12,-1,F +$ 7'9] VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000I'-,19',•4x +9i,,9'1'1 N 4P,q�0n,,1k4 9415' -'44 ',9 VVV1V1VVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII2 P0,D'88,,4$7,185 OIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII51_.3917+-,1;1,359'I 391-1 gybtl" 42 8'49 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 45 q'�2 111111 Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 3, II:an VVVVII I II1IIIIIIIIII IIIAII26 x4,411+44,5991 VVVVVIVVVV111111111111111111111111111112 P1.543 +$7 7E9'1 _P,G4Caml6ndge 4_774 Caml6ndge Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes Cambridge average single family tax bill for FY2017, source tt '1wr'r,Ae,,Ar tr1, g. \I' pike .?def1 u V' p,Ues.g°1 1C 'PPIld1 t.2O'g 13.0: ,°'fy � 'n Q' facts ficlures Pdf 93 Lexington v Concord FY2018 Residenitilal Property Tax Denlagraphllcs and Residential Taxes 52,0,00,8,10 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVI s,8,bua,; Lexington v Lincoln FY2018 Residenntilal Property Tax Den)ographllcs and Residential Taxes $2,0'00,00,0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVII5,8d IPI 7+5140q iraV'.Ik,:71PRP:;I oo,11133 7'7 528,060 E 781 51,8017,8110 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111105,_741, +540 r Cld 525,252 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV!'4i!'d'" 4i'i $940,3'5, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIII5,,,, ' ,'+'54-27 7illiY�,SI ITTIM $ P'E0'1'0'0n 522,448 41,149,169 5140+6,10 V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VVV1520,02-,'+'$3751 ",^, 519.,64. 111111111111112h, A,Viliii"3YE'11,11I't1A 514,E 9i gl 51,2001,00n VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVV151117.16,0 +5-241 51_,6_3' 51,0'00.01}0 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV514�n� +$27p7 11111111111111111111111110r401014 311 < V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VVV1511,440,'+'5:161 14 0 5200',&11' 511,224 IIIIIIII Lexi nl uton Enelmpt+m'++sl 111111111111111111111111 Lexi n uton 5,6,,,0 0,08, VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVI115'8 000 1+5162) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 50 5241'0 L1mcrin 50 L1scoln I ,i l' C I, I 10, II'1 ' ''1 f, 1 I' i Y 11'., 0 I oii F. I I I u u,II I Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE 0,00,0,1N0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VV1VVVVV11s29,-'43,'+51.703 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111IIIIIIIIIIIII 4 4'9. 1+53,2211 528,060 528,066 510010.0110 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111100000520 7151+51,41511VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VVVlllllllllll 528,1_ 7+5250'FI 520,22_,4 520,254 ar 51,60:1,00+ VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 523,.87 +51 1391111111111111111111111111111111111111111100000000005,_.724 +$ 761 522,448 42.2 448 51,400.01,0 111111111111111111111111111111111111000052c 45 q +$8171 11111111111111111111111111111111111000000000511,096!+$2,_54) 519,64. 519',64. CU V7 51,2001,0'0+ VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV111111517.371 +54951 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVV11111111510 765 +51,932 411 515 IF 51+ 40 41,0'00,01,0 V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1V1514,211 1+'51711 V1 VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1111111111111151_,640' +51,X101 514,0'3 < 1111111111111111111101511,0,s -5.140 INEMEMENUMENN L,51 I+_1._001 n0''0.'1'' 511,224 mom511,.4 1111111 Lexingtan 111111111111111111111111 Lexington ,6,-,u,0,00 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VVl5,7,°1471,-54711 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIII59,31,4 1+59661 5041_ Lincoln 50410 Lincoln Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 42,0'00,01,0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII S_P 3"311+53,270,1 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVV11VVVVVV 5,4,50'01,+5F 4401 528,060 428,06^ 51,80+,0,1,0 V1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VVVV1V1111111111111111111V1127 FS' '+4 ,628) V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1V111111111111111111111115 1,050 i+'55,7511 520,254 520'54 Cld D 41,601,00n 111111111111111111111111111111111111110e5.464--'31,+51,982VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111111111111527 .00 +55,1521 522,448 >,„„ 41,400,0110 V1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VV1VVVVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVV11111111152_70' l'+'01. i01 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 52.4,150' +54.,001 525,04. 515,64,. 10 51,2011,000 VIVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVliVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVV111517,'530' +&16941 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111111111111111111115207.1 In ,$3,4641 1„ry 51+04+ 51+04+ 51,0'00,0,1,0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VV0S14,0;01071,+5501' VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VV111111111111111110000117,2,11 +5 20) 414,0'3 •;f(': 11111111111111111115/0.t 0,'-5-,941 111111111111111111111111111111111111111$13,8001,+5/,5701' 0p,0.'1'' 511,_24 (IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 511,_`4 1111111 Lexl ngton NM Lexl ngtan ,,,o,1;0,08, lialliValValliVis7,1 7 1$1,2351 INUMNiiiiiME51n 3501:+51,9371 5041'0 Lincoln 5841'0 Lincoln Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 3109, RE 12,0,00.0110 V1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVS 17+ +55,1101 V1VVVV1VV1VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVV VV 538,45111+511;424,1 428,060 428,060 $1,50n,0qu VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1V111111111111111111111111529,328 +,4.0741 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1V11111111111111111111111111111111115.4,10 0+'$9"7' 525,254 320,254 Cid m 51,60'11,0'00 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV11111111111111s2.4,i0 r+$3.0+21 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV430,'8 1,4'50, 1 522,448 522,448 51,4000110 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVV11111111521,6 '1+$10-1990VIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111152F 9 51+4 ._9F) 5191,642 519,642 al 51,200,000 734 +50481 111111111111111111111111000000000000000000000005,-.087 r+'$6.251 , 51,2011,0'0+ 110 1F 31+°F SP,O'00,01N0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIa1VVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VI$13,'!55 594'11111111111111111111100000000000000000003,1 9,248'1,+$5,11 CO u1 514,0',1 514,&'� VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV510,b'8®1,- 1,1313;, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1V111111111111111151-,391 q+54,1671 ,,,,,,,0„, '00 0' 511,224 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 511,2`4 11111111 Lexington 000000000000 Lexington 46,1;n'00 1111111111015,6.401 l-$ 175) 1111VVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111111111111111511,543 +$ .12.1 SE 418 Llrn2'dn 5841'8 Lim_oln Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes 95 Lexington v Needham FY2018 Residenitilal Property Tax Denlagraphllcs and Residential Taxes $2,0,00.0,Nb VIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 449,,b:it,:+$4,+4a1 kii.'ll'Ii,Nw1t""li9.id,.duiw33'"7 423,749 30.94,9 SP 80,'Y.Qb,u VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 54.741, +54 5151, 921,384 a, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVFl'uws'",wIP;'I.,,,J,9'liii ii 114990 99'5. D si,600,a,0n VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 943,+9' r+'S l' 991,4,8'8 519,0119 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 520,02_r+'53,3491 a//• SP,1Go,9,Gn VVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVII hIIIIIInIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$1 oi Yu ICI slF715,1 +$2 4444 ������������������������������������il�i.',9�'S'"VWVw�, s�ml�li�9�'dl19 i, Ail 4Pa,1•°i 4,2 • 51,30n.4,Nu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV5111111,;9' .n,b,+$4,4 a,! VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIiIi'.1'!!'Yw,„""C'!Y',','I1471 < VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs11,449 r+'$1,9761' 11 90 ,,,a-,0,,00, 99,504 IIIIIIII Lexington Exeimpt am'ms IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexl ngton $6ni,am, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIs'8 .00 1+51 4'541 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 50 57,129 Needham so Needham I 'ICI' i. I i I ''M, II'I I, 'II'I i, 1 I I i PII,nI 0 'It oii; II Y y,II I Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE 54.b,0n,3,4 0 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111949,'43 r+91 0911 VVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 9 2'9' r+$ .5101, 52.3,7�0 523,7'9, 51,900.0110 VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 525 715 1+5'5,7"1} VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII 529,1_ 7+56 75c, 421,384 521,384 CLJ • 51,601,,9,00 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 543,,57 +54, 794 1111111111111111111111111111111000000000000100000000000000$4_.744 +56;454 so 510,049 510,049 ,„ • 51,400.01 Nu ����������������������������������������������������������� 520 450 +5 5-'P �I����I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I�111111111111111111111111111111111111111$21,896 I+$_.4647 510,6' 510,6" CU 51,201,,9,00 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 517,3^_1 +5 0-'51 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 510769 +54.512 O 514,25E 514,256 pJ 51,5,00.000 VI VVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 514,21,7 r+'52 7 VI VVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVIVVIVVVVIVII IIIIIIIIIIII 81_,640, +9 7601 LA 511,53'` 511,09' < MMEMENUMEMIIIIIIIII 511,0'5 4+51. '11 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111151-51 14:3.309;, 4509,01,, 59,504 59,504 56'0,1,007, ������������������������ 570'404',,+'5919', IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington VIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVV1111111111159,364,*$4,.561 57,129 57 Needham 57,128' Needham Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 92,500.000 VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5 13' a,,+97.57177 IiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMMEMEMEMEN 9,4,500,,+$10'40; 923,700, 523,750 91,900,0110 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111427 a9' r+56 4-irs,, 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119 1.050 r+59.66,4 921,384 921,384 Od • 51,601,,9,00 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII s44,4:3,,+$ 4-27 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 447 .,aa, +5S 454 76 910,009 519,009 • 91,400,0110 MMUMUMUMUMUMiiiiiiiiiMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 92.88' r+'54,3491 1111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111544,159, +9 1 4 ICI 416,6-- 51s,6-. vii 54,1011,800 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii11111111111111111517,'530, +S .4741, IiiiiiiiiiiiiiIMMEN10111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111520 701,,456 4447 o514,-.6 514,256 SP,a,0n.4b,Nu MMENUMiiiiiiiMEIIp111111115114,0'0,0,,+5E, 01,7 �I�10�I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11917,2_11 +$ 'CO 511,09' "'� VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIV111111510,0 0 r+ 1,1264 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 513,9501,+94,296 5000,041'' 54'504 (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 9,504 1111111 Lex!ngton IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex!ngton n, n,00,, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIs7,1 11+5 1 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII0910750,:+93,2_.1 47,129 Need halm 57,129 Needham Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 309' RE S2,a,0n.o,7u VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114 170 +99,4164 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII479,4Ep1+514.720;, 523,7a, 523,740, 51,900,40110 �I����I����I����I����I����I����I����I����I����I����I����I����I����I����I����I����I��I��IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 529',349 + 7 9441 �I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5,4,6 r+'913,4491 521,384 521,334 Cid M ,I,600,00n VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII052-4:10 1+'96 4'21 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 53'0,'8 ,,+'$1L' 5, 519,0119 419,008 • $1,400. l, VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs 2 a.6 '+s_pool VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII52F q 5 q+$1.1,30-,4 ICI 416,6'" S14,6-" VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVV1111111111111111111111111517 794 +5 _8l VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111154_,087 r+'58 17 • 51,2011,9,00 914,250 914,256 51,9,00.4014.1 �I����I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I��I����I��IIIIIIIIIIIIIII$13,'!$1 +5 ;,56 4 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 519',24x,,,+57160l' u1 9d1,;90 411,180 "� VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 460,0'8®,,+$°5'44 �I����I��I����I��I��I��I��I��I��I��Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Sl-,391 7+s 9874 48',9 b, 99'504 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 59,504 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV g6.ati 1=536°s, 11111111 Le X10 gton 000000000000 LeXIn51$70 5q,,,0,09, VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111111111111111111111110911,'543 +$4.415;, 57,128 Needham 57,129 Needham Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes 96 Lexington v Newton FY2018 Residenitilal Property Tax Denlagraphllcs and Residential Taxes 52,0,09,01')0 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115,6,9114 1;+58^1F.clr :8',4.11.171'!0,,)uuo33"7 521,640 88 794 51,5an.alu IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111115,_741, +56,264') 519,47E D $1,100,0,0, �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1111111111111111111111111115e.E.+B' t+'S ,6671, �����������������������������������������������il��IV'SI)"iilllli �iiliiI1 iiii.I ''I' Rii,i9"'I'mdli 599'0 8'5 517,31" 44,0,9-3E7 > 5VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11720,02_t+'54, o -, 515,148 1111111111111111r!" dm'u,.5i0lll°11°, „!111ii.u',.Ii1u514,1., $4,1051,0,0, �1�DIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVDIVD1�IIhIIIIlpllllllll�lllhlllll141$17,1611 +$4,16'1 011, +a $1,0,0n.0nu VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIpIIhIIIIoIIII5.14,7.901+$3.4'801 �I�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DI�DIYIIl01,2IW�m��u'�IVI"'I;114 t11 .‹ VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$11,440 t+'$ 7841' 10 82 $8',0,01 58.5` IIIIIIII Lexington ExeimptarnIau,ntt IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex lllgton $.6,,I.9,00, �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1111111111115'8 .00 I+5 ,U+81 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 50 56 49 Newton so Newton 111''10110 1'11V, II'I 1l I, '1171 f, 1 I' 1 P1II t1 0 '1'005; II Y y,II I Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE $e,0,0n.01Nu 1111����������������������������������������������������������������������111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110,"43 t+$8,2034 �I����I��������������������������������������������������������������������� llll llllllllllllllllls 2'8. t+$9,"41} 521.640 52.1.640 51,501'1,0,1')1 11111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 525 715 1+57,E-9'1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111120,1_ 7+50 1 519,4-E 519,47E ar • 54,1051,0,09 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111111111111111111115,3,.87 +56�,-s5) VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111115,_,n24 +5"12) 517,31" 447,31" ,„• $1,400.091 ������������������������������������������������������ 520 454' +$5, I1) 111111,11,11111,11,1011111111111521,096 i+$6 740') 410,148 510,148 V7▪ $4,1051,0,09 �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1�11111111111111111111517,3^_1 +54.,4 �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1111111111111111111111111111518 768 +55,,841 LU SP=984 512,954 1'J 51,0,00.00u �1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�O1�11111111111111111514,2514 t-x53,3891 1111111111111111111010000000000000000000051_.640 +54,'02111 LA 510,020 510,020 Q 111111111111111111111111111111111111111511,07S'I+52 4191 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115L,'51 I+,3.956) 5'80,0,011, 58.5 5, 58.55,- 1111111 LexIgton IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexlllgton 5y,bi10,U0, VIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVV1111IIIIIIIIIIII5,75,471,+'51,4_51 11111111111111111 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111111111111159,3141+$e,84J 55 49 Newton 50 49- Newton Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 52,0,09,01 Nu VIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5 13' 31,+$9',6'51)I VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s 4,50'01,+$1,.8601 $21640, 521,640, $1,80n.0nu VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1111111111111111111111111111111111111527 a8' t+08 41141 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 1,050 t+'511.`741 519,47E 519,47E D 11,6051,0,0, �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��111111111111111111111111111111115e.4,4'31,+'57,1181 �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1111111111111111111111111111111111111111115e.7 „09 +510.1881 76 517,31" 517,31" • $1,400.01,,0 111111111111111111111111111100000000000000000000000052_=!8' t+'ss, o 1111111111111111111111111000000000000000000000000000000000000s,m.so +$9,1'(o.' ICI 515,148 515,148 vii +$4..49 tn $1,)0.: ,Un VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 517,'570, ;, 111111111111111111110000000000000000000000000001000520 7'1x,t+'¢'71t to 412,984 542,984 $1,00n.01Nu 111111111111111111IIIIIVIIIIpllllhlllllll1911 S 14,0'0,01,+$9,2,,114 �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��11111111111111111111111111517,2111 +5t 430;, 410,120 "'� 11111111111111O11111111141a,t 101+ 1.974' 1111111111111111111111111111111111413,50,01,+4 .1441 58610,051, s8.FSh 11111111111111111 48.F S, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIII57,1 1+$86 ') IIIA Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington $691;9,00, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111111111114c111151a 350 1:+53, ,81 5k 49 Newton 5.5 49 Newton Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 309' RE 11,a,0n.011 1111111111111111111111111111111111,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 175 +$11,531 I VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111 111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111598,48;1 I+516 841NI 56.1,640, $21,647, $4,809.01')1 �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111$29',320 + 9, 2, �1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1��1�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111114,4,6 .'-t$1.$.1. 'I 519,476 519,476 m $1,6011,00, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII41.4.101+$8,1681 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII43,0,'8 1,4'51.471, 517,31 517,31" .,„• 54,409.01')0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111111111111111111156.1,6 4+$t 4841 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$2F 9 5,+$11'8'1 515,148 515,148 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII517 784 +54.'8004 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1111111111111111111111111111111111115,_,067 t+'¢1031113'') $1,200,00, $12 994 $12 984 $P,a,On.abIN1 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII513,,',5 +$ 11tH1111111111111111011111111111$19,240,1,+$5421; U ,40,860 510 0_0 "� VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111111510,0'881,451,4- I VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111151.3'911+s1_ s) s5Po,coov $5.57 58.5 5, IIIIIIII Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington $6011 n,„, 11111111110156.411 I=5.'521 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111O11111111111111111111111$11,'543 +$5.,1'`1) $6 49 Newton S,6 49' Newton Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes 97 Lexington v Waltham FY2018 Residenitilal Property Tax Den)ographllcs and Residential Taxes 42,O,O .0,00 IVIV1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114,e,1a114 +$ ,z441 15,10011851,11111.15,1,1 833"7 423,'5F 62 442 5P,5an,61ru IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111114e._741, +644tu61 , 420 54 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111,11,11111,11,11111,11,1100000000000000000000005,z.-18' i+'54,568176 !