On the message and order, referred on February 2, 2022, Docket #0222, for your approval a Home Rule petition to the General Court entitled “Petition for a Special Law Re: An Act Relative to Real Estate Transfer Fees and Senior Property Tax Relief”, submits a report recommending that the home rule petition ought to pass in a new draft.
Lucky number 022 to the Committee on Government Operations, to which was referred on February 2nd, 2020 to Docket 0222 message in order for your approval, a home rule petition to the General Court entitled Petition for a Special Law Relative to an Act and be enact relative to real estate transfer fees and senior property tax relief submits a report recommending that the home move petition to pass in a new draft. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The Chair recognizes counsel. Royal Chair of the Committee on Government Operations Counsel. Royal. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. This docket was sponsored by the administration, referred to the committee on February 2nd, 2022. The committee held a hearing on February 10th and a working session on February 25th. I want to thank all of my council colleagues who attended the hearing, the working session. It was, and the entirety of the council actually attended. So that was Counselor Baker. Counselor Edwards. Counselor Flaherty. Counselor Flynn. Counselor Louis Gen Counselor. Overall Counselor Murphy. Counselor Media Counselor Counsel Laura Lara, Counselor Fernandez Anderson and Counselor Brady. So thank you, all of you, for your attention to this. I also want to thank Chief Dillon, Deputy Director Tim Davis, Commissioner Shea and Neil Dougherty for their attendance and participation. Docket number 2 to 2 is a home rule petition that would authorize the city of Boston to impose a transfer fee to be paid on certain real estate real estate transactions and expand the current senior property tax relief program. The transfer fee provisions would allow the city to impose a transfer fee of up to 2% on real estate sales over 2 million, exempting the value of 2 million of the sale. Revenue from the fee would be deposited in the Neighborhood Housing Trust. Transfers between family members, transfers of convenience and transfers to the government would be exempt. The city would outline specifics of the program through an ordinance which would come through this body for approval. The senior property tax relief provisions would adjust the income and asset limits for senior property tax relief eligibility. At the hearing, the administration testified that this home rule addresses a fact that all councilors are aware of, which is that too many Boston residents are struggling with housing. 15,000 seniors and the city are paying more than 30% of their income for rent. 60,000 non senior households are also rent burdened. Over 40,000 people are on the waiting list for housing. On any given night, there are 900 unhoused individuals in the city of Boston and as of the last census data, 900 families living in the Boston family shelters. We know that for families to build wealth and stay in the city, they need to have access to affordable housing and to expand affordable housing. We need increased revenue streams to do so. The proposed transfer fee will provide much needed revenue for affordable housing and housing stability programs based on 2021 sales. The fee would have affected 704 transactions across the city, the majority of which would have been in downtown neighborhoods and on high priced condominiums, as well as larger commercial transactions. The administration also highlighted how both components of the home rule proposal would help seniors in need of affordable housing who are having trouble meeting their expenses. 74% of individuals and 44% of older couples living independently in Boston have incomes below the elder index, meaning that they have less income than it costs them to live in the city. At the working section, the committee discussed various concerns, including overlap with the pending state legislation reevaluations of the exempted value amount, that amount for account for inflation and the extent of the ability provision. The administration explained that despite potential overlap, the current proposal would provide Boston with the best remedy for its residents. Councilors also suggested the addition of language for flexibility to increase the exemption value with inflation and market values. Though to be clear, the actual exemption amounts will be determined in an ordinance that will come to this body before this ever gets implemented. Regarding the amend ability provision, the administration stated that given the interest from multiple municipalities and the multi-year conversions on the topic of the transfer fee, giving the state maximum flexibility would increase the bill's chance of passage. The Council expressed concerns about the broadness of the current language regarding amend ability, and the Chair suggested limiting this language slightly, even just to specify the objectives laid out in the bill itself. Ultimately, based on information gathered at the hearing in the working session and follow up with the administration, that amendment was not taken up. The exempted value section was amended to change the evaluation period from five years to three years and also direct evaluations to happen. So to be clear, Councilor Flaherty and I believe Councilor Zero, among others, raised the the exemption amount with inflation with rising cost of inflation. Could could catch folks in the in the web that it wasn't designed to do. In the amendment that we have in the amended version seeks to incorporate the amendments that they suggested, which are to change the language to ensure that those evaluations happen, to change the years from five years to three years. So the evaluations were supposed to happen every three years, every five years. And the original draft in this draft, it's every three years. And so that's what's in the amended said section. It's those amendments that were taken up. There was also a request to to split essentially this into two parts. One part for the seniors tax relief, another for the transfer fee that was also not taken up. Passage of docket zero 2 to 2 and its amended version will provide property tax relief to vulnerable senior residents and provide the city with the authority and maximum flexibility to impose a transfer fee on certain real estate, the revenue from which will contribute to much needed resources for affordable housing in the city of Boston. As the Chair, I recommend that this this docket ought to pass in the new draft. And just again, to be clear. The transfer. Tax itself will have to come that transfer fee after we get approval from the House, after we get approval from the Senate, after the governor signs it, it will still have to come through this body and be passed by this body, the senior tax relief that will actually get implemented immediately. And so once that gets signed, that is that is law. And so, Mr. President, I am seeking a vote and passed in a new draft. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Royal. Any of my colleagues like to discuss the matter at this time. I want to recognize the chair, recognizes counsel, priority counsel, clarity of the floor. Take, Mr. President, and obviously we want to thank the chair. I was having connectivity issues and he I don't know how he was able to do it, but masterfully was able to decipher what I was actually saying and then to, you know, accurately report those questions back to the panel. So I appreciate his effort as I was struggling with that with the Internet and also thank the one of the lead sponsors. And I've been a leader on this party with respect to affordable housing prior to her tenure here, but also while here. And this petition, I feel, is stronger than previous petitions that we've sent up to Beacon Hill, because it does more to ensure that we're not unintentionally targeting middle class property owners with that 2 million exemption as well as and I appreciate the indulgence of the lead sponsors in the chairs to to work with the administration on on having that reevaluation done every three years just to make sure, again, we're not sort of catching unintentionally catching folks in in that web, but this is targeting sort of the flippers, you know, the residential and the commercial flippers that we want to make sure that lifelong residents and to our long term property owners, those that I consider to be, as you say, house rich, but cash for many of the folks that we know that fixed income seniors that have on their own property, they retired and they continue to see things happening around their neighborhood, which they're not necessarily participating in. But every time that tax bill comes in, they're paying a price for that just by the fact that they've only their property. They've kept their property up and they're being valued and evaluated based on what sort of happening on that street or around the corner. So this will just sort of maybe bake in some protections for them. It's also an improvement because the senior property tax relief that changes Section 41 see that both the chair and council literary which had described in detail because we have seniors in every neighborhood, in every corner of the city that have burdened and overburdened by the increased property taxes. I also briefly want to touch on the ongoing discussion about the neighborhood housing trust, the ability to efficiently receive and distribute the influx of of funding. This was a discussion that we've had multiple times on this body, probably most recently as 2019 with an early version. And then we had passed that again in 2022. So if this were to pass in the State House, it's critical for us to be very prospective via the ordinance with the district distribution and use of these funds. You know, I've often suggested that, you know, we have an affordable housing crisis, a line item, we should have a line item in our budget in that so that we, as elected members on behalf of residents, could more readily and easily access those so that we could target those affordable housing crisis needs in our city. I also want to echo some of the comments that our colleague, Counsel Baker, had mentioned during the hearing specifically. You know, that's the most pressing issue facing our city. And yet the resources we continue to throw at it each year, it's still extremely difficult for all of us to help get people placed in housing and to secure affordable housing via the ADP. A lot of it still remains to some a mystery. So we need to continue to double down on our efforts to streamline that process. And, you know, so we need a district that is in need of affordable housing or a unit we as their elected representatives, district writ large council, we should be a conduit. We should be able to run out the ground ball for that person to get them into a house. And so I, I know that the D.A. and our affordable housing team, they do great work. And it's truly a labor of love for for many of our city employees, particularly those that are on the front lines for affordable housing. But I do want to stress that it's important that we allocate precious funding towards the highest and best use for affordable housing issues and really gives long thought to targeting shovel ready projects so that that money that once it becomes available, can go right to work and put someone in a home and get a roof over their head. And then we as their representatives can advocate on their behalf and help them facilitate an affordable housing unit. Thank you, Mr. President, for to to support him. Thank you, counsel. Florida, the chair recognizes District Council Counsel Baker Council baking of the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple comments. I will be voting no on this today. Based on based on the fact that I think the the senior benefits should be separated out of out of this. So so when we do send it to the state House, they're voting on just a senior benefit. This is something we should be doing already, shouldn't be attached to a tax. The problem I have with the tax with the with with this coming in here is somewhat council clarity had to say if this were much more prescriptive if we were in year one, going to build a West End library with 100 apartments above it and all the money was going to go towards that. I'm in if we were going to go into District four and some of our city land that we own or we're going to build 40 unit, 40 unit buildings, the. Many unit buildings here, the money being directly directed right there, large pieces of money, not $1,000,000 here to a connected development, $1,000,000 here, unconnected program or four 5 to 1 C, I think it needs we need to start taking larger pieces of our money, whether it's IDP, whether it's job, job, not job trust, housing, trust money and putting the amount of ten, 20 million into building our own infrastructure. Again, just the way the money gets cut up and sent spreads the