�,�lh"�dd .Il,iimilMii'I�'i^„,,,,10,111,,1158,1,, ill 499'.2 1'S' 51,600,0,005.48,'42 59 VIVVIVVIVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1V1111101IlIlpllllllllllllllllllll0IlllIr152a,02_r+'54,230,1 11''diii^1,1111„I 54'400' 11u IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII:.i^,i'ruP, iIIs14,1,q. 51 20,11 a,O0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVIIh11111131111IIIIII6ro17,1611 +$ 1921 59 SP a,On,01u 11,11,11111,111000000000000000000518.888.01+s9,s,4I VIVVVVIVVIVVNIVVIVVVVIVVNIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVNIVVIVVVVIii'"""W11°'C'!Y',',',111114 311 < VIVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 411,440 i+'53,2161 1.61 58na,,bil' 48.224 IIIIIIII Lexington Exemptaln.5,u,'Ytt IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 460,0 000, 111111111111111111111111111111111111111158 .85 I,F$ 8781 50 45,7.21 Waltham 4147'91 Waltham I ' 1'1' 1. '1 210, II'1 1l 11 211'1 1 I' I 1II1 8 I IIoii; II Y y,II I Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE Se,0,0n.01}u VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$ 6,-43,'+6646' VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$ 2'9. ,'+66260 423,3'50 2_,220 $1,8.05.01lu VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII420 7151+6'5,880 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII426,1_ 1+S 4547 526,834 522,695 51,60t1,a0n VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV4�3,.67 +85,�'5i VIVVIVVV1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V11111111111111111111114e_,524 +84.'0461 $18,1112 526,1'6 51400.00,u 111111111111111111111111111111000000000000000000000426459 +84.6091 11111111111111111111111111111110000000000000000000$21,898 I+$4, 421 51.720 517,664 1,1/ 51,2011,0,00 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 117,3^_1 +84.56 111111111111111111111111110000100000000000518 768 +8 63111 up 413,265 415,1_ pJ 51,0,06,0011 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 114,2117 i+'83,4_ 1 0,1111111111111111111000000000000051-.640 +8 11101 $7 516.746 512,616 < 111111111111111111111111111111111111111611,0,5 4+$2.651) 1111111111111111111000000000051-51 I+_2 4.4) 4800,011, 18-24 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 516,088 11111 Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 5601,,000 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVI111111111115,7 44'1,+'5 ,2451 1 VIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIII 49,3b4 1+$ll 5181 Waltham s7 566 Waltham Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 52,005.01111 VVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV S 1 3' 31+87 9741 001100VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV s'4.5001,+$9',2801 523,'56 425,228 51,000.00u VIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVI11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111427 26' '+$ 11461 INIONNIONNIONNIONNIONNON1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s 1.0561+'58,3'_ 1 420,074 522,695 51,60i1,00n VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV4e..4,4'71,+'501151 VIVVIVVV1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1111111111111111111111111111114e.7 .,00 +874241 Tal518,'12 526,1'6 51,406,6.24 11 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111142_70' ,'+'$5.190l' 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111$2.4,150 +$6,4$t1, ICI 41.740 417,654 Lin 51,3011,00n VIVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4P7,530, +54.20 7 VIVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111152071001+'65.5101 66 $17,2,J8 5115,1=" 41,000.0, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIPIIhIIIIJII514,0'001,+13, 7421 VIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 117,2,11 +$4,,481 $12,"_11 ,,'8f(': VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 510,,6161+ 4,06 VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs13,8001,+53,71 5830,0,11, 58-24 (IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 110,1188 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIII57,1 1+$14 61 1111111 Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 4° 0 0200,' 45'17 walltham 8818181818181880578816160?'Sa,;+$ 7e41 walltham Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 3109' RE 52,a00.011u 11110105 17F +$3',620l VVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111488,45111+$1 .2E01 -9F -_,220 51,500.01}11 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIII3111111111111111111111111111111429,328 + 54141 VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$X4,6 '+'¢11.2341 5_0,034 522,645 m 51,6011,0,00 VIVVIVVV1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII52.4:1a f+;'1631 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV11111111111111111111111111111111111111530,"8 1,4510 b87' 418,',12 520,1'1 $1,40n.0,1,,,, > 0,11111111111111111111111000000000000000000000000Se1,6 '+$ .842 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs2F q S 4+s9,_a11 615 748 417,664 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111517784 +$4.:at:, VIVVIVVVVV1V1V1V1VVV1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V2111111111111111111111111111111115,._,057 i+'6''1` 11,30,,0�On 5.13.2.50. 5_5,12ry 1 $4,0,00.01 In VIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIII$13,6!65 +$ 1401 11111111111111111888888888888s14,246,,,+$f5, 301 u1 510,740 512,640 "� VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVI1111440,0'881,+51, 041 111111111111111000000000000000000s4_,3911+5 1031 4830,b, 48.224 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 510,088 IIIIIIII Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 56"000, VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIII56.4111+$` 7 VIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVV111111111111111111111111111441,543 +$ 4777 $5'0,_ walltham 5,566 Waltham Residential Property Takes Residential Property Taxes 98 Lexington v Wellesley FY2018 Residential Property Tax Demographics and Residential Taxes 02,0,00,7110 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I028d�1141;+$4,7001 100 l„IV,1irr:Iri119,00,_ 47 523,957'4' 9.4'9 61,B04.0,/4 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII52.741, +$42.341, a, 521,514 D $1,6051,0,0, VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1111111111111111111152E,+8' i+'0 76111, VIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVV1,;lij;i,Vp,VGWS, s,Vii3'liliiii I. :'i'1,Rii,il''::::m(1i15990 6'5. 59_,A1 58 $1,9',1_4 > SP 4007100 VVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVV1V1111111111111111527,02_i+'25,2'1l' ICI 511729VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVE99,91 `°;•151101199009,00,09119514,10.9 01,,1051,004 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999099999959-7,1611 +12,6100 5514,899 5154 01,0,00.7100 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVII5II11lll0 S y,7001+$2,3',71 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV'Viii illllldii.'�i':014 9u < 99190990990990990910000000059-1,449i+'51.1871 11 05 0240,,'951, 59,560 1111111111111111 11111111 Lexington im Exeptamiontt IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 5.6,-w 4,00,, 9999999999999991999,58 .00 I*514101 50 57,170 Well 1e51ey 59 Well les ley i 991119 i. 111 9 II11 , 1 1,11, 11 'II'i 1. 1 I' 1 ( 1111 91 0 1'1111; II Y y,II I Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE 02,4,00,7110 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 520,-43 i+55.443 VVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5 2'8' i+$ 1801 023,054 2_9741 $1 0010,0110 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 S49 7151+55,205, VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111131111111111111111111111111525.1_ .1+St$42'1 521,'514 5_1,510 51,,6011,0,04 VV1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1V1VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV$23,407 +54,457;, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 525,424 +$5,9741 510,127 1199,121 "' 01,400,0100 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 024 459 +$ 79n VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VV11111111111111111111I111111111$21,096 i+1.167'1 9151 51E 729 510 72? 4B 01,,1051,4,04 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV111111111111111 S 17.321 +$2 7t1) VVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVV1VV1111111111111111111111111111111111111510 760 +54.420 un 014,940 514,940 51,,0,00,0110 VVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVV11�111p111111514,2517 i+'52,2.4; 0111111111111111111111111,005.1-.640 +0 6901. 511,951 9999999999999999999999919111111115.1,1,0'5'I+01. 1 I 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 L.OS I+_2 9"551 0247,051, 59,560 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 59,580 1101010 Lexington mum Lexington 05'111,0,00, VIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVVV1VV1111107 44'1,+577''1 9999999999999919990991111111150,31,4 1+52,1141 $7,170 welies1 ey 57,170 well les ley Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 52,90n,911u VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVVVVI000000000000000000000000000000$ 13^41,+$743910 0199099VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV $94,5001,+$10 ,701 522 9170 523,9170 51,000,0110 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111152778' '+56''111, VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 1,0575+'09,401, 521,510 521,517 D 51,6051,000 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 1524,4'31,+'5 .3101 VVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVIVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII527 .00 +504801 76 519,125 510,120 01,400.7110 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIII1111111111111111111111111111111152_50' ,'+'54,2_1;, VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII0n4,150 +$ 4_ 1 1 SP7 729 51,E 729 vii 91,2051,454 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIII01$17,'530, +5 P94P 1111111111111111111111110000000000000111111111111111111111052,07514 5+'56 36111 0 $14,34,0 $14,5.4,0 01,0,00,7110 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111514,S00,01,+52,La11 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$17.25,II +5 1001 511,95n "'� VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111IIIIIII$1a,L 105+ 1,4,'I: 11111111111111111111111$➢.3,8001,+54,2400 $8404051, 51' .4 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 59'58,0 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV97,1 41+5141, 1111111 Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington ,,5-,c000, $7,170 welllesle 11111111111001111s IC 3'07 +$3,15411 y $7,170 Welllesley Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 309' RE 51,0,0n.0Ilu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 11111 111111111111111111111111111111111111115 176 +$9, 'n) 11111111111111111111111111111111=1111p1011111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111538,48;i i+$14.,E01, $23,Bon $23,951 n 01,,800,0110 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VV11111111111111111111111111111111111111111$29'328 + 7 ,191' VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIII99111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111$44,1 i+'013,10-2) 521,514: 521,5:4: 0,0 M 01,6051,000 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$2.4.171,+'5E 51: VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII53'0,32 1,+'511.5'9,1 519,120 519,121 .,„ 51,400.0,14VVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111521,6 0+$4,970; VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110289 50+$1;1,10t'I 51,E 729 511 729 $ VVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVV11111111111111517 784 +5 4441 11111111111111111111111111111111154,-.0'87'+'58 74'1 01,1051,4,04 514,540 59_4,540 01,,4,00,7110 999999999999999999999999999990999513,9s0 +51,Sat:, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111151,4,247,1,+$7 '90) 541,951} 911,950 58,4 a,0,11„ VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV917,0281,+$°a ) VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1111111111111111111111191,-,3910+5 9310 59,560 1111111111111111 59,560 I0I0I0I0 Lexington000000000000 Lexington 060,,n7a, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVI16,_ai 1-$9304 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111511.543 +$4.,7-1, 57,170 Wel11e,ley $7,170 Welllesley Residential Property Takes Residential Property Taxes 99 Lexington v Winchester FY2018 Residential Property Tax Denlagraphucs and Residential Taxes 52,a,on,o0,0 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4,'8,6ua,;+$F .R0/ 188811',11,2803 7-7 423,046 $180,1.0,Nu 88181VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII885e._740 +050a,41, 519., .F 6i .28818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818181818r8r8 .i18t, �u�/38111'°I:"II"'/�,8 illd�i�.61160!4159408'5. 51,614,,8,10 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4,E,+8' 4+'2 46 1 41,a,0,847 Tal417,6" "' 514100,16 88181VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV111111111I11111111188526,02._4+'$4,'5+.p "' 515 428 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1!6 1IIu,,,,dLullll8"/88,'iP,liiii'4lll81514,1,, a/ 51,,aoo,a,on VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1111111111111111311111111I111111111114ro17,16,1 +54.3367 411,"5'5'1 51,0,on.51Nu IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIs11111pI1111111111111aI1111aPa,;.n,0,+$3,2;a't VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIII•4•4•4°1''"11111'w',41'i11490 < 88181VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111188511,4464+'6 ,141, 11 0,2 00c,0,00, 41.816 IIIA''' Lexington Exeimptalm,aunit 100000000000 Lexington 060',1 000, 8818181818181111111110888858 .04 I*61+681 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 50 56,61_ Winchester so Winchester 141' CI' i. 'I '0,, II'I I, 'II'I f, 1 I' i P I I 1 n 0 II oii F. I I Y u u,II I Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE 4t,0,on.01Nu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114s9,"43,'+$ 0031 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV S 25. ,'+$9.x41 422,040 522,040 $160,1.0116 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111111111111111111111111157+7151+56,0701 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1V11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111028,1_ 4+00 Is',, 519.,',".F 419.,".E CP $1,6ot,,00n VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 4-3,,87 +$5,955} V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1V1111111111111111111111111111111111111114e_,n24 +$7 420 517,6-" $17,6-" ,„ 41,409.01 Nu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 525454' +$5,0311 V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 521,0464+$546 1 51.429 111 428 CD 41,1041,0,10 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111p113111112111111�517,3^_1 +64.1071 8818181818181818181818181818181818181818181881888888888885/8 7E8 +65,5441 413,2-4 aj $1,0,on.5i VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1VDIVV111111111111111L514,24134+'¢3,1831 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV111111111111111111111151-,640' +$4.610/ 0 511,0_0, 511,526 ' 88181818181818181111111111088888511,075 4+$2,_59', VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV111111111111111111111111111111111o1_,51 1+_.3,696, $800,041, 48.610 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 48'910 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington $5'b11,n00, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIII574,47,,+'$1,3'= I VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII49,3i,4 I*$e,7721 56,61_ Winchester 5,.1,61_ Winchester Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 52,000.Pt Nu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 1111111J1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s 13'3,,+$9.,2'41)1 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 11111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s-.4,50'0,,+$1,460; 2046 3 22,046 $1,800.01 Nu V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111427 F$' 4+$8,044.1 V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111$ 1,5564+'¢11, 141 419., ,6 419.,".F CP 51,614,,aon IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV11111111111111111111 4 4,4,81,+'$F 74x1 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIde7 .,0a, +$ 9E a Tal 417,6'" 417,6„ 51,400.6'Nu V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1V1111111111111111111111111111142_=i8' i+'$5.5 I V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1V0111111111111111111111111111111111111111114e..4,150, +$87-2N 41`428 51`428 vtl2i $1,2141,aon IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVI11111111111111111111111111111111111111517,'536, +$4, 3F1 88181818181818181818181811111111118888881888888888520 701,,4+'$'4761 'A513,2'4 41=2'4 41,0,on.01Nu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIPIIIIIIIIIU14114,0'0'0,,+43,060.1 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1VV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111017.2_11 +5k a0N 511,020, ';f(': 8818181818181818181818181818818885./0.t,e 1+ 1.3 41 V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs13,300,,+54,184.1 48110,041, $8.81. $.815 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1111157,1 3 I+6.h87 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington Win, 0108, 881818181818181818800888888$10 3'c6 +$3,7381 Si,El_ Winchester 46,21_ Winchester Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 309' RE 51,8,10.0,16 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 4 17F +$11,131 I V1VV1VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 438,48;i i+$16 44111 421,046 $22,046 41,x00.01)6 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1V1111111111111111111111111111111111111111429',318 + •4,49'27 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV $,4,6 i+'$14 796, ;19,•".6 519,,"16 $1,6041,004 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111151-4:1C f+'g"0481V1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111151'0,'8 ,,+'$1_151/ 517,6'" 417,6'" .,„ 5P,4on.0,Nu 88181VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111111111111111885e.7,6 4+5k,204, V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV111111111111111111I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111$2Fq 54+$11 5n-1 415 428 51.428 V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1V1111111111111111111517784 +$4..,601, V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV111111111111111111111111111111111I11111111111111111111111111111111111111se._10'874+'$4'Oa_I 41,1041,0,00 513,224 $13,224 41,8,10.01)6 V1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1VV1111111111111111111111413,>!,F +$ 916} VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$19',2406+$6.2201, U1 411,0_0, 511,4:8, "� 41_,3914+5L 757 -I,VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV1111111111114 d6,0'88,,+$1,' V1VVVV1VV1VVVV1VV1VV1VV1VVVV1VVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4818 0, 08.816 7 48.816 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex 1 ngkOn IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 46001000, IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV1056.4111-5-721 IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIOII,543 +$4.^1311, 5,6,61_ Winchester $6,612 Winchester Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes 100 Lexington v Woburn FY2018 Residenitilal Property Tax Den)ographllcs and Residential Taxes 52,a,an.000 VIVVIV IVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 6,8.bX,;+$8 0i I„N11,p';I,dIpr111.,,i�ly33 7"7 SP978a� 39 7191 sP Ba,'Y.a,Yu VIVVIV IVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4e._741. +$7 7381. 417-31 Cld D P 6as ,i a,an IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII42,E.+3' t+5 n551341' ru Blimil+",illll'I'1.,1,'11'I'!'Giurril t00$96.0 s'5 41E°'4 44_'fa. > VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIIIhIIIIIp1131111g111�111511111111111162a,02_t+'$E P7ar "i w uullill�'q;;j�i;.tl,luu u1,11111514.1. ICI sP'aan' ,Nu VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"^i^Ii'ri 9 $P,1adl,aan IVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVI111111IIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhIIIIIIIIIIII317,16,. +s-, 921 s4 12uogl 2 sP a,an a0INu VIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs Pl.;.n01+s4,4Paa 111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIII1iiil0l'°1114';i11114 1'. $9,890 VI VVI VVI VVI VVI VVI VVI VVI VVI VVI VVI VVI VVI VVI VVI1111111111111111111111111111111411,44a t+'$3,_,284 '.89 ▪ ;ana,al„ 47 912 IIIIIIII Lex lilgton Exempt dIT14aLVl'YQ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lex lllgton 36n,I 00311111111111111111111111111111111111158 ;EnF$ ,heal 40 5,5`34 wabLI II'In Sp wabLI II'll1 11 r CI' I, t I '0,, It I 11 l I 1 'It' t 1 I P I I 1 n 0 II oii F. Y y u,II I Owner-Occupied with a 10%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 10% RE 4e,a,Gn.a'I Nu VIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4_9,-.43 t+$1 a.a633) VIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV !1111IIIIIII!111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4 2'9. t+$11.5Un' 51375a� 4P978n 55,5,50.6,Nu VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIII 52,F 715 1+s• '11_', VIVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII428.1_ 7+610,35 p'1 417°a2 $17"02 at • s1 6ai,,alan VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 503,.67 +$7 76339 VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5e_,n.4 +$ 001 311 8'4 $11 524 ,„• $1,404.01X.. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV $21454' +$,;.139 VIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 421,598 q+$b,j901'583,8'46 s➢.'_,846 ▪ $P,2UiI,a�Un VIVVIV IVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVNIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVII�IIIIp1111111111111110111111s17,3''1 +$5,48'.1 VIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVV111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs 16768 +$b 7001 411, ,a8 (tit▪'') $1,a,an•a,Nu 111,01,,,,000000,00000$14,201 t+'$4,3.31 111,0,111,10000000,00000000000061-.640 +55, 509 LA $9,890 $9,890 VIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIII 511,075 4+$1183't VIVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII41_,51 1+.4 BINU9 salt:1M', s7 41_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII s7 91` 1111111 Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 5641„a,aa, VVVVVVVVVVVVVV11111111111111111111115;2 n,a71,+$2,0134 VIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIV 1111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII49,3;,4,,F$ 4'5011 sE 934 wa b Ulm s5 9-4 wa b Ulrin Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 20% RE 52,oan.0,Nu VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs 13^31,+$11. so) VIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV IIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111s X4,5001,+$14,720; 41978a1 419T8a1 sP,Ban,a,Nu 111,11,,,,,,,,,,0000001000000000000000000001000000000000$27 '8' t+$10.0' 9 VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVV1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114 1,050 t+¢13'.24:9 417-31 $17"02 D v_$00,0,,0, VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111111114,.4,4'31,+'$8,r;Is4 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 4e.7 .06 +$11,'761 76 415 324 415`'4 • s1,404.0 I NMEMEMEMEMEMEMEN1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111142_=18' t+'$ .1344 INEMENNONNMEN11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115,4,150 +$1n.ii A4l ICI 413,846 $13,846 vii sl,1U,11,a1Un VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIV111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 S 17,S3a +$5„E ) VIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIV11111111111111111111111111111111111142570r t+'$8 -EI O 911,6x8 411,868 SP,0,0n.4dINu VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 414,0'801,+54,171,0 VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111317,2_II +$7 1609 ul 64,E90 49,890 "'� VIVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIV11111111111111IIs1c 8,a f+ 11e 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111115 13,593 I,+s Si.B $800,011, 47 91_ 5791 IIIIIIIIII57,1 7 i+$1 24FI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 'u,;a $6aVIVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVI gl $5 934 wo burn $5 9V3V�V54a 3'90,;+$4,41F4 wabLJ lfll1 Owner-Occupied with a 30%RE Not Owner-Occupied with a 3109, RE s2,alan.nb,Nu VVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111$ 17F +$1 3561 VIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111$98,4Ep 1+618 7aIN4 P9,75q� P9�78q� SP,BUn,aIIU VIVVIVVIVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 429'328 + 11,5261 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 4,4,5 ,'+$1b_809 517 4n2 517'32 m 51,600,0,,0n VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIs2.4:10 f+'4 q,EE b', VIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 53a,"8 1,+'$14,7"nl 5,1E°'4 412"'4 ,,„• sP,4an.a,Nu VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4e.1,6 4+$7 7561 VIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII$2F q 5 4+$1_,35'9'1 413,846 $13,846 al 111,01,,,,,000000000000000N17 734 +$5,716) VIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII4e._,0'87 t+511._161 ▪ SP,2UiI,a�Un 411,^.6 411,^.6 SP,a,Un•a'INu VIVVIVVIVVVVVVIVVVVVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 6,13.:H5 +$4.n48 VIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 419.240,,+$9, 531 U se,890 5989,:1 "� VIVVIVVVVIVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVVVIVVIV11111111114Pa.0'881,4'5 ,17n1' VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 51-3'91 q+574 99 s5na,a,;,^ 47 91_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington $7�1` IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lexington 56n1 a00 VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVII56-411 I+$IOW VIVVVVIVVIVVIVVIVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII411.543 +$5,,399 $5 934 Wobulm $5 934 Wulau'nil Residential Property Taxes Residential Property Taxes 101 Appendix: Services, Housing Stress and Emigration Survey Survey Executive Summary A survey of the Lexington community was undertaken to assess key questions for the Residential Exemption what portion of the community experiences high stress related to property taxes, how property taxes and high stress relate to migration decisions, and whether proposed tax exemptions would benefit members of the community with the greatest need or the least use of services This appendix considers survey data just as a source of evidence, and by itself, does not constitute a comprehensive assessment of residential exemptions 1,475 individuals (about 7% of the Lexington adult population) responded to the services and housing stress survey The survey results provide insights into whether relationships exist between demographic and tax data variables and two central variables of interest: housing stress and the forecasted likelihood of leaving Lexington within ten years (migration) While both of these focal variables describe subjective experiences, the Committee believes the broad outlines of the results provide insight into residential exemption policy Per the Committee's charter, two goals of a residential exemption would be to assist those with high housing stress (especially when property taxes contribute) or to impact decisions to leave Lexington To discuss measurement of possible policies, we use the conceptual framework of precision and recall 31 Precision is the percentage of those helped by a policy who are in the class of intended beneficiaries Recall is the percentage of all intended beneficiaries assisted by a given policy Key Findings 1 Renters much more often report high housing stress than homeowners 2 High housing stress is reported at all ages, length of residence, incomes and home values 3 Income is a better predictor of high housing stress than is home value 4 Means tested targeting offers higher precision than the State's Residential Exemption (SRE), but low recall 5 Renters are more likely to forecast migration than homeowners 6 Housing stress significantly drives migration for homeowners 7 Home value and income are not significant predictors of migration for homeowners 8 Middle aged populations have the highest forecast of migration 31 https//en wikipedia org/wiki/Precision_and_recall 102 Policy Implications 1 If rental property owners pass on increased tax burdens from the State's Residential Exemption (SRE) adoption to renters by increasing rents, it will impact a portion of the community that reports experiencing high housing stress 2 The SRE is a blunt (low precision) policy and will benefit many individuals with higher income or without high housing stress 3 The SRE would negatively impact middle-aged members of the community who already have the highest likelihood of migration 4 A Means-Tested Residential Exemption (MTRE) could offer higher targeting precision, but would provide low recall as few members of the community who experience high housing stress would benefit. 5 Survey respondents across all demographic variables voice concern about high property taxes in Lexington The open responses reported in this section should be read by policy makers seeking to address concerns of residents The Committee plans to post survey data and data analysis scripts on the Town website in spring 2019 1 Overview As part of our goal to gather information on what property tax challenges community members face, the Committee undertook to survey Lexington residents We designed a survey which would collect information on services, housing stress, and migration plans, as well as demographic information allowing us to correlate responses Furthermore, we gathered open response comments on two topics, although we ultimately decided not to correlate open responses with other questions because we had not disclosed that intent in advance and sought to protect individual privacy The central areas of concern for the Committee in addressing with this survey were Economic and psychological stress What role does property tax play in resident housing stress? Migration Is there evidence that town tax policy impacts migration? For example, are individuals experiencing property tax induced psychological or financial stress more likely to leave Lexington? Residential Exemption effectiveness Can we estimate the effect of proposed exemption alternatives on either psychological stress or migration? Justifiability based on service use Can we estimate for proposed exemption alternatives whether recipients of an exemption are heavier or lesser uses or government programs? 103 Means-tested estimation Can we estimate the number of qualified individuals for a means-tested residential exemption, and better characterize how they are differentiated from the population at large? As a secondary benefit, we hoped these survey questions would shed insight into resident use of government services, housing stress, and other subjects which residents could raise through open responses 2 Survey Process The Committee developed and reviewed questions in open sessions The Committee was interested in ensuring that respondents would be willing and able to answer survey questions, and that the survey questions maintained relevance to purpose To measure how well the population as a whole would be represented in the survey, the Committee promoted survey distribution verified by statistical testing The proposed testing was to align demographic questions with census responses so one could measure whether the survey demographics aligned with known quantities about Lexington, such as age or income The Committee reviewed the auspices under which the survey should be conducted We wanted to avoid asking residents directly whether they would prefer lower taxes (in order to prevent biasing responses to "yes"), and also to maintain a reasonable level of obscurity about how responses could be used Therefore, it was important that the survey not originate solely from the Committee, yet offer sufficient legitimacy to promote responses We sought partnership with other Town committees and departments interested in surveying Lexington, and found that while other surveys are in process, each one has its own timetable as well as varying levels of outside resources Aligning with committees on different timetables was not feasible as it would delay our research For the survey, we partnered with the Lexington Recreation Department which was also interested in how the use of recreation resources correlated with demographics As one of our questions was about resource utilization for affected populations (possible fairness criteria), this partnership aligned well with our mission, provided additional value to a Town department and offered an additional distribution channel, creating an overall "Services and Housing Stress" theme for the survey Moreover, as the Recreation Department will undertake its own survey in 2019, the results from this survey can be input for further survey construction 32 Draft questions were piloted with colleagues and friends, particularly outside Lexington Piloting provided some feedback and raised some questions for the Committee to address, such as What does it mean to receive fire or police services? Is getting directions from a police officer a service? How about being written a parking or speeding ticket? The Committee left this ambiguous in the survey 32 Communication of results to the Recreation Department is occurring separately and is outside the scope of this report. 104 Did we need to ask marital status? What did this mean for non-traditional family organization? We decided to drop a question on marital status and replace with size of household What was the survey "getting at" in asking about race? Because the survey was themed around services and stress, race did not strike some pilot respondents as relevant, and while there could be insight into subcommunities, the Committee determined it was not central to our line of inquiry and dropped any question on race or ethnicity Pilot respondents warned the Committee that intrusive questions unrelated to the theme might cause survey abandonment. Therefore, each question was carefully weighed for the value it would provide versus potential survey abandonment. Because sensitive financial questions are critical to correlation goals, we needed to include some difficult questions We placed these questions last so we would collect information from respondents who might submit partially completed surveys should bias arise Because the State's Residential Exemption is based on assessed value and not economic means, the Committee had interest in how vacation homes and snowbirding factored into Lexington residency Did some members of the community declare residency in Florida for tax reasons, and what action would they take if their Lexington property were to be charged materially higher taxes? But the theme of the survey and appropriate length prevented us from including any question which would provide insight into how residency and multiple-property ownership operated The Committee also discussed the respondent's ability to answer questions Would a less-financially aware respondent (perhaps the household member who does not manage finances) be able to answer questions accurately about market value, assessment, mortgage, property taxes, or insurance? The State's Residential Exemption is related to assessed value, but except for the most financially astute tax payers, we expect residents do not know their current year assessed value Do residents know their total housing cost? Would some include cable or water and sewer, while others do not? Our challenge in surveying these concepts in a clear manner for all residents, led to an innovation and some simplifications One innovation was to introduce the concept of"housing stress" as an intended catch-all for the economic and psychological impact which monthly housing bills may have on a household In keeping with our charge to support residents remaining in their homes, we reasoned inclusion of both more objective factors such as forecast migration as well as economic and psychological factors such as ease and stress, was important. Surveying housing costs is a complex area, and the Committee accepted obvious limitations beyond a respondent's ability to answer questions The survey did not ask whether someone with a high housing payment would continue to have it into the future (Are they near the end of their mortgage?) Also, the causes of housing costs are unknown (Is debt required to live in the home, add a new addition, pay college costs, or pay a family member's assisted care?) The 105 survey asks about monthly housing costs, but does not investigate the origin, purpose, future trajectory, or total liability associated with these costs As the Committee was interested in property taxes specifically, we asked what proportion of housing costs are related to property taxes Combined with market value of a home and monthly payments, these questions can give some insight into whether the respondent's housing costs are materially driven by property taxes The Committee considered how to handle respondents who might not have satisfactory knowledge of core questions around housing payments and household housing stress The Committee felt that respondents should state that they are "responsible" for housing costs to be included in final data analysis about property taxation Most data analysis excludes respondents who are not responsible for housing costs in their household 33 Survey Structure We structured the survey to begin with questions about use of town resources, attempting to set the tone that this survey was not about property taxes specifically Section two, on affordability, started with questions of interest to the recreation department, such as access to financial aid The first question central to our Committee's objective was to inquire about housing stress, and this was followed by an open response question The open response question thus reveals what respondents are thinking about when asked about housing stress--before the topic of property taxes was introduced (although being a town survey, taxes may come to mind easily) The survey was constructed using Google Forms We requested that responses only be submitted by current Lexington residents, but created no residency verification process We wanted to maximize response rates, so did not request individuals identify themselves, and therefore could not prove that each person answered the survey only one time The final results were downloaded from Google and processed via Python The survey contained the following sections and questions Section 1 Town Services All questions start with this phrasing In the past 12 months, has any household member done the following? These are the question numbers for responses Q1 Visited the Community Center Q2 Used town swimming facilities Q3 Used town recreational fields or courts Q4 Used Pine Meadows golf course Q5 Used a school or neighborhood playground Q6 Used the Minuteman Bikeway Q7 Used Lexpress bus 33 No further clarification was provided to respondents about interpreting the term "responsible" 106 Q8 Visited Lexington conservation areas Q9 Directly received fire or police services Q10 Attended Lexington public schools Q11 Participated in any town provided program or service for seniors Q12 Used Cary library or attended a library event Q13 Served town government in any capacity (employee, committee member, town meeting member, elected representative) [Response options All questions in section 1 allowed "Yes", "No" and "N/A" as responses We provided "N/A" as an option to allow respondents to explicitly skip questions, but we treated those responses the same as blank ones ] Section 2 Affordability Q1 Are you aware that the Recreation & Community Programs Department offers financial aid for programs and services? Q2 Has a household member received this type of financial assistance to participate in a program or service? Q3 If your primary residence is rental, please indicate your monthly rental cost: Q4 If you own your primary residence, please indicate your total monthly housing payment (mortgage, insurance, property taxes) Q5 Do you receive a property tax deferral or property tax credit due to limited income? Q6 What level of stress does your household experience with payment of monthly housing costs? Q7 Please elaborate or share any additional thoughts (open response question) Q8 Thinking about all the costs of living in your owned property or rental (rent/mortgage, home maintenance, condo fees, property taxes, insurance, utilities), what portion of these costs do you estimate is related to property taxes? Q9 Are you responsible for the housing costs at your residence (i e owner or lessee)? Q10 Are you considering relocating away from Lexington in the next 10 years? [Response options Q3 $0-$1499, $1500-$2999, $3000-$4499, $4500+, N/A Q4 <$2,000, $2,001-$4,000, $4,001-$6,000, $6,001-$8,000, $8,001-$10,000, $10,000+, N/A Q6 None, Little, Some, Significant, Substantial, N/A Q7 Open response Q8 None, Little (1-25%), Some (26-50%), Significant (51%-75%), Substantial (76%-100%), N/A Q10 Definitely Not, Unlikely, Undecided - Possible, Likely, Definitely, Have not considered, N/A Others Yes, No, N/A] Second 3 Demographics Q1 Age (respondent) Q2 Size of household (number of people) 107 Q3 Disabilities within household (check all that apply) Q4 Length of time living in town (respondent) Q5 What type of property is your residence? Q6 Approximate market property value of your Lexington residence (if owned) Q7 Please indicate your approximate household income in the past 12 months Q8 Please indicate how the survey was shared with you (any groups or lists or whether it was forwarded to you ) (open response question) Q9 Please share any comments to the survey team about this survey Thank you (open response question) [Response options To facilitate consistency between our survey with other population measurement tools, we chose demographic brackets used in the United States census via American Community Survey 34 We made some adaptations to better reflect Lexington's local population and to target demographics of interest to our focus on head of household decision-making For example, we combined all age brackets below 30 years old Similarly, we combined house value brackets below$500,000 because there are few in Lexington's current housing market. We also split up the highest ACS bracket ($1,000,000+) into 5 novel brackets because of the abundance of houses above that threshold in Lexington These were exceptions, however; most brackets remained consistent with ACS Q1 Under 30 years, 31-39 years, 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years, 70-79 years, 80 years and over, N/A Q2 1, 2, 3, 4, 5+, N/A Q3 Checkboxes presented so multiple section possible with a hearing difficulty, with a vision difficulty, with a cognitive difficulty, with an ambulatory difficulty, with a self-care difficulty, with an independent living difficulty, none of the above, N/A Q4 Moved in 2015 or later, moved in 2010-2014, moved in 2000-2009, moved in 1990-1999, moved in 1980-1989, moved in 1979 and earlier, N/A Q5 Single family home, multi-family home, condominium, apartment, other, N/A Q6 I don't live in a property owned by a family member, Less than $500,000, $500,000-$749,999, $750,000-$999,999, $1,000,000-$1,249,999, $1,250,000-$1,499,999, $1,500,000-$1,749,999, $1,750,000-$1,999,999, $2,000,000 and more, N/A Q7 Less than $35,000, $35,000-$49,999, $50,000-$74,999, $75,000-$99,000, $100,000-$149,999, $150,000-$199,999, $200,000 and over, N/A Q8 and Q9 were open response questions ] 3 Survey Respondents Considering the fact that this survey had zero administrative and distribution costs, the Committee conservatively hoped for 400 responses Expecting a relatively small sample, the 34 htt "www census co\pac mwvodatadata-tabUe and took 108 Committee did not anticipate nuanced results, and emphasized alignment with census categories for representativeness The survey ran over the period October 9, 2018 to November 16, 2018 and netted 1,475 responses Given the frequent open response comments, one can reasonably interpret that respondents were eager to provide their opinions on local taxes and this was an important survey Numerous respondents thanked the surveyors for providing an opportunity for them to comment about property taxes and services in Lexington During the short period the survey was open, the Committee planned to track distribution channels to ensure broad reach among Lexington residents We asked each respondent where they heard about the survey, giving us an idea of the primary distribution channels However, as this was an open response question, the answers contained numerous variations with respect to each distribution path Advice to future survey designers might be to provide a selection for consistency This Committee did not select that option because distribution channels were not preplanned in detail, and we anticipated residents would share the survey link among themselves as well A few noteworthy adaptations helped ensure widespread distribution 1 The survey URL was changed to have a town government URL. (Some respondents were put off by unofficial looking URLs, which is not surprising given recent privacy concerns and fake sites ) 2 Posting the survey on the town website provided assurance that it was official 3 Department distributions (Recreation and Social Services) appeared to respondents as more credible One limitation was that the survey never identified which part of the town governance structure had initiated the survey nor the specific purpose for which it would be used Some residents expressed discomfort or skipped the survey due to vague authority 109 The most frequent reported sources for survey receipt were 1oo ll��l�.�,llllll��llll ///%/il '- 1 thr �IL.��� IIIIII � email email, lex rec, forwarded, email from 214 town, town email, email from lexington human services, email list, email from the town, via email, from lex rec, lexington recreation facebook. facebook, lexington mavens, 57 mavens lexington list, lexington listserv, lexington 38 email list, lex list lexington at home 9 lexfun 9 We summed common responses and not the long tail of isolated responses, so these numbers are all undercounted slightly The responses to this question informed us that no single distribution channel dominated The question asking whether a respondent has served in town government in any capacity was placed to monitor whether those serving in town government survey would be overrepresented in the responses, in which case it could be argued that political elites are surveying themselves rather than the wider community The percentage of responses affirming a household member serving in town government was 17%, which reflects the high level of town participation in Lexington but perhaps some over-representation However, with this modest figure, the Committee feels the survey does represent Lexington in total, rather than principally the views of those in Town Meeting or other committee positions We took response representativeness seriously, looking at both the fraction of the Lexington population represented and the distributional similarity to demographic census data. Lexington's population is about 31,394 residents, and it's 30+ population is 66% of this figure or 20,720 Of 1,475 responses to our survey, 1,469 were from the 30+ population, or about 7% of the target population Looking at how representative of the population this 7% sample was, we can look at six demographic questions and compare with known data about the population 110 Age Representation (Q1) The following table compares the proportion of survey responses providing age, with age 30+ with the corresponding Census proportion for 30+ year old residents �pll„ 112991.1121140!„:0,1,u� ol., Age 3039* 12% Age 40-49 26% Age 50-59 24 3% 24% Age 60-69 16 8% 17% Age 70-79 14.2% 11% Age 80+ 6 5% 11% Total Respondents 30+ 1,351 *Age 31-39 survey Census Source https ncensusreporiter onaprofilles1600OLF,2535250 Ue, nnotcn•nia� The figures from the housing survey are comparable The most noteworthy difference is that the 80+ year old population is under-sampled in our survey, relative to the Census proportion Household Size Representation (Q2) The table below shows the proportion of survey respondents reporting household size n ;li 1 IIIIIIIImmurn rim „o.A 111 TfinI 1 83% 2 274% 3 174% 4 344% 5+ 125% Total Respondents 1,363 Reporting Size Average Survey 3 2* Household Size *We assume 5+ has average of 5 2 to construct this average size 111 Census data indicates the average persons per household is 2 8 (.I.tto cen a reoorter orq1pu fdos 1 00 1,U )2N.3" 4 Uo, P."gto p m& (2017 ACS census) Our larger average survey household size may be due to under-sampling of age 80+ years Residency Representation (Q4) We have not correlated the length of time in Lexington with Census responses http "consusroportor orq/'..pro phe . 160001 25.35250.Uexungton mai (2017 ACS census), although it would be possible Home Value Representation (Q6) Respondents were asked for their home value Some may have interpreted this as market value and others as assessed value We believe market values may be 10-20% higher than assessed values We have not gauged representation formally here, although the frequency distribution of responses shows that all segments of home value have representation Income Representation (Q7) The following table compares survey responII ses foll r income with the 2017 Census plllll °� f�i� i II 'yrrrrt ��1��MI� < $50,000 7 5% 17% $50,000-$99,999 16% 13% $100,000-$199,999 35% 29% $200,000+ 41% 40% Survey Respondents 1,154 reporting income Source !Was.//censusrovorter ora/orofiies/1 O t.0 52535250 Iexinaton ma/ This table suggests the survey under-represents the portion of the community with incomes below$50,000 112 Rent versus Own Own Rent Own- 1239 93% C a) Cn 0 0 Rent 100 7% ams nua=I:poiidEntsrF_oiisrhIE roan usa =: 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Response Count 1,339 respondents responsible for housing costs provided data from which to infer whether they rent or own For survey responses, if monthly rental cost was provided, the observation was recorded as "rent" If the monthly rental cost was not provided, and the market value of the home was provided, the observation was recorded as "own" If both fields were blank, then the respondent was not coded with either The survey suggests 7% of respondents rent and 93% of respondents own ACS census data (If Rp "Ceip 4s eocrter crgf'Puq pUe . 160001Lr325.3.525O.Ue, ungtcn mai) reports that 19% of Lexington housing units are renter occupied However, this is not equivalent to the percentage of population living in rental versus owner units, nor the percentage of the adult population which is being surveyed It does suggest that the survey under-represents renters to some extent. Error Corrections Twenty-nine respondents indicated housing costs in excess of$10,001/month and yet had homes valued at under$1 5 million These cases were re-coded as "ResponseError" since it appeared that the respondent had interpreted the question as annually For respondents with higher valued homes, this response seemed plausible and so those data were not re-coded 113 Grouping Responses For some analyses, grouping responses is helpful to see larger patterns After preliminary analysis, we grouped some responses to the following questions for some analyses Housing Stress Grouped into Low Stress, Medium Stress, High Stress Market Value Lowest two categories combined into one Income Lowest categories combined Age Youngest two and oldest two categories combined, separately Monthly Rent: Highest categories combined Relocation Grouped into Likely, Unlikely, and Neutral Principal Responses Because some respondents did not answer every question, we had a choice of imputing missing data or excluding observations which were missing any one key variable The Committee elected to only include data in correlation analyses where the respondent was responsible for housing costs With this constraint, correlation analyses include all observations where both relevant variables were provided These analyses are split into owners and renters, since these two populations had largely divergent responses 1,390 respondents answered affirmatively they were responsible for housing costs These 1,390 observations are the maximum set of observations used to formulate the correlation charts However, for statistical analyses, only 914 respondents provided an answer to all key variables, and therefore those analyses only used the observations with all variables No imputation was performed 4 Comparative Charts and Correlation Analysis on Housing Stress and Migration Renters and Owners The State's Residential Exemption is an owner-occupied exemption, designed to provide benefits to owners It has been adopted in cities and resort towns, in both cases shifting tax burden from (often voting) resident owners to non-resident owners For vacation homes, non-resident owners absorb a tax increase, while for rentals an owner may attempt to pass through the rental increase to renters In analyzing the full impact of a State Residential Exemption would have for Lexington, the Committee included both owners and renters Stereotypically, renters have lower asset levels than owners, and one should examine how the State Residential Exemption would impact renters 114 4a Housing Stress in the Survey A key finding of the survey is that renters express high housing stress more consistently than owners, at all age and income levels High Housing Stress Reported Rent 1111111111111111111111111111 II Own %=percent within categories owning or renting indicating high stress A note on interpreting single color horizontal bar charts on stress and migration For charts which only display "high housing stress" or"high migration likelihood", we show a subset of all responses categorized by the y-axis label The values in these charts reference the percent of respondents who meet the criteria displayed in the title (in the case above "high housing stress") for each group Thus, 58% on the renter bar means 58% of renters report high housing stress, and the other 42% are not shown in the bar chart. The other 42% is not shown since it obscures the ready perception of the horizontal bars Thus, the percentages shown do not add up to 100% vertically, but instead reference each category separately adding up with an unshown opposite response to 100% horizontally (Chart percentages are reported differently than frequency distribution bar charts where the percentages add to 100% vertically A later note on stacked bar charts clarifies the color schema and grouping for stress and migration ) 115 Housing stress may vary across subclasses of owners, but is less frequent than among renters in every case For example, housing stress among owners is higher for those in lower value homes, but well below the frequency of housing stress among renters High Housing Stress Reported (Homeowners) $2,000,000+ VIII _ EEEEEIEEEEE I 1000000000000000000000000000000 $1,750 000-1,999 99g11110,IIIIIl $1,500 000-1,749 999 01 4 a, $1,250 000-1,499 999 01 l $1,000 000-1,249 999 W I,nmV 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 01111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110010000000 $750 000.999 999 1111111 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 IIIII $500 000-749 999 ` 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ,; IIIIIIIIIII $0-499 999 %=percent within categories owning or renting indicating high stress One explanation is that renters may be stressed knowing that many are not in permanent situations It must be incredibly stressful to be paying $3000/month in rent and trying to save for a down payment on a permanent property while housing prices escalate at high rates In the context of these results, policy makers considering adopting the State's Residential Exemption should consider the social effects of potentially transferring a tax burden from owners to landlords providing housing to renters Nationally, renters typically have lower total assets than owners, and the United States policy of subsidizing owners over renters (such as the federal home interest deductions) has been heavily criticized in recent years Housing Stress versus Home Value Within the class of owner-occupied homes, the State's Residential Exemption is a progressive tax which shifts tax burden from those with homes below the breakeven point (about$1,150,000 in FY2019 in Lexington) to those above that point. Our survey can help answer whether the transfer of taxes is shifting from a more burdened to less burdened population 116 Again, reviewing the relationship between home value and housing stress, we see that housing stress is more often reported for those in lower valued properties Home Value v Housing Stress(Owners) 11111111111 2.High Stres Mill.,1V1 11111 20% 69% 1.Medium Stress $2,400 000+ om 11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11 38 0.Low Stress li,�ro 11111111138% 49% $1.750 040-1.999 999 10 i$i..muuu uuuuuuuuuuum 17 22 111111111111,11111111111 $1,500 C00-1,749 999 i u IIIIIIIII 32% 54% 1111 27 45 1 m '1 32% 52% $ ,zs4 a4o-1,499 999 uv9VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 41 66 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII © 1 IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (0 1111(1.il" 34% 49% $1,000 040 1'249 999 3ii 100 143 ,1111111111111111111111 36% 45% $Iso 000-999.999 104010' VVVVVVIiiiiiiiii 145 181 VIII Vu,IIIIIIIIIIIII V 30% 44°,6 $500 000-749 999 53 78 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 $ p � uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuiiiiiiiiii 32 l0 390 0 499 999 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummuuuuuuuuuuuuum 9 11 Only'Includes respondent:respsnsible for housing r•st' A note on interpreting stacked horizontal bar charts on stress and migration Colors colors have been chosen to represent levels of the parameter being measured, in most cases "housing stress" or"forecast of intent to move" Stress and intent to move were measured on a five or six point scale, but adjacent categories are grouped so an easily interpreted using a three color scheme Stacked bars Each row corresponds to the entire number of respondents meeting the criteria labelled on the left (100%) A colored bar is shown with area proportionate to the respondents in that category (percent) Below the primary label showing the percent value is an integer value, representing the actual number of respondents This actual number can be used to interpret the significance of the finding, as small counts (<20) have less reliability than higher number counts Interpreting percentages these charts indicate the frequency with which respondents report a sentiment of the questioned intensity, which is different from respondent intensity The 117 language in the report uses the term "frequency" to reference how often respondents indicated an issue For example, in the chart above 29% report "high" levels of housing stress But while high levels of housing stress are reported more frequently for lower market values, we cannot conclude that the housing stress is higher than those occupying more expensive homes, and we can see that in no case do all members of a given category experience high housing stress How can this chart be used to understand proposed residential exemptions? First, we note that Lexington has a high level of owner-occupancy, and therefore adopting the State's Residential Exemption would largely transfer tax liability from those who own lower valued properties to those who own higher valued properties Survey responses indicate that 17-29% of homeowners with homes valued at under$1,250,000 report high housing stress A residential exemption benefitting this all homeowners with houses valued at or below that point would have a relatively low precision, as three out of four beneficiaries did not report high housing stress Such an exemption would be funded by homeowners with properties above $1,250,000, where 11-16% report high housing stress While this is a smaller percentage than the lower value homes group reports, the number of respondents reporting housing stress remains significant. A transfer of tax burden on to this population might exacerbate the high housing stress which already exists for some households Policy makers should also recognize that the impact of a tax shift could increase the extent of housing stress among high value property owners more than it provides relief to those with lower valued properties A property owner with a $2,000,000 property would experience a property tax increase approximately double the tax reduction experienced by an owner with a $600,000 home The survey does not directly measure how this shift would be experienced by either group 118 Housing Stress by Income Owners Unlike the State's Residential Exemption, means-tested residential exemptions include an income criterion to target residents who have demonstrated need The chart below visualizes the relationship between income and housing stress of our survey respondents Income v Housing Stress(Owners) 1111111111 2.IH iglh St!es. 1.Medium Stres $200 000+ Vl1111 32% 57° 0.Low Stress 111111111111145 260 $150 000-139 999 4 ilii it 40% 40% V'" uuuuuuuuumuuuuuuuuu 67 67 $100 000-149 999 Vue���""""""'""""""" 37% 44% "�iViiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 76 92 tv ummun P $75 000-99.949 VNilld,..1i �������������������������������������� 36% 37% ii��������� 32 33 $50 000-74.999 1111 27% 41% 20 30 .66666666,, $0-49.999 MUMMEMMEMEMMUM 30% 19/o .66666666666666m16 10 J iIy imdudas resp mdentr responsible far hbusiniq msv Homeowners with income below $50,000 report housing stress in 52% of responses, almost as frequently as responses from all renters The second subset, those with incomes between $50,000-$74,999 report high housing stress in 32% of responses, a rate more frequent than in any market value category (see previous chart) Comparing this chart with the prior chart comparing home value versus housing stress suggests that including an income criterion for a residential exemption could better target residents with high housing stress than relying on home value alone The Massachusetts Circuit Breaker provides assistance below an income cutoff of$58,000 for individual and $88,000 for married filers These charts suggest that Lexington residents below those income levels report housing stress more frequently than those above those thresholds However, at those thresholds only about one in three residents report high housing stress High housing stress is reported among Lexington residents at all levels of income, so an income based cutoff cannot ensure property tax relief to all respondents stressed by monthly housing costs 119 Housing Stress by Income Renters The State Circuit Breaker and some matching programs offer tax relief to renters How well does income correspond to high housing stress for renters? Income v Housing Stress (Renters) IIIIIIIIIIIII 2.N1igIh Stress 1.Medium Stress $200 000+ 111' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII00000000 17% 0„AcFl.t Stress l i:I'm uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 2 3 $150 00-199 999 % 42% 17% gl4 . uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 5 2 $100 000-149 999 ;;OJ•✓Fry;'8������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 27'% 33% IiY11lli1""""„„Illllllllllllllllgllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllpuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 5 a uuuluuuluuu 10100011111010o a a V $75 000-99 999 Q n "`uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum 10% 20% $50 000-74 999 t llliIllllllliiiiiiiiilll 11111000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000100000000000000000001000000000000100000000000001001 2 $0-49 999 35% 4% ci/u • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 inly'includes recpondeintc responsible For housing cot At first glance, it appears that high housing stress is prevalent for renters across all income levels Moreover, except for a single respondent, all responses for renters earning under $75,000/year indicate high or medium stress The data suggests housing stress is more consistently experienced among lower income residents than other residents A second observation is that some low-income individuals live in rent-controlled properties and therefore may have lower housing stress due to controls This chart does not pull out respondents with rent controls separately Our survey did not ask for rent-controlled unit residency status among renters This chart above suggests that creating meaningful means-tested programs for renters may be difficult, and reminds us that policies which shift tax burden from homeowners to renters may adversely affect residents frequently reporting housing stress 120 Housing Stress and Monthly Rent Renters Renters may have greater clarity about their overall housing costs, as capital costs, property taxes, water and sewer, and home maintenance are wrapped into a single rental tax presented by the property owner from whom they rent. While a renter may not know how property taxes factor into their monthly rent, they can report monthly rent and housing stress Moreover, the State income tax and Circuit Breaker calculations offer financial credits in relation to rent. For example, the Massachusetts Circuit Breaker compares 25% of a resident's rental cost to 10% of their income A means-tested exemption could use the same basis, which suggests the survey should address the relation between monthly rent and housing stress Rent v Housing Stress (Renters) IIIIIIIIIIII 2.M iglh Stress 1.Medium Stress III 6.Low Stress $4 5076+ Idllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllu 12✓ 33°x6 dowwwwwwwwwwwwwwidd m..................................................................... 1 3 $3 400-4 499 h110ill lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 2$ t 1'0% 40004444444000440440044440 gg dg T $1,500-2.999 1II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II III II 33% 19% m r IIIIIIIIIIIII d 14 $0-1,499 16% 11©J p�.iii uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 3 2 3nIs includes respondent,responsible for housing costs Our data suggest that housing stress levels are high, but fairly consistent across rental levels An interesting point of focus is respondents reporting rents below$1,500/month This group has pervasive high stress levels, but also is renting at below market rates (unless simply renting a bedroom in a home--a rental arrangement not distinguished within our survey) This relationship suggests that households living in affordable housing are frequently reporting high housing stress It may be that this lowest tier is immune from property tax burden shift, as residents in affordable housing are protected by regional rent controls 121 Housing Stress and Age Owners Concern for Lexington's senior population contributes to local interest in residential exemptions Further, survey open response comments (below) explicitly mention retirement and fixed income as factors in relation to property taxes burden The next chart visualizes the relationship between age and housing stress Age v Housing Stress(Owners) IIIIIIIIIIII 2.Higlh Stress iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Y.Medium Stress 80+ Ii li4M�llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 27% 54%19 38 Low Stress 70-791011100000,0000:III 26% 57% m�uuuuuuuumuuuum 44 97 'a(2 59 29 57%II Illlllul llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 59nfi mm ccs'50-5B VIIIIIIII i 33%, 46% C d7W 00000000000000000000000000098' 136 40-49 °010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010136% 45% 127 158 39-39ILII I II 50% 31 1111 o 50 31 0-29 25% 50% 1 2 3n10,0 uncludes respondent-responsible for housing cost- Considering both high and medium stress levels, it appears that the ages with most frequent housing stress are 30-59 year olds Respondents between ages 60-79 reported less frequent housing stress, presumably because some households have moved past child care costs, mortgages and college bills A small uptick may be occurring around 80+, but with limited statistical significance and with less frequent high housing stress than 50-59 year olds The survey data suggests that housing stress may be experienced at all ages of the population, and does not provide statistical support for age-based criteria in means-tested residential exemptions 122 Housing Stress and Age Renters The survey also allowed us to examine the relationship between housing stress and age for renters Age v Housing Stress(Renters) IIIIIIIIIIII 2.Fl igh Stress 1.Medium Sties ©.Low Stress 70+ lu 'Jw,muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum 44✓u 11°J lIIIIIIIIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 60-6'9 33% 17% uuiuuuiiiiiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum 2 1 cm 5d-59 li "�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1$r 14% 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 40- 927% 17% tuumumuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 5 0-39 14% 24% Gid, Iliiiiiliiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 5 Jnly uncludes respondent-responsible for housinq cost, Renters in all age groups report high housing stress in half or more responses For the oldest group, there could be a small decrease in frequency of high stress offset by responses of medium stress levels 35 As with owners, our survey data do not support a age criterion for a means-tested exemption 35 For this chart, we combined the 70-79 and 80+ age classes into an age 70+ class due to the infrequent renter responses in this range 123 Housing Stress and Time in Lexington Owners Another criterion used for eligibility in means-tested residential exemptions is length of time in town Therefore, we use the survey data to ask about the relationship between time in town and housing stress Tenure v Housing Stress (Owners) IIIIIIIIIIII 2.Hiiglh Stress 11.Medium Stress moved in 2015 or later ,11' ,9,Lower Stress ��1IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ����� u4� �IIIIIVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIII 56 50 moved in 2010-2014d l uuuuuuuuuuuuum 39% 4],% 102 '106 moved in 2000 2009 35% 51% it Nom 95 139 v pv,1,1,1,1I 111111111111111111111 1j as moved in 1990-1999 II 10w 36% 48% l 71 96 moved in 1980-1989 �lll� �llllllllllllllllll 23% 58% 11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 26 66 moved in 1979 and earlier HIN uuuum 24% 57% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 52 121 ,Dnly'includes recpandents responsible far housing rastr Survey data suggests that residents who have recently purchased homes in Lexington report housing stress most frequently As these residents may have just assumed significant mortgages along with continuing housing inflation, they may have greater debt burden than more established residents While we do not observe that property taxes are causing this housing stress, we can state that housing stress survey data does not support a residency requirement typically included in means-tested residential exemptions 124 Housing Stress and Time in Lexington Renters Similarly, the survey allowed us to examine the relationship between tenure in Lexington and housing stress for renters Tenure v Hausiiing Stress (Renters) IIIIIIIIIII 2.Lilaalh Stress IL Medium Stress moved in 2015 or later Atli'' 24% 0.Lawn F,r,ess 01111 MIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1CJi 7 .................................................. moved In 2010-2014 "x, 24% 149 �iiiiiiiiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllll 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 5 3 moved in 2000-2064 !Vi�iB��+Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 35% 10a NOMMENNOMMENNE 0 0 0 moved in 1990-1994 mwll lllllllllllllll 17% 17% w 1 1 moved in 1980-1909 ytY 50% 25% 2 1 moved In 1979 and earlier "" 25% IIID 1 3mly'includes respondents responsible for housing cask As with the prior metrics, renters express high housing stress at all lengths of tenure The one exception appears to be renters who have lived in Lexington since the 1980s, but this group is too small to support a statistically significant departure from the larger group of renters Housing Stress and Means Testing A typical Massachusetts means-tested exemption targets aid at residents who meet multiple criteria. senior age, low income, ten year residency, lower home value, and without "excessive" assets Data from the survey can be used to ask whether residents meeting "Sudbury-like" criteria express high housing stress more frequently than do those who would be disqualified by one or more of the eligibility criteria. The survey responses only align with those criteria approximately because the survey thresholds were selected to match common census 125 categories, which differ somewhat from thresholds listed in Sudbury's "Senior Means Tested Exemption" Furthermore, the survey request information about financial assets, nor does it ask whether the homeowner's primary residence is in Lexington The following table describes how Sudbury's policy thresholds compare to the approximations we have used with regard to the survey data ,,,10101;i11111111�u��u �n,�, c,it ,N «� 0111! ft! Age >= 65 Age >= 60 Circuit breaker income, i e Income <= $75,000 $86,000 joint, $72,000 head of household, $57,000 single 10 year residency Tenure since 2005 (13 years) Assessed home value < $799,600 Assessed home value < $750,000 No "excessive assets" [None] Primary residence Sudbury [None] Concord's experience with a means-tested exemption is that only about a quarter of those eligible for the State Circuit Breaker received a local exemption Therefore the survey approximation includes more residents than would ultimately qualify and may understate housing stress By approximating "Sudbury-like" qualifications from our survey responses, we can compare those who meet all four criteria above (code=1) to those who did not (code=0) with respect to housing stress ss httpF//cliciburyma u /a se4' ors/2018/0W3i/f1/ 2019 senior meanF to o )(o pagn applications/ 126 Means Tested Approx Qualified v Housing Stress(Owners) IIIIIIIIIII 2.Higlh Stress 1,Medium Stres 0 Low Sttre‘s 1 28% 31°f Vimnnlilummmmummmmummmmummmmummmmummmmummmmummmmm 201 22 x cD ct q+ a h rts z 34% 49% " 383 562 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Jmly uncludes respmndemtr rest nsible for housing crosI' Among owners, those who met the survey means-tested approximation reported high housing stress 42% of the time, as compared with 17% of those who did not meet all the criteria The absolute response counts, however, lead us to a point we will develop further below. a means-tested residential exemption may have higher precision (42% of those targeted have high housing stress) than the prior series of charts (e g owners' stress with regard to income, age, home value), while it would have a lower recall (30 respondents reporting high housing stress met the means-tested criteria compared to a far larger 191 respondents who did not meet all the criteria) If we had been able to include an asset test as well, one would expect precision to improve further, while recall would decline Precision versus Recall, a Conceptual Framework As illustrated in the example above, shaping policy parameters forces us to acknowledge and evaluate trade-offs between reaching all community members who need assistance and not providing assistance beyond those with need The concepts of precision and recall help us examine that trade-off Precision is the percentage of those helped by a policy who are in the 127 class of intended beneficiaries Recall is the percentage of all intended beneficiaries assisted by a given policy The stacked bar charts presented above illustrates this inherent trade-off between precision and recall in the context of high housing stress among survey respondents who either would or would not qualify for a "Sudbury-like" means tested exemption We make this evaluation by considering how each variable relates to housing stress and which portion of the population would meet the criteria We imagine which groups would be included or excluded by adjusting inclusion criteria (e g adding an asset test, changing the age threshold) A technical way to visualize these policy choices is to plot precision-recall curves Before doing this, we need to make explicit an assumption this Committee has made about the target population and our"housing stress" proxy variable Assumption high housing stress is the portion of the population we are trying to target with our residential exemption policy choice In the charts above, we assume a purpose of adopting a residential exemption would be to alleviate housing stress We do not distinguish among sources of housing stress (mortgage, maintenance, property taxes) but try to understand whether those experiencing high housing stress could be assisted with tax relief In an ideal scenario, each resident would report accurately and honestly whether they experience housing stress, and only those actually experiencing housing stress would receive assistance But because stress is a subjective concept, typical public policies would use a more objective proxy and offer assistance in relation to this proxy variable Thus, we represent a survey response about housing stress as "ground truth" and the proxy variable in question as a "classifier" and we evaluate which classifiers provide the best predictors of ground truth Precision = percent of beneficiaries who have high housing stress If 18% of home owners report high housing stress, Lexington could achieve a precision of 18% simply by offering financial assistance to any random subset of homeowners The objective of a residential exemption should be to offer tax relief in a more targeted manner, significantly improving on an 18% random sample Recall = percent of those with high housing stress who are beneficiaries If Lexington were able to offer tax relief to all residents, then 100% of those with high housing stress would be addressed But if a random 10% of residents were selected for tax relief, then only 10% of high stress residents would receive aid, a recall of 10% The objective of a residential exemption should be to offer sufficient recall that residents believe the program is meaningful and worthwhile in comparison to its implementation cost. Precision v Recall Curves Each of the variables evaluated (home value, income, age, tenure) offer a distinctive trade-off between precision and recall in identifying those with high housing stress Considered separately a policy maker could select a cut-off for each variable and use that cut-off to determine an optimal trade-off between precision and recall Comparing these curves is useful 128 in helping policy makers determine which criteria provide the most targeted means to address housing stress in the community Home Value Precision-Recall 100% 90% B0% 70% 60% C 2 50% L_ than$00,J00 40% q'q—'49 q•9.9 SI —g99?qq 30°° 1,000,0'Iq'-1,24s wow 9 l'ggiq-1,i5 1,S 7gQI�D-1,�4?99{ 0, L'a—],g!WW!girgi 20% 5 0013.1, avld.m[ 10% ZD°,rb 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Recall! Note on Precision-Recall Curves Each chart shows trade offs between precision and recall for the variable listed in the title of the chart. Annotated points correspond to survey thresholds which could be used for policy cut-offs Each potential cut-off has a separate balance of precision and recall, shown as the plotted point. Dotted lines provide rough connectors and are not represented by survey questions Ideal public policy would be represented by a curve offering high precision and recall simultaneously The home value precision-recall curve shows that an exemption policy targeting those with home values below $500,000 would have a precision of 29% (see corresponding stacked bar chart above) but the recall (% of high housing stress respondents reached) would be under 5% Increasing the home value inclusion threshold to $750,000 greatly increases the reach (recall) of the program while only slightly diminishing targeting precision Further increases in the threshold beyond $750,000 degrade precision such that the program would not be much better than random sampling of the population Thus this curve would suggest that the SRE (which 129 may benefit those up to $1,200,000) is correctly labelled a blunt instrument, but in fact appears to be only slightly better than random Income Precision-Recall 100%.r 90% 80% Le than$ ni iU 70% ran-39444 60% -, Ca 4 2 80% q,ara- q, aa— q,,qp 40% f 1Lq, -149,4qc 30% 150,goq-13q 4qc 20°Yc $l,-4 a, 10% b-y. 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10U% Recall I In contrast, the income precision-recall curve is significantly sloped Here, we see a curve which offers significantly higher levels of precision at a variety of thresholds At income levels up to $50,000 an income exemption would have precision over 50%, such that over half the beneficiaries have high housing stress Yet at the $50,000 income threshold only about 15% of the population in need would be reached Raising the income inclusion threshold to $75,000 reduces precision to 40% while expanding recall to one-quarter of those in need While both precision and recall at either$50,000 or$75,000 income levels might not be as high as one might desire, use of precision-recall curves quantifiably demonstrates the superiority of income as an eligibility criterion over house value These charts demonstrate why a state residential exemption may be viewed as inferior to a means-tested residential exemption 130 Other variables we examined produce precision-recall curves which indicate they would make poor inclusion criteria Age Precision-Recall 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% a J11 cj 50% 40% SO arnuer 30% -II BDaSI 20% 10% U% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Recall The age precision-recall curve suggests that some age thresholds may in fact perform worse than random selection (18% precision) Yet, means-tested exemptions often include age criteria for eligibility 131 Tenure in Lexington Precision-Recall 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 0 CP' 50°,/o 40% 30% m 43,19 and ataer mc nd 19,0 .9m pd 20% mc nd Ai ied di_or IIt 10% ocx ow° 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Recall The tenure in Lexington precision-recall curve also suggests that length of time in Lexington provides no value in classifying residents' high housing stress Again, means-tested exemptions often include residential tenure as an eligibility criteria 132 Housing Stress and Monthly Housing Costs Owners Lexington homes range in value from condominiums as low as approximately $500,000 to single family homes priced as high as $3,000,000 Individual assets vary, as some owners purchase homes outright while others have substantial mortgages The survey data can shift from home value to monthly housing cost, and determine whether housing costs drive perceived housing stress Monthly IHlousing Cost v Housing Stress(Owners) IIIIIIIIIIII 2 High Stress 1.Medium Stress '41[1 ta171+ � 26% �5 °Jv 0 Low Stress llllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 5 Illi spoppow B 001—10 000 W uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum 41% 37O IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 17 15 001— ,oaeaea uuuuuuuuuuuum 42% 42% r uuuuuuuuuuuuu 40 40 7 7 2 C3 4 001—f 000I�'�,�u"'�,�uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum 39% 36% 1°S 97 Col 000 �l�ll h111111111111111111 36m/ 48% °�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVVVIIIIIIIIIIII 162 221 <S2.°°0/month a'11 21%� 65% 1l 47 142 3n1y uncludes respondent]responsible For housing caste It appears that housing stress is similar across a wide range of monthly costs from $2,000 to $10,000 per month Among the handful of residents paying more than $10,000 per month, housing stress may occur less frequently A caveat is that some individuals in the $10,000+/month group were excluded from our this examination due to what appeared to be response errors explained earlier in this appendix, and these individuals registered high stress more frequently Among those paying less than $2,000/month in total housing costs, suggesting no mortgage and modest property taxes, residents less often reported housing stress 133 Housing Stress and Property Tax Percentage Owners One way to look at whether property taxes relate to housing stress is visualizing the relationship between property tax share of housing costs and housing stress Monthly Housing Cost v Housing Stress(Owners) IIIIIIIIIIII 2.High Stress 1.Medium Stress 0 Low Stress Substantial(76-100W wµ, 'MCw' 31% 47% Illlm. 41 63 Significant 151 75%) fw '++ 27% 47% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 68 '118 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuul (11 X I— Some t26-50%) 1e,�������������������������� 37% 44% 11111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII w "" 130 2'25 0 ri LittIle Q1 25%N �m° 34% 57% IIID 82 135 None i100°u 5 7nly'Includes respandent-respon,ible tar housing cast. Among respondents reporting property taxes in excess of one-quarter of their housing costs, similar high stress levels exist to the general owning population However, for those for whom property taxes are less than one-quarter of the monthly housing bill, high housing stress is reported only 9% of the time, or about one-half the rate for owners in general This suggests that homeowners might be less stressed when property taxes are only a small portion rather than the dominant portion of their housing costs 4b Migration in the Survey The Committee's charge to support residents remaining in their home not only covers stress, but also whether residents appear"forced out" of Lexington The survey asked whether the respondent is considering relocating from Lexington in the next 10 years Arguably this is a subjective forecast, and actual migration occurs due to changes in life circumstances (such as 134 employment relocation, marriage, grandchildren, divorce, limited mobility or injury, and death of a partner) at least as much as due to property tax burden These questions measure whether the respondent gives serious thought to leaving Lexington, rather than whether they actually will move away Moreover, a decision to migrate by itself might not indicate the respondent feels "forced out" The sections below examine whether respondents forecast departure in the next ten years, using the term "migration" in charts for this subjective prediction Migration versus Owning and Renting As we have seen, the largest divide in housing stress is between owning and renting Given the transaction costs of home ownership, it should not surprise us to see a divide in migration as well Owning and Renting v Migration IIIIIIII Likely Neutral Unlikely (Rent 1111 1111 111110111 29% 20 n 11 1 1 11111 �111u 28 20 1111w1 0 c� Ownu 34% 31% lUMllliiiiilumuulluuuuuuuluulli�uuuu uulllllll MVIIIIIIIIIII 424 386 isoh uncludes respondent responsible for huusinq cask Perhaps the most surprising aspect of this chart is that one-third of owners indicate intent to depart Lexington in the next ten years Given actual migration patterns, which include moves due to unanticipated circumstances, this figure might seem higher than expected What is driving half of Lexington's renters and one-third of it's owners to forecast migration? Is it related to property taxes? 135 Migration versus Housing Stress If property tax burden can affect migration, then we should expect to detect a relationship between monthly housing stress and migration intent. Some individuals with high monthly housing stress might seek to leave Lexington to reduce housing stress Alternatively, it is possible that even residents with lower levels of housing stress might forecast departures of Lexington to earn a better return on their housing assets A $10,000 property tax differential between Lexington and Cambridge, for a similar priced home, could simply tip the scale Below is the relationship between housing stress and migration in survey responses Housing Stress v Migration (Owners) 111111111 Likely 1,111P11Neutral Unlikely 4 Substarntiall ;j:„,;;I pllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 18% 20% 3 Significant loIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII lllllllllllum� �il""'lliilllll 27% 18% 46 31 llllllllllluuum' cs 2.Some 35% 26% 110..,1 140 103 1.Little ''1111$11))))))))))))))))))))))11 41% 38% 111 117 '110 VIII o0000 0Janeana��������������������innuu 104 12% pli� Al/� ynly'includes respondents respon,ible for housing ccst' For owners, the survey data shows a strong relationship between monthly housing stress and whether respondents are considering migration from Lexington For those experiencing significant or substantial levels of housing stress, over half are likely to depart Lexington (We assume causal direction from housing stress to migration ) 136 Is there a similar relationship between housing stress and migration for renters? Housing Stress v Migration (Renters) IIIA((( Likely a Illlllllllllllllllll������llllllllllll uwl NeuNetutrerll 11 UnlikeIly 4 Sulbstanttlall iullpwuuu II "'iVlllllllll 1111111 20% 33% ,11111111111 11111111 3 5 IIIuuuu 3 Significant ,^ 20% 17% IIIIII 11111lllllllluyl co 2 Some 31% 31% Ili �,111111111tl4 B B 1.Little 011,111°1111 7©°/ IPoI, p'k;lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllH llllllllllllllmilllllllllllll D.None iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillll„w°°°uuuuu 40% wuullll IIIIIIIIiiI 2 filly includes respondent,responsible for housing costs Discerning a pattern for renters is hindered by the small number of respondents for most level housing stress Renters reporting significant housing stress are a sizeable group, however, and almost two thirds of them are likely to move away Unlike home owners, renters may have lower transaction costs in changing housing and are able to migrate in response to service and cost considerations It could be that higher migration is typically expected for renters, and rents respond more quickly to compensate renters for Lexington's relative value in the rental market. 137 Migration versus Home Values Owners The SRE provides relief to owners of lower value homes Is this group of residents more likely to migrate? Home Value v Migration (Owners) III 1111111111 ILJIkely II II, �i�������������lllllllll������lllllllllllmo����" 33% 33% Neutral $2 000 040 HI tll...11lllll 18 18 Unlikelly II M'I $1,7.54 000-1,999 999 A ' II 28% 33%uu 1IV 1IIIII�IIIIIIII 13 15 IIIa $1 500 000-1,749 999 VIII plllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllluuul"" �� I 39%23 34 $ III lluVuluuu 6 33%36% 33 a 1,2.50 040-1,4'99 999 111 11111 Il lii ffi' 46r 42 HI ay $1 444 444 1 249 999 II'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVu36% 1111 ill 107 90 II"' '°I���it�111111llllllllllllllllllluuuuullllll 32% 000-999 999 30%$750 wI �w.Jilllllllllllllll 129 122 Ipllill1IIII iP"'lllllllllllllllr 42% 30% lid$500 000-749 999 ll VIII " T8 55 IIlllllllllluu""" "'I $0-499 999 a 36% 36% 10 10 1111 7nly'includes respondents responsible far housing costs The survey data suggests that those living in lower valued homes forecast migration at slightly lower rates than those with medium or high value homes If forecast migration rates are lower for those in low value homes, then survey data suggests raises doubt about whether a residential exemption protects residents from being forced out of Lexington 138 Migration versus Income (owners) On the other hand, a means-tested exemption would use income as a criteria Are lower income owners more likely to migrate out of Lexington? income v (Migration (Owners) 111111111 IUIkely IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Neutral $200 000+ �'ry!III 29% 41% Unlikelly 11IIIII I 130 188 $150 000-199,999 "'A",;� 37% 29% 111111111 "` rid 62 49 $100 000-149,999 aEG1 ,wul 37% 24%m 77 51 175 000-99,599 4222i111:11P(0 8 20 I $50 000-74,999 '41III 111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII !!!!!"'0���������. 1111111111 11111 22 15 $0-4'9,999 �llll�" 42% 26% 24 15 )n 'includes re,ponden t responsible for housing cost The survey data suggests that migration forecast is highest in the $50,000-$74,999 range and slowly declines with increasing income While not a strong relationship, a means-tested exemption reaching up to $75,000 would benefit those in this subgroup We cannot predict whether that benefit would change their migration choices An interesting exception to the general trend presented in this chart is respondents with income under$50,000 This group forecasts a lower likelihood of departing Is it possible that some of these residents are in affordable housing and unable to realize similar value elsewhere? Alternatively, do their financial circumstances (including transaction costs associated with moving) make it difficult to leave, so that rather than being "forced out" they are "locked in" involuntarily? 139 Migration versus Income (renters) Means-tested exemptions can provide tax relief to renters based on income What does the survey data show about income versus migration forecast for renters? Income v Migration(Renters) IIIA((( likely Neu f rall $2000100+ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllliiiillllllii'II""" J1_8 36 Unlikelly tl 2 4 ,11111111 $150001-199,999 (III" 'i Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii llllll""°" 25% 8% uullll "OIIII 3 '1 $100 000-149,999 ,uull aEu 33% 7% I"I 5 1 0 I)19000„„„( IIIII „„„( $75 000-99 999 t16IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII30% 10% 311111100011111(1111„ 1 3uunuuuulllllyll unclucles`'' IIIIII IuI II IIII ° $50 000-74,999 25% 14 25%% IIA3 3 $0-49 999 35% 381 I1I �recpuneIIepnsible for housing_osl' It appears that migration likelihood increases with income until $200,000, while the small sample above $200,000 may elect to continue renting in Lexington--though these sample sizes are quite small At the lowest income level, renters may be much less likely to migrate, however A review of affordable housing limits ($51,150-$78,900 for households sized 1-5), suggests that some portion of this group may reside in affordable units with rent control Beneficial rent control could support a renter staying in place for a longer time 140 Migration and Monthly Rent (Renters) If low income renters forecast migration less frequently, is that pattern repeated when examining monthly rent? Rent v Migration(Renters) IIIIIIII Likely r eutrall IIIIIIIIIIiiiiiiilil UnlikeIly 101111 $4.500+ di'li iiii dull 111 iiil II l1H Iiil 1111 iii ii llluuulluul 25% 25% Illluullllll Mluuuullllllllllll 2 2 �I I F�1y11 � iiiiiiiiiiii1111 iii $3 000-4 499 III 21% 24%% uIII6 7 „IIwuWpm '� I $1.500-2.999II 11111i 11 II IIII 33% 9% 111111111 ' 111IIII „ 14 4 $0-1,499 �IuIIII III IIw IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi I'lllll 33% 39% 6 7 .Jnly includes respondents responsible dor housing cosr- Yes, examining the relationship between rent and migration, we see a dramatic drop in migration expectations for renters with rents below $1,500/month Because rents at this rate would typically be rent controlled (affordable) or only a room in a house,37 it appears that renters in affordable housing are more likely to remain in Lexington than those with higher rents This finding is particularly interesting because we (earlier) found that housing stress is higher for those with lower rents 37 One data source identifies the median rent in Lexington at$1,689 However, this seems far below market rates in general, so it is not clear if that figure is a rent controlled rent. https affora abllehous hgg1"hne com/housha, earch/ assachu etts111..exhatgn 141 Migration versus Age Owners The Committee examined whether senior citizens are being forced to leave Lexington Below is a visualization of age versus forecast migration Age v Migration (Owners) V((((III Wikely o; Neutral 8'C3+ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP l3% 37% WmliVicelly uuul " 1111111111111111111111 33 28' m f Illll 70-79III"n' A7°",rE� 24% 83 42 IIIIIIIi!!!!!! " 'I q 111111 32°, 5.0 69 �11°111111 67,111111 57 52 zar 50-59 VIII lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllluuwlll 35% 15%m ii II 10+R 49 40 49IIIIiillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1111 i�a 31% 39 111111 II 1'c 135 30-39 Im r I IIIIIIIIIIIII� 23% 58% IIIIIIIg 23 59 0-29 25% 75% 1 3 )nly uncludes respondent-responsible for housing cok The survey identifies that owners in the range age 50-69 forecast the highest likelihood of relocating from Lexington Especially troubling is the 50-59 age category, where about half of residents indicate high likelihood of leaving Lexington in the next 10 years For those educating their children in the public schools, this age group represents those typically with older children who can expect to complete public school education in the next 10 years This age cohort is also planning retirement and determining whether Lexington is a community in which they could remain through retirement. As expressed in comments to this Committee (see Public Hearing appendix and survey open-ended responses below), some community members are frustrated that some residents would educate their children in the public schools and then quickly leave This 50-59 cohort is valuable to keep in town, as they would typically have the financial resources to contribute to town budgets while they continue to earn income A poorly designed residential exemption 142 could have the effect of"pushing" this vital age cohort out of Lexington, or ensuring that the half who are likely to leave will leave While the SRE is designed to benefit those in smaller homes, it is unclear whether the 50-59 year old population is living in those homes Moreover, most means-tested implementations, like the State Circuit Breaker, have a minimum age of 65 and offer no benefit to the 50-59 year old respondent. Data from the survey suggests that, if Lexington has a migration "problem" among homeowners, it is across the 50-69 year age range It is possible that neither type of residential exemption would benefit this population of mobile professionals, and could increase motivation for them to leave Lexington Further study beyond this Committee's work may be needed to understand migration motivations for this specific population Migration versus Age Renters While renters are more transient than owners, what does the survey data tell us about the relationship between age and forecast migration? Age v Migration (Renters) IIIA(((( Likely P)))))))))))1111111 NenutralII U nlikelly 70+ 22°r'� 'Iii' liiillllllllpppllllllllllllllllllllllllllllu 50% uuullllllll lull 4 9 Illlll"""""P 111111111111, 33°Pm 17°m ,uuulllllll in 2 1 CD 'S�ss (IIIIflogionopml•lliiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllm 29°� 5�/� uuulllllll ��lllllll 6 1 4o- 9 i,'w; IIIIIII ��������������Illuuuuuuulll�����°� IIII����° 2mram� 111nIIlII11 d IIIIIIIIII���������� 9' 4 HI C 39 uuullllllI�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 37°m 15%i Drily'Includes respondent,responsible For housing e.rstr 143 As with owners, higher forecast rates are seen for renters aged 50-59 High rates of mobility exist for all ages, except the 70+ age population which shows a decreased intention to leave These charts suggest that seniors are not being "forced out" of Lexington, or that those reaching retirement age assess their financial resources before deciding to remain in Lexington through old age Migration versus Time in Lexington Owners Means-tested exemptions often include a residency requirement. What does survey data tell us about the relationship between residency length and forecast migration? Time in Lexington v Migration (Owners) 1111111111 Likely 1111' Neutral moved in 2015 or later 27% 43% UnDikelly II!0 38 60 ,111111111111 moved in 2010-2014 wuu11 uµ":'llll 34% II �44D�Yc 88 103 igill1161 u nronve�d n 2000 200 r ������������������������������ 30%� 28% 11uuuu11 VIII a� 1111111111111111111111111111lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllluul 37% moved in 1�'9� Y94 ui 21% 73 42 0llll11101111' moved in 1988-1989 40% 27% ,1 I 46 31 C 42% 28% mave� in 1879 andearlier ,1111111111 1111111 88 59 ,Only unclude5 respondents,responsible far housing casts. Not surprisingly, the most recent owners in Lexington forecast the lowest rate of planned migration Those who have just arrived plan to stay Those who entered Lexington between 1990-2009 forecast the highest rates of departure This may correspond to the age range charts 144 shown earlier and include many residents who may have entered Lexington for education of their children and are now considering next steps as retirement approaches Migration versus Time in Lexington Renters How does time in Lexington relate to migration for renters? Time in Lexington v Migration (Renters) IIIIiiiiiI ILllkeIy Neutral moved in 2015 or later ""'��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII) IIIIIIIIII " ' 38%' Unik.eIly �wuuull r`dill '1f 9 IIIIIIIVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�;;;,;;;;IIIII�i1111" moved 1n 20'10-2Cu14 I`" 'illllllllllllll iiimu"""'11 15/� 5'°r. ,wuullll I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 1 uua u' 11111114, ca moved In 2000-2009 "�{�,u 10% 30%, I 44111111uulllll 2 III:-. moved in 1990-1999 II,111111111111 mllllllllllllllll 50% 33% 3 2 move In 19804989 u1111150% 25% ,wuullll � '2 1 1111111111111111111111111111111P,„„, I 111111 u moved in 1979 and earlier 25% 25% pl Ill 1 1 Only includes respondents responsible far housing casts. The majority of renters entering Lexington from 2000-2014 expect to leave Lexington in the next ten years In contrast, those who have been living in Lexington for more than twenty years and are presently renters are more likely to continue living in Lexington--but these long term renters are an extremely small group 145 Migration versus Means-Testing Using survey data, we can examine whether respondents approximately qualified for "Sudbury-like" means-testing have lower or higher tendency to forecast migration Means Tested Approx Qualified v Migration(Owers) 1111111 111,6.6i Neutral Unlikely 1 40% 29% II II+IIIIIIIIII 29 21 tT 2.a a F^^ C U 1111110111 34✓ 32% 39� 365 Jfilh uncludes rrspundenV respcnsIk Ie for huvsIniq costs Surprisingly, the small percentage of residents meeting all means-testing eligibility criteria report migration likelihoods at similar frequencies to those who do not. It is possible that those who need the most financial assistance have depressed levels of mobility due to their financial circumstances This suggests that the impact of a residential exemption may impact psychological stress more than migration 146 Migration v Monthly Housing Cost Owners How can the survey provide insight into whether overall monthly housing costs are encouraging residents to migrate? Monthly Housing Cost v Migration (Owners) 111111111 Liikel'yf °"" " " Neutral ���+ II";illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll �� � Unlikelly ,wuu11 1113 5 4 8.001—10 000 ,lI 29% wuulll l 11111111 12 12 �lllllllllluuu"" (III �y�.I35 31 II 6 001—8 000111111111 36% 32% I 11111111111111 ' 26% 38% ,wuu111 'n111111111111111111 71 102 2,001—4 000 39% 28% ,111111111 76 129 ll10111111IJJ$2 Cucull/mo�ntN7lu35% 31% ,uuuI11 ' 311 76 67 7nly'includes respondents recpnnsible far housing costr Monthly housing costs around $8,000 appear to be an inflection point, above which residents are more likely to leave Lexington and below which they are less so It seems likely that these values represent mortgages and other costs more than property taxes, given their high levels 147 Migration versus Property Tax Share If property tax share is associated with housing stress, is it also predictive of migration? Property Tax Share v Migration (Owners) 111111111 uikely INP)llllum 11 IVeLItrall UnlikeIly Substantial{76-100" �i��,��,Illlil11iuuuwq�uu' 31°,Ym� 229 ull ii1 41 29 IIIIIIIIIII�������Illlllllllllu 1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii"Illi Significant(St.75°S) 31%m 2'8°r'r� 78 70 I— %) Ir ill��, 37°��� '9"r� Buil IIII III °1'II�� a Some(26 5n ��� 148 c7 0. Lottlle(1 25%) *I ll 33% 41% uul 11111 111 ri 79 97 '„„ None ' 1000 4 40% .1111111Iu2 2 )nly uncludes recpondentc responsible for housing cot- The survey data shows a fairly clear relationship between property tax share and frequency with which respondents indicate they expect to leave Lexington Among those with under 25% of housing expenses due to property taxes, about one-quarter likely to leave At the other end, those with more than 75% of housing expenses as property taxes indicate fewer than one-quarter expect to stay in Lexington for ten more years Since high property tax percentage is driven by mortgage age or perhaps subjective perception, it is unclear whether public policies would specifically target residents who have large property tax share of housing costs 148 5 Correlation Charts The following charts identify the frequency relationship between independent variables These charts provide a picture of Lexington demographics, and those who would be net beneficiaries or contributors to a residential exemption This chart shows the relationship between home value and income, two variables which are often used as eligibility criteria for a residential exemption Market Value v hroO0e �0FV�� [�B��0������) (Homeowner � -os .. col Or,�ldrm, 2 3 2 40 17s0 000-1wo9DEG 1 1 5 36 nx` 1500.000-1 49 999 2 3 4 12 53 ar MEE � 7 1 ~.o 000-1 4ne9»9 1 3 5 5 13 17 1/^ To 1111111111111 � 1Imo 000-1 49,9,,49 2 5 14 11 40 125 on 7 -v, mv n. vn—raaea 8 13 30 29 �� 118 `din.00n- 4eroy 6 10 16 35 44 32 21 ~ Le 99,9 P*mlir 4 5 7 4 4 1 1 15 " 1 � � � � I � / ~ � � � � � ' = = - :: ;I: S ' ET-, A Income The gray boxes represent intersections which had no respondents in the survey, such as owners of$2,000,000 homes with incomes below $75.000 Because the SRE would help those below a horizontal breakpoint (around $1.200.000\. a substantial numbers of respondents with incomes above $100,000 would be helped by this exemption (dark blue boxes on the right) On the other hand, a means-tested Residential Exemption would help a subset of those on the left portion of the chart (a vertical breakpoinU, typically around $75.000 Additional charts examine the subset of these respondents who own single family homes and condominiums 149 Market VaUmev Umcome (Hmrmeownens) Property Type single family home � co,w�and nu99 2 3 2 40 17m000-1 999 999 1 11 5 36 *m 111111111 1 `w.onn-1 49 EL 2 3 4 111 51 -� '� 1 'm000-���ma 1 3 5 5 13 15 � 0 � � - ��'~ � mm......-*` � 1nno.vnn-1 -9 999 11 5 13 10 47 39 120 " � y � loll mnvvn-raaea 111� � 29 28 � 00, . �, 110 -41` k 11N000U vv1WA!— 49 999 5 10 15 24 33 28 17 -1` Le ��Pmlir 11 2 11 2 11 15 ^ �° � _ ` � 1 1 / / , ~ i i i . . � = = , � :: E. r � - ,,5 , Income The above chart shows market value v income for single family homes, to be contrasted with a similar chart below for condominium owners Survey respondents with reported home values below $500,000 typically owned condominiums (lower chart) Addidona||y, the condominium chart highlights that the largest group of condominium owners have properties valued between $500.000-$749.999 and are supported by incomes between $75.000-$149.999 This large cluster of owners would benefit from a SRE, as this exemption would benefit nearly 10096 of condominium owners--including those earning over$200,000 income However, this same group would typically not qualify for inclusion for typical means-tested exemptions 150 Market Valiue v income (Homeowners) Property Type condominium ,1.11.91)Ih U I,I-1 49$$$$ 1 1 1 1 5 f�1 7511n 1,1,J—,99 999 2 1 , Illi IIIIIIII I CS i• =X1919 00u- 09 DEG 1 1 10 11 2 3 -a. Le 'hal $NI'11I CID0,1 4 4 5 3 2 1 SIR I I I rt c c w c c c c c , c c c c c c c Ii i 1;+ c c•J w Er, for, ee Ilnceme How does housing stress relate to these income and home value intersections? For this calculation, we assigned a value=1 for each respondent with significant or substantial housing stress, and value=0 for lower stress categories The cells in the chart below show the percentage of respondents reporting these "high"stress levels. 151 High Housing Stress Percentage of Respondents (Homeowners) y -1,,,, ;. c , ::�1id Y,�ra 0 100 0 5 1,-mo,oLIIJ-19°9°'{'9 0^ 0 0 17 .q, 1,5110 �JUU—1 49 999 . mil effl uuuum _0 25 33 9 1, 'dJ,�JLILI—1499,999 100 20 40 15 18 111111 ,;o 111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIHHH 1,I.II.iIJ,JLI I-1 49 999O III 36 13 28 12 Imo -4n IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 75 nnYY0 —r99999 memo 38 27 24 22 14 9 rn1m uu0I— 49{s 9 in.. 38 29 18 110 9 _ Lk Iho1- �.`NNS�1lir 1111111111111111111111111 40 14 25 0 100 0 SIA 1 1 m C C C C C f1 U'i I` C C 4.Y C. Income As this chart shows, high housing stress exceeds 25% of respondents for incomes below $100,000 and approach 50% of respondents incomes below $50,000 However, housing stress is not uniform for home values, as those with higher income levels do not consistently report high housing stress at any home value level 6 Open Responses to Survey Two open response questions were designed to solicit further information The first open response question asked for additional information or elaboration after asking about monthly housing stress, with no prompting about property taxes The second question was at the end of the survey, requesting any additional information respondents wanted to offer The section below enumerates the most frequent phrases elicited in response to these questions and provides samples of comments using these phrases There are several themes which can be summarized here 1 High property taxes Even for those who value the town services, the most common resident complaint was that property taxes have increased too fast and are higher than comparable towns Concern about high property taxes was a consistent theme across most comments and keywords 2 Town services Some residents appreciate the services received, while others do not feel they are of sufficiently high quality for the taxes paid 152 3 Capital projects and school spending Several residents touched on these factors as drivers for high property taxes 4 Future property taxes Several residents mentioned future projects such as the police station and the high school, and a few suggested the town prioritize school projects and not attempt to do more than can be accomplished 5 "Our" money A few responses express resentment that town government does not treat money as their own and spend money too easily 6 Long term residents Several respondents lament changes to the character of the town 7 Fixed income Numerous respondents indicate that property taxes are too high for those entering retirement. 8 Rent or utilities Several respondents are concerned about the cost of rent or utilities 9 Regret about plans to leave Lexington Respondents, including some with children in school, retirees, and multi-generational Lexington families express regret about plans to leave Lexington Resident comments will be published along with survey responses The comments are in a separate data file and randomized so they will not correlate with the survey responses and maintain anonymity Moreover, the comments were reviewed and edited with these guidelines Intent to keep comments intact as much as possible and substitute or redact any portion which is problematic, maintaining the spirit of openness and avoiding censorship claims Specific concerns to review. * Comments which might lead to identification of a particular person making the comment. These include specific age, employer, street name, etc * Comments which stereotype others while not contributing to the conversation constructively Where redaction or editing occurred, the specific section was substituted with square brackets ("[]") For example, a year"1964" could become "196[x]" or a specific employer could be adjusted to "[employer]" The comments reported below are post-redaction 153 Open Response Statistics and Quotes The first open response question asked about housing stress, which yielded the following most frequent bigrams (2-word phrases) 1 '1..100011111111i�o r �� 111711111N II IIIIIIIIgIII� . property taxes 31 property tax 25 affordable housing 14 stay lexington 10 town services 9 taxes high 8 living lexington 7 high school 7 tax burden 7 For each bigram, we share a representative sample of comments orooerty tax or orooerty taxes "Town really needs to stop spending so much money in order to stop the terrible rise in property taxes " "Other than that the house is too big for two people, property taxes would be second biggest reason to move " "I do indeed consider property taxes in Lexington to be prohibitive for seniors and retired persons " "Certainly property taxes are high, but we see great value from town services " "The combination of property taxes and the lack of new, smaller private homes in good condition, we do not anticipate being able to stay in Lexington " "Being able to defer property taxes helps me a great deal " "Property taxes are higher than my mortgage and will be the reason I move out of Lexington" "We love Lexington but as the kids leave the nest, the fact that property taxes increase and retirement is getting closer, we are not sure we will choose to stay here due to the high taxes " 154 " please do not make the property taxes progressive, i e a higher percentage for larger homes Just stop spending beyond your means Just like the rest of us have to do " "My mortgage holder (my mortgage originator sold my loan to [company]) denies my participation in the town's state-enabled property tax deferral program for an arbitrary, trivial reason " "Not eligible for a property tax deferral (age) tax work-off covers only 10% but this becomes a moral question These programs are a cruel hoax on senior citizens in town Why do I have to work till I die, when others come in educate their children then leave and actually financially benefit from the capital gains on the sale of their property" "We have lived in town since 196[x] and will hate to leave Seniors need a break on property tax" "Lexington government's lack of fiscal discipline is driving property tax rates to extreme levels that will drive senior residents away and block newly established couples from living here " "I am concerned with the rising property tax rates and the ability of aging residents to pay This town is always talking about diversity, but they don't seem to be concerned at all with socioeconomic diversity" "We'd really like to stay in retirement but need to find a lower property tax." "High property tax (injustice) makes it so difficult for me to think of saving for retirement." "As tax reform and property tax can not be deducted and really Hope town consider lower the tax rate use our tax money as their own money" affordable housing "Please consider providing more affordable housing for seniors " "Our senior citizens and young families need affordable housing Our seniors do not need expensive elder care/senior facilities--they need small single story rental options that are TRULY affordable so they can age in the town they love " "there needs to be more affordable housing availability for those over 60 &/or retiree's without children to help to maintain the diversity of our community" "It is appalling that people are buying houses here and not living in them, using them for tax shelters, or buying houses and letting people live there to attend the schools There isn't enough affordable housing in town, and it impacts our neighborhoods and the makeup of our town " stay lexinaton "I hope that it helps to allow taxes to be lowered so I can stay in Lexington" "We can't afford to stay in Lexington like our parents did " "We won't be able to afford to stay in Lexington when we retire " "Lexington Town Taxes are prohibitively high! As we age, it is not economically viable for us to stay in Lexington, a town in which we have rented, and then owned a Town House and now a 155 Single Family home! Town finances need to be managed better before passing the burden to the Town residents " "I wish they will be a way to stay in Lexington in my home forever once my kids outgrow the school system as an [foreign country] immigrant and US Citizen this is my home and the only one I can go back when I retire due to the political situation of my original country I wish I could financially be able to afford it but even with savings, Lex taxes are crazy high " town services "Besides the school system, we don't see strong value for our taxes reflected in other town services It is motivating us to move when our kids complete school in this area." "We are fortunate to have many excellent town services" "Do not implement a residential exemption that simply shifts the tax burden to other residents Cut town services particularly schools to make up for any shortfall created by any residential exemption " "We are concerned with the constant capital projects in the town related to town services, fire station, Cary Hall, DPW garage, community center, in a time where we have and have had multiple school projects at the same time " taxes hiah "Property taxes are high, but we do receive a lot of benefits " "Certainly property taxes are high, but we see great value from town services " town taxes "I do hope the survey will be used to find ways to stop increasing town taxes People move out of Lexington because of the taxes, there must be a way to decrease the spending so we don't have to increase taxes " "We love living in Lexington and all the town services, community organization and especially the public schools We understand that takes money and have no issue with the level of town taxes However, for the money we are paying, we are disappointed in what we're hearing so far of the math program at Harrington Elementary" livina Lexinaton "Cost of living in Lexington is incredibly high, and it's very depressing to watch all the smaller and more affordable homes in our neighborhood torn down" "Many people in the town are upset about the rising cost of living in Lexington, particularly the rising property taxes Most people are not aware of the 32% increase that is locked in over the next 10 years based on official Town projections, nor are they aware that this increase does not include any new taxes to fund the $300 million+ (Town estimate) replacement high school that is in early planning stages " "We hope to age in place because we love living in Lexington However, the taxes may make that prohibitive " 156 "Taxes make it impossible to retire and stay in lexington I was born in 195[x] in Lexington and I am 3rd generation living in lexington " "i love living in lexington-think it is a great well run town" hiah school "General concerns about rising taxes and large-scale projects (high school, fire station, new children's place, etc) and whether all options are being considered" "Tax burden to Lexington residents is to high Tax dollars should be spent on the need for an new high school and cut everywhere else " "The schools have become so large and overcrowded, there are no opportunities for kids to participate in any extra-academic/extracurricular activities 150-200 kids show up to compete for a spot in a school team with 10 kids The town needs to do something to discourage this crazy expansion of the school system " "Please look for ways to have Lexington a lifetime town, not a move-in with preschool kids, move out when the kids graduate from high school " "Lexington needs to control spending and be more diligent regarding capital expenses as most families move here for schools and re-building the two middle schools and high school should be the ONLY priority of major projects for the town next ten years " tax burden "The tax burden is significant and becoming more so Why do we usually seem to choose the deluxe version when a lesser version is ample, e g the community center, design for new police station " "Some towns such as Cambridge give tax breaks to owner-occupied dwellings, and others have enough tax base (commercial and industrial firms) to make the tax burden fall more lightly on homeowners We live in a neighborhood where as homeowners of a 2 bedroom bungalow we pay considerably more taxes than the million dollar restaurant across the street." "Large families move in for the school system, but their local taxes don't pay the extra cost of putting their children through the schools here The tax burden gets placed on empty-nesters and retirees " Second Open Response Question At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to share additional comments These were the most frequent bigrams l!Pft 111 ii uO��111 1111 «rr property taxes 58 property tax 39 157 taxes high 27 real estate 23 estate taxes 18 years ago 13 fixed income 11 tax high 9 property taxes or property tax "We pay almost $3700 four times a year for property taxes Compared to other towns we talk to friends about they get almost twice the services we do here " "My husband is dead, and my house is paid off I'd love to stay in Lex, but I am paying 'full freight' and utilizing few services I looked to see if there were any deals for my in the area of property taxes ($18,000) I didn't qualify I'm not Section 8 level I sold my house" "It bothers us that property taxes are less in other similarly situated towns with equivalent services " "Do have concerns about rising property taxes, especially with new federal tax laws" "Thinking about retirement. The cost of property taxes will be prohibitive " "Taxes keep increasing and even when the mortgage payments will be done we will still pay nearly $1200 per month for property taxes This becomes an issue as we age and retire" "My property taxes consume 33% of net income" "Our property taxes are sky high and keep going up Our youngest is going to be done with public school soon and we are talking about moving to a town with lower property tax rates" "In 2004 my husband and I bought our house in Lexington and our property taxes were $3000 a year Now they have almost tripled and we are retired [living on retirement savings] and Social Security We really love Lexington and believe in spending for good schools, etc., but it may not have been smart for us to move here in retirement." "Too many rental units with children attending public school which makes the school overcrowded and put stress on higher property taxes" "After kids are done with Lex public schools, we would consider moving out of town because of high property taxes Town is wonderful and provides many great resources but wished there were a bigger business tax base so that the burden of taxes doesn't come upon residential property owners " "My husband is still working at age 7[x] but when he retires I am quite concerned about our property taxes We have an adult child with special needs living with us and cannot downsize or move very easily" 158 "property taxes have >TRIPLED in 15 years NOT sustainable!" "Half of my military retirement pay goes to property taxes I'm retired " "Our property tax has nearly doubled in the past 5 years and will likely double again once the new levies, plus the upcoming levy for the new high school, are added We are seriously considering moving to another town where the property taxes are more fair and reasonable " "With our current income and spending, our budget is borderline break even if not in the red, and ANY increase in housing costs (mainly property taxes, as these are generally the only cost that goes up every year) digs us further in the hole " "My property taxes are 1/10th my income My estimated income tax is also 1/10 my income By the time I'm done paying my bills (401 K, retirement, electric, etc ), I end up with $300 to $500 a month to live on For everything The ironic part is that I'm too young for senior discounts (only 6[x]) and I make too much to qualify for low income I haven't bought any new clothes in approximately 5 years " "We have conservation land as a part of our back-yard which we never use It really hurts to pay property tax on that area. The property taxes are increasing way too fast than the salary increase at our workplace!" "property taxes are too high! runaway spending in the town!" "Our house is paid, so we don't stress about total costs, but we do stress about rate of increase in our property taxes " "The property taxes of$8,000/year for retired couple, former [public employee], is very HIGH! Our house is 1300 sq ft. One bathroom Why are these taxes so high?" "Last spring I ran out of heating oil, the property tax bill pushed out the refill until early summer This coming year I will drop my homeowners policy because there is no room left in my budget with the increases " "Property tax too high when we are not using school system We may decide to move to town with lower property tax" "The property tax is too high due to substantial special education cost." "Although I'm entirely eligible for Lexington property tax deferral program, my mortgage holder refuses to allow my participation owing to legal technicalities in the structure of the program that the bank says inconveniences them " "When we moved to Lexington 21 years ago, our property tax was around $4600 Now it's over $12,000, and still going up faster than inflation We won't be able to fully retire here " taxes hiah or tax high "Town taxes are too high and spending is questionable, e g , first fixing the old high school a few years back for$60M, and now deciding to build a new one for$200M " 159 "The taxes are too high The town spends money at too high a rate" "Have adequate financial resources to pay bills Would rather taxes weren't so high--and don't like to think about how high they are But also understand that taxes are necessary for services " "lexington has high costs with very little services or amenities that are useful to all it is not the same town I grew up in!" "taxes are so high that I can't keep up with them " "high taxes--house assessment increase was astronomical" "My feeling is that the assessment on our house is too high and I feel it was manipulated to increase the tax bill Our house is old, small and in poor condition If the taxes were lower, I would be able to fix the areas of the house that need to be repaired " "the taxes are crazy high" "There have been 9 out of 10 overrides in the past 10 years Taxes are too high even with the evaluation on all the McMansions Negotiations on union contracts is a big problem Where are the cost controls?" "It is costly living in lexington, mainly due to high taxes " "Taxes are very high, largely because of school spending " real estate or (real) estate taxes "Must move out of town due to high real estate taxes (on limited income) " "Smaller real estate options to "age in Lexington" are few I grew up in Lexington, graduated from the school system My family has been here for 75 years My view is that Lexington has focused on replacing small homes with McMansions purchased by people who want the school system for their children with no intention of making Lexington "home "" "the real estate taxes keep going up and we are not sure we will be able to continue to live in this town--the town is spending vast sums of money to replace schools and other public buildings-- money that the town does not have and wealthier people in town keep voting for overrides" "My attitude is that if the people of the town care about education and their kids, they care about the town in general I feel this way, even though I have no children I have taught in the town for [x] years The real estate taxes are getting to us, though, as we enter our 70s " "expensive real estate taxes as Widow choosing to stay in familiar environment!" 160 years aao "We pay $5700 a month for rent and there are only 2 adults and one high school student. It's obscene We moved into this house 6 years ago and the rent was $4200 but it's gone up every year" "Our taxes have more than doubled since we've moved here 18 years ago We're both in our 70's and plan on staying in Lexington, but worry about affording our taxes as the years go by" "Taxes have been on a steep increase since we moved here 4 years ago, and I believe they will continue to rise at a steep rate due to town construction on public buildings It may become unaffordable in the near future if the town continues to grow/build at this rate " "Our taxes on an unrenovated, 3 bed, 1 bath, 1200 sq ft cape represent more than 1/3 of our total housing cost--and this on a house we bought 5 years ago for$500k with a conventional mortgage and downpayment. The taxes will cause us to move even before we have our child in school " "Our high taxes are an issue for many retirees With new schools, fire and police buildings and other additional large expenditures happening, we and others are worried that we will be forced to move to a town with lower taxes We do not want that to happen to us " "When we moved to Lexington 21 years ago, our property tax was around $4600 Now it's over $12,000, and still going up faster than inflation We won't be able to fully retire here " fixed income "I worry that Lexington spends money without any concern for those on fixed incomes e g Purchase and demolition of Armenian School on Pelham " "Real estate taxes are too high and are making it hard for fixed income retirees to remain in this community" "I also have elderly parents living in this town on a fixed income and the taxes we pay here are outrageous I only stay in this town because my parents do not want to move and my youngest has 3 more years of high school " "Retired, on fixed income Property taxes are very high Mortgage is paid off" "Property taxes are high for those on fixed incomes Cambridge, for example, provides both a residential tax credit and an elderly tax credit." "As seniors raising elementary aged children, we will be forced to move out of town as soon as they complete their education here We will not be able to afford staying here on a fixed income Even if we could, the housing now available would not be appropriate for aging in place " "I don't think that all fixed income qualifying residents know that they can defer their RE taxes at an extremely low interest rate, until their property sells How can we get this knowledge of this very generous town benefit to every financially struggling resident who qualifies?" 161 "Once we retire, we are very concerned with our qtrly tax bill of$4,000 Candidly, after 33 years, we may decide to sell and find a community with Real Estate Taxes in the $6 to $8 K range, annually We've loved Lexington but may be to expensive on a fixed income basis " 7 Statistical Analysis of Housing Stress and Predicted Migration Decisions Prior analysis sections describe correlations between pairs of key variables with visual illustrations While such an approach is easily comprehensible, it is an incomplete characterization of variables which are driven by multiple variables Policy makers should be interested in comparing the strength of contributing factors when multiple are present, as well as quantifying the change in dependent variables which might be expected with a change in policy Statistical analysis offers an approach to estimate these factors Two questions merit statistical analysis • What contribution does property taxation make to reported housing stress? • What contribution does property taxation make to self-reported, predicted migration decisions? Household stress was surveyed using a categorical response question with five answers of increasing stress, reflecting an implied ordinal scale Statistical estimation would best use of one two approaches • Treat household stress as a continuous variable with five point estimates, and use ordinary least squares (OLS) to predict changes on a continuous scale This approach is limited because survey responses are truncated at a minimum and maximum value but a statistical model fits to a line • Use an ordinal logistic model to reflect latent levels of stress with estimated thresholds which are associated with respondents selecting from five levels This method allows the thresholds to exist independently of one another, but has the disadvantage that confidence interval estimation is more complicated We used OLS estimation first, because it easily estimates statistical significance, thereby allowing less significant variables to be omitted in model iterations We initially limited response inclusion to cases where the respondent reported both owning a home and being responsible for housing costs (1239 of 1475) Of these, 1208 provided answers to the housing stress question, and 914 answered all statistically relevant questions 38 After selecting appropriate parameters, we tested our model tested against an ordinal logistic model The ordinal logistic model test did not provide insights and is not included here 38 Imputation of income could add about 100 respondents, but we have not elected to do any imputation 162 To run analyses using the migration likelihood responses, we recorded the response categories as follows • Definitely Not: 0 • Unlikely. 1 • Have not considered (or) Undecided - Possible 2 • Likely. 3 • Definitely. 4 We elected to combine two codes which are seemingly neutral into code 2 as neither response lends itself to being more or less likely than the other, and both belong somewhere in the middle of this scale The end result is that the relocation dependent variable is an ordinal variable with five levels (0-4), with higher levels indicating higher forecast propensity to migrate out of Lexington An OLS model predicting housing stress has a R2=0.2, and seven significant explanatory variables With this model, we can estimate the impact of a residential property tax exemption on housing stress levels as follows Assume a household has property taxes of$10,000 per year (roughly a $700,000 assessed value) For a range of monthly housing expenditures ($1000, $1500, $4000) imagine that the property tax were reduced by $5000 (50% would be a very generous tax exemption) and calculate the change in monthly housing costs and property tax % of monthly housing Using these changes and the coefficient, estimate what happens to the level of housing stress Not surprisingly, the findings indicate that the greatest impact of a $5000/year property tax reduction will be felt in households having the smallest (prior) monthly housing expenditures and therefore the greatest (prior) percentage of housing expenditures related to property taxes A bit more surprising may be that the model indicates only a modest adjustment to stress with significant changes in property taxes However, this modest relationship may be due to the fact that numerous other factors contribute to housing stress beyond the effect of property taxes @BVI010 g lllllrrr�� IIIIIIII, ! CORI 11111 11 111111111111 11 ,110 JO 11 $1,000 -0 40 $2,000 -0.23 $3,000 -0 18 $4,000 -0 15 The model predicting migration forecast has an R2=0 12 While it seems that housing stress is among main drivers, and there may therefore be a direct and indirect property tax link, the statistical relationship is weak. We can estimate that a stress change of 1 0 may be related to a 163 0 28 change in the scale for likelihood of moving, but as the 1 0 stress change is not estimated to occur through tax exemptions, it appears that this study does not find evidence that tax policy would directly affect migration (This finding does not mean that tax policy changes have no effect; it merely means that no significant effect is identified with the data from this survey) Because property taxation impacts household stress, and the latter impacts migration decisions, we have an "endogenous variable" problem which makes estimation of the impact of property taxation on migration more difficult. We tried using a third model to predict migration likelihood in which housing stress was excluded from the independent variables, since it may mask direct relationships between property taxes, household costs, and propensity to move As the model overview below describes, the relationship appears largely consistent with the prior models A weak model exists for migration likelihood, and a large change in property taxes and housing costs for an individual could result in a change in propensity to move, but not enough to change the distribution of responses among this survey's categories Only the OLS results are reported here Statistical Models OLS Model for Stress Model OLS Adj R-squared 0 200 Dependent Variable StressCode AIC 2591 0511 Date 2018-11-25 21 39 BIC 2629 5937 No Observations 914 Log-Likelihood -1287 5 Df Model 7 F-statistic 33 59 Df Residuals 906 Prob (F-statistic) 1 05e-41 R-squared 0 206 Scale 0 98833 Coef Std Err t P>Itl [0 025 0 975] Income914 -0 0048 0 0004 -10 8862 0 0000 -0 0057 -0 0039 MarketValue914 -0 0460 0 0094 -4 9003 0 0000 -0 0644 -0 0276 Age914 -0 0136 0 0036 -3 7911 0 0002 -0 0207 -0 0066 MonthlyHousing914 0 1538 0 0197 7 7935 0 0000 0 1151 0 1926 HouseholdSize914 0 1602 0 0404 3 9631 0 0001 0 0809 0 2396 PropertyTaxShare914 0 0080 0 0016 5 0903 0 0000 0 0049 0 0111 Agelncome914 -0 0001 0 0000 -2 1343 0 0331 -0 0001 -0 0000 One 1 4879 0 0377 39 4321 0 0000 1 4138 1 5619 Omnibus 15 853 Durbin-Watson 2 031 Prob (Omnibus) 0 000 Jarque-Bera (JB) 10 355 Skew 0 115 Prob (JB) 0 006 Kurtosis 2 532 Condition No 1729 164 * The condition number is large (2e+03) This might indicate strong multicollinearity or other numerical problems Monthly housing costs, household size, and property tax share all increase reported housing stress Age, income, market value, and age*income all decrease reported housing stress Note Variables with suffix 914 are mean-adjusted version of the 914 original survey code responses The new variable is obtained by subtracting the mean from the original 914 observations to create a new variable with mean=0 OLS Model for Relocation Model OLS Adj R-squared 0 120 Dependent Variable RelocationStatl AIC 2671 5200 Date 2018-11-25 21 49 BIC 2695 6091 No Observations 914 Log-Likelihood -1330 8 Df Model 4 F-statistic 32 15 Df Residuals 909 Prob (F-statistic) 4 34e-25 R-squared 0 124 Scale 1 0828 Coef Std Err t P>Itl [0 025 0 975] Age914 0 0112 0 0029 3 9053 0 0001 0 0056 0 0169 StressCode 0 2861 0 0315 9 0718 0 0000 0 2242 0 3479 PropertyTaxShare914 0 0052 0 0016 3 2042 0 0014 0 0020 0 0083 Agelncome914 0 0001 0 0000 4 8003 0 0000 0 0001 0 0002 One 1 7572 0 0607 28 9288 0 0000 1 6380 1 8764 Omnibus 19 328 Durbin-Watson 2 027 Prob (Omnibus) 0 000 Jarque-Bera (JB) 10 633 Skew -0 017 Prob (JB) 0 005 Kurtosis 2 473 Condition No 2672 * The condition number is large (3e+03) This might indicate strong multicollinearity or other numerical problems 165 Age, stress, property tax share, and age*incoe are all positively correlated with forecast of relocation The overall r^2=0 12, so the relationship is fairly weak The strongest relationship is between stress and forecast relocation A one level increase in stress corresponds roughly to a 0 3 level increase in propensity to move Property tax share not only directly impacts propensity to move, but also indirectly affects through its impact on stress Therefore we find that property tax burden is related to forecast relocation, however the effects appear in total to be small and most impactful on those for whom property taxes constitute the preponderance of monthly housing costs 166 OLS Model for Relocation (without using Stress as a predictor) Model OLS Adj R-squared 0 063 Dependent Variable RelocationStatl AIC 2729 8131 Date 2018-11-25 22 24 BIC 2758 7201 No Observations 914 Log-Likelihood -1358 9 Df Model 5 F-statistic 13 31 Df Residuals 908 Prob (F-statistic) 1 53e-12 R-squared 0 068 Scale 1 1529 Coef Std Err t P>Itl [0 025 0 975] Income914 -0 0020 0 0004 -4 4257 0 0000 -0 0028 -0 0011 Age914 0 0047 0 0034 1 4057 0 1601 -0 0019 0 0114 MonthlyHousing914 0 0537 0 0184 2 9163 0 0036 0 0175 0 0898 PropertyTaxShare914 0 0070 0 0017 4 1991 0 0000 0 0037 0 0103 Agelncome914 0 0001 0 0000 4 3321 0 0000 0 0001 0 0002 One 2 1881 0 0407 53 7323 0 0000 2 1081 2 2680 Omnibus 39 032 Durbin-Watson 2 005 Prob (Omnibus) 0 000 Jarque-Bera (JB) 17 049 Skew 0 041 Prob (JB) 0 000 Kurtosis 2 336 Condition No 1604 * The condition number is large (2e+03) This might indicate strong multicollinearity or other numerical problems One may be interested in PropertyTaxShare, since it is a variable which a residential exemption might impact. PropertyTaxShare914 is a normalized version of PropertyTaxShare with this frequency distribution for the five answers -4 811816 418 -29 811816 203 20 188184 189 44 188184 100 -42 811816 4 A category jump on this PropertyTaxShare914 scale is therefore about 20 points So a full category jump (20) multiplied by the coefficient 20*0 007 = 0 14, so it translates to about 1/6th step in the predicted propensity to move scale This finding is consistent with the impact of property taxes on stress found in the first relationship It is a weak relationship with limited substantive impact. 167 8 Survey Response Summary This section shows the response frequency for the questions asked in the survey Each chart shows the absolute number and percent of respondents selecting each response The open response questions are summarized in an earlier portion of this appendix. Section 1 Town Services In the past 12 months, has any household member done the following? Q1 Visited the Community Center Lexington recently developed a community center at the intersection of Route 2A and Massachusetts Avenue, with function rooms and multi-generation activities Activity ComCenter count Yes 1045 76% L C-, U) E O V .5 No 334 24% inly uneludes respxndentV responsible for housing cost 0 200 400 600 8007 1000 Response Count Q2 Used town swimming facilities Lexington has an outdoor complex for swimming and splashing, as well as a beachfront style pond at the Old Reservoir 168 Activity Swim Yes 484 36% No 861 64% 0 200 400 66o Response ado Count Q3 Used town recreational rts Lexington fields or cou has numerous outdoor fields and Activity Fitennis courts, some of Which are lit for night play eld Yes 779 56% -c-t) No 563 4256 pr ,p,qtpgE rl!f,11,1,k•skp, 0 100 200 300 460 560 600 760 860 Response Count 169 Q4 Used Pine Meadows golf course Lexington owns a public 9-hole golf course near route 128 Activity Golf ^ Ye" 131 10% � No 1187 0 200 400 600 BOO 1000 1200 Response Count Q5 Used a school or neighborhood playground Lexington has neighborhood playgrounds and school p|aygnoundo, both of which are open to families without children in public schools Activity Playground Yes 760 sr% Na 568 43% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Response Count 170 Q0 Used the Minuteman Bikeway The Minuteman bikeway runs through Lexington from Arlington to Bedford Activity MinutemanBikeway ��� Yes 1084 ao% EE a) No 274 20% ~^~'^~~"'^^''s^°'^'^1 ~° ~ ^ o 200 ^mv 600 800 1000 Response Count Q7 Used Lexpress bus Lexpress is Lexington's local bus service Activity Lexpress Yes 282 71% No onae m% ."^.".m^^ respondents responsible for^°."�.,.s o 200 400 *oo 860 1000 Response Count 171 Q8 Visited Lexington conservation areas Lexington prides itself on the large % of land dedicated to conservation Activity Conservation ggnt Yes 956 71% 0 N c a V No 395 259% lmly include rP.pcnde, rFspo, ble fp,hpusimq a5L 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Response Count Q9 Directly received fire or police services Lexington has 1 police station and 2 fire stations, facilities targeted for capital improvements Activity FirePolice gppt Yes 208 16% a) u 0 a ar 7 U No 1108 sa% .nn rde FSpgndenrr r sF nsbef rh qsm, qst; 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Response Count 172 Q10 Attended Lexington public schools Lexington public schools are a prime reason for residents to move to Lexington--to such an extent that enrollment has outpaced classroom facilities Activity LPS ^'I Yes 730 55% J u No 586 45% OnI In_lunes re-pondent.re_ron;ibI rnr bui;inp ,ts 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Response Count Q11 Participated in any town provided program or service for seniors Lexington offers a variety of programs and transportation services for seniors Activity Senior ,nnt Yes 367 30% V No 877 70% only in_I d r..pandents re;sn n;ibl Farb smp s. 0 200 400 600 800 Response Count 173 Q12 Used Cary library or attended a library event Cary Memorial library hosts events and is Lexington's only library at present. Activity Cary Yes 1218 89% a V V No 157 11% ..nn r wi= r.sp3ndentsr.nor;blebrn:usinn s 0 200 400 1600 800 1000 1200 Response Count Q13 Served town government in any capacity (employee, committee member, Town Meeting Member, elected representative) Lexington is governed by representative town meeting and has 21 citizens from each of 9 precincts, along with various town committees which include citizens not in town meeting Activity Town Yes 215 17% c 5 ah j V Na 1087 83% .,irI de rFspndems o-soo,biE rtor nosrlrr ssc 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Response Count 174 Section 2 Affordability Q1 Are you aware that the Recreation & Community Programs Department offers financial aid for programs and services? RecreationAidAware Yes 445 33% a 0 n3 Li No 888 67% 0 200 400 600 800 Response Count Q2 Has a household member received this type of financial assistance to participate in a program or service? RecreationAiciReceive —nt I Yes 23 a 2% ai a) cC 0 U No 1278 98% hs 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Response Count 175 Q3 If your primary residence is rental, please indicate your monthly rental cost: MonthlyRent count $4500+ a 8% $3000-$4499 30 30% C 2 $1560-2999 43 43% $0-$1499 19 19% ,r11 Includes n-op,ndeels resp nistle for housing costs 0 10 20 30 40 Response Count Q4 If you own your primary residence, please indicate your total monthly housing payment (mortgage, insurance, property taxes) MonthlyHousingCost count 21 $10,001+ 2% $8,001-$10,000 42 4% 99 $6001 $8,000 U 8% LT1 O• $4 001 $6,000 283 24% O 469 E $2 001 $4 000 40% <$2 000/month 229 20% ResponseError 27 2% .4,Implode n-opendenLt responstle 6or housing At 0 100 200 300 400 Response Count 176 As indicated, some $10,001+ responses were re-coded as ResponseError because it was not conceivable to the Committee how it corresponded to a lower home value We presume the respondents interpreted the figure as an annual cost when they saw a figure such as $10,001+ Q5 Do you receive a property tax deferral or property tax credit due to limited income? TaxDeferral ®int I Yes 24 2% Qi X No 1290 98% }nI unclud& rFspondent r.-sponsib IE hr hpuasinu crs 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Response Count 177 Q6 What level costs? of stress does Your household experience with payment of monthly housing Stress Substantia/ 70 noun, svitticant 220 16% Co Co Some 441 33% Little 306 23% None 311 23% 100 200 300 400 Response COL/nt These stress codes were then grouped into high, medium and low for analysis purposes 178 StressBand 2.High Stress 290 22% C (0 CO in 1 Medium Stress vi 441 T., .-. 33% Ln 0 Low Stress 617 46% nl,includes reepondent-reepon.ble or housInu shs On 100 200 300 400 500 600 Response Count Q8 Thinking about all the costs of living in your owned property or rental (rent/mortgage, home maintenance, condo fees, property taxes, insurance, utilities), what portion of these costs do you estimate is related to property taxes? PropertyTaxShare count I Substantial(76400%) 142 11% Significant(51 75%) 272 22% Eb_ ro = in x Some(26-50%) 560 C:t 45% a) o_ o Little(1 25%) 269 22% None 7 1 A enh Include rnsp,ndcchs,snonstic Sur h users:, ,hs 0 100 200 300 400 soo Response Count 179 Some respondents criticized the labels which were attached to the %s, even suggesting that these labels implied taxes should be high In hindsight, labels should not have been attached to the percentages Q9 Are you responsible for the housing costs at your residence (i e owner or lessee)? Responsible v 0▪Yes- a eC O1 1390 100% 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Response Count Q10 Are you considering relocating away from Lexington in the next 10 years? Relocation I �qrt I Definitely 165 12% Likely- 316 23% Undecided Possible- 445 0 32% U V Ql cc Have not considered- 33 2% Unlikely- 316 23% Definitely Not 100 7% 3m1+on'lude rA porlAemrn responsible for housinq c-sr 0 100 200 300 400 Response Count 180 We regrouped responses for correlation analysis using a simpler relocation band variable RelocationBand Likely 481 35% .2 Neutral 478 a) 35% cc Unlikely 416 30% DnI,Include rP.ponclents rH,Fonstle fr h using DS, 0 100 200 300 400 500 Response Count Second 3 Demographics Q1 Age (respondent) Age —41 80 years and over 88 6% 70-79 years 192 14% 60-69 years 227 17% a) 50-59 years 328 24% 40-49 years 392 29% 31 39 years 124 9% under 30 years 6 0% sql Incluclos,,,nclents rsonsrbla hr h usin,u shs 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Response Count 181 Q2 Size of household (number of people) HouseholdSize mut I 5 F 170 12% 4 469 34% a) N 13 .1.71 3 237 17% 2 374 27% 1 113 6% ml include respcndent-resveluble housIna c o 100 200 300 400 Response Count Q3 Disabilities within household (check all that apply) Not included 182 Q4 Length of time living in town (respondent) Tenure count moved in 2015 or later 187 14% moved in 2010-2014 292 21% moved in 2000-2009 309 22% moved in 19901999 216 18% moved in 19801989 126 9% moved in 1979 and earlier 244 18% respandents rise=hr 11.51, ,rs 0 50 100 150 200 250 360 Response Count This question was ambiguous for respondents who moved in and out of Lexington multiple times 183 Q5 What type of property is your residence? PropertyType count single family home 1198 88% condominium 92 7% >, t multi-family home 20 a) D- 1 apartment 44 3% other 6 0% ink Include r-sp.den,,sponsIbl,6or hcusno ;Fs o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Response Count Q6 Approximate market property value of your Lexington residence (if owned) MarketValue 55 $2 000,000 and more 4% 46 $1,750,000-$1 999 999 4% 89 $1,500,000-$1 749 999 7% 133 $1,250,000-$1 499 999 10% rTn 306 ,$1,000 000-$1,249 999 24% 416 $750,0004999,999 33% 192 $500,000-$749,999 15% 29 Less than$500,000 2% 11 Not owned by family 1k Hnclucle resp,ndents rEsp k,housing s, 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Response Count 184 Q7 Please indicate your approximate household income in the past 12 months Income count I $200,000 and over 472 41% $150,000-$199,999 181 16% $100,000-$149,999 225 19% 0 $75,000-$99 000 102 9% $5088,000-$74 999 8% 49 $35,000-$49 999 4/c 37 Less than$35,000 3% Dinh iin:lucle rosponclents responsible for housing:05[s 0 100 200 300 400 Response Count 185 Additional charts on frequency distribution of derived variables are significant: Number of Activities Reported 13 ActivityCount 11 9 10 40 3% 9 69 200 14% I ' 245 ›, 6 201 14% 4 12649 3 88 6% 2 64 1 35 0 11 1% j2,,t4n, 0 50 100 150 200 250 Response Count Whether respondent owns or rents OwnRent Own 1239 91% 0 Rent 100 7% 0 200 400 600 BOO 0 0 Response 100 120 Count 186 Number approximately qualified for a means-tested exemption (without asset test) MeansTestedApprox C011 nt 74 6% 0 In 17, 0 1165 94% r,p.clegtsrs sbIe Ror uslm, ost, 0 200 400 600 800 1000 120) Response Count 187 Appendix: Related Documents Survey Data and Analysis mmittee u::.4aft Documents contains these files • Survey Responses - contains answers to questions except for comments and source of survey' ,ILMI'J... 1, If$.Ilrt II'O.f� l'n'�Ifr:II'�$ �$r'$ II"rt II"Irn'O.f$� alLVlr y"' �rt1rt1l„ Ipr,If .f� l'n'�Ifn;�r:II'�$ .�rr�.11,', r art,� I$ , • Open Comments File - contains text of comments question, redacted for privacy' )11,K p.y rt drn'alrnP.,inff Q$r'ir fir SII"II'r .dff� alLVll'Ja ill'n'Olrn'OHint ,(.r ! .r' "r,II"Irn'a P • Additional Comments File - contains text of additional comments, redacted for privacy' ,ILU ,p- k I,f.:�.aff:n �Jliff.ltp .111)1( r.;!11 q Ilr•p..Irn; .aff4 ��u_up�/u�v 11::)ata with Au_ucmented 11= li-llcts dx.l1Sx fPnind Analysis Files • Python Jupyter notebooks used to read survey files and generate output- to be linked to committee website at a future date Dr Jonathan Haughton Tax Equilibrium Model Dr Haughton's model is based on the Excel spreadsheet of residential assessed values found at the town website (htttt.p5 H'wrorwror y Vexp,notorama aov assessor) Subsequently, the Committee became aware that a few smaller classes of residential property are not included in the published Lexington spreadsheet, and therefore not in Dr Haugthon's model At the Lexington roundtable discussion, Dr Haughton presented a 30% "clawback" based on a simple model, but this model which is specific to Lexington properties suggests a 28% "clawback" (The clawback is the reduction in tax shift associated with the housing value change caused by the tax shift through hypothesized market capitalization ) Cr:snn.ptttt e U::.Jr ifh U::.J,Q2,'p.rn *u'ptt$ contains the file ,.p,Il .aff.1 91fp.11;...p .aILw II'itr If p ,jipn'plLull.aff.jjr Ifpll r..r;jip r Ifp if,q.rnr- r'.II 188 Public Hearings Summary The Committee held two public hearings which were advertised widely through local digital and print media At both hearings, a Committee presentation to share Committee work to date was followed by questions and comments from the attendees First Public Hearing Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building May 29, 2018 The hearing was attended by 21 people The Committee's presentation reviewed the Committee's Charge and explained the history, the mechanics and the effects on property tax of the State's Residential Exemption (SRE) Community members in attendance asked technical questions, such as who has the authority to adopt the SRE for Lexington and how trusts would qualify, and whether the SRE provision that disqualifies non-owner-occupied properties could be overridden An attendee suggested hoped-for ways of reducing the overall Town property tax burden such as having the Town join the State's group Insurance plan (the GIC)39, finding ways to keep assessments from increasing, or instituting a Town graduated income tax instead of property tax. An attendee asked about the effect of an SRE on older residents with fixed incomes who live in larger homes A resident expressed the opinion that there is a good correlation between house value and income He supports the adoption of the SRE because those who can afford to pay more should pay more People with more expensive houses should pay more than people who own smaller houses because the people who own smaller houses are more likely to be poor Losing elders due to high property taxes that are replaced by young families increases town expenses because it leads to more kids in the schools A long-time resident expressed the worry that she may not be able to afford increasing taxes Another senior felt that the SRE wouldn't make much difference for the people she knows and that the only solution lies with increased state aid to Towns A new resident who recently bought a price-controlled apartment testified that she would welcome the help of the Town's senior property tax exemption and deferral programs but hasn't lived here long enough to qualify 39 Lexington has already joined the State's GIC group insurance plan 189 Second Public Hearing Estabrook Hall, Cary Memorial Building December 11, 2018 The second public hearing was attended by 25 people The Committee's presentation reviewed the principles of how the SRE and Means-Tested residential exemptions (MTRE) work, and introduced the preliminary results of a survey created by the Committee that was designed to evaluate housing stress as it relates to property value, income, and out-migration from Lexington The Committee also shared information learned through round-table discussions with real estate brokers, economists and housing policy experts and input from Assessors in towns that employ means-tested exemptions Questions and comments were then received from attendees A question was asked about how assets qualifying for a means-tested exemption would be determined and concerns were expressed about inaccurate income and asset reporting by applicants and that existing means-tested exemptions have inexact rules to define excessive assets It was also observed that a large amount of work to determine assets would be required of the Assessor's office A question was asked about how many residents are reached by Means Tested Exemptions followed by an expression of strong concern that only a small number would be reached, perhaps 1% of population, while the SRE available today reaches many more people The attendee also felt that without questions about assets on the Survey, that an important factor used by seniors making migration decisions may have been missed Later, in the Comments portion of the hearing, the same resident repeated his strong preference for the SRE because it covers more people, taxes should be progressive and that he feels that the rich should pay more He also expressed concerns about the difficulty of attaining a home rule petition An attendee shared the observation that there is a known group of residents who can afford Lexington taxes but leave town because they prefer to spend that money on other things He wanted to know if the Town could do anything to address that. An attendee asked for examples of the Capitalization Effect, which the Committee had presented as an effect theorized to reduce and eventually eliminate the tax shift created by the SRE A person with substantial professional experience in municipal government recommended the simple Wayland model of means tested exemptions She indicated that means testing is very difficult to do, and the applications are very difficult for seniors to fill out. Two attendees expressed concerns that the needs of older seniors are not the same as those of younger seniors One of them was a 93-yr-old Lexington resident who feels that seniors should not be considered to be a homogenous entity regarding needs 90 is different from 70 Widowers lose their spouse's Social Security benefits but house costs remain the same He also objected to using a Property Tax Deferral because he doesn't want the town to "be his heir" He 190 wants the full value of his property to go to his children He added that he has not used the Town's schools in many years A different resident expressed that seniors who feel that, since they don't use the schools they should pay reduced property tax, should consider that Lexington schools support our high property values A resident expressed the need for means-tested approaches that are more flexible than those that use the Circuit Breaker's qualification rules Taking money out of an IRA for medical expenses made her ineligible for the Circuit Breaker recently and the same disqualification would occur for Means Tested Exemptions that use the Circuit Breaker criteria A resident offered some thoughts on how to interpret survey results Lower stress levels at higher ages may indicate that the more stressed residents left when they were younger He also expressed that the effect of the SRE on rental rates is uncertain The resident was also concerned about the potentially discriminatory aspect of residency time requirements A resident who had attended a meeting where the Committee discussed the SRE with economists and policy experts noted that none of the experts recommended the RE, calling it a blunt instrument. A condo owner himself, he noted that condo owners have some of the lowest property values in Lexington but could be very wealthy A local developer and former Select Board member concluded the comments portion of the hearing with a strong call to both identify those who most need help and also to make sure that everyone pays their fair share He advocated for the Town's Property Tax Deferral program and noted that staying in Lexington is a great investment. 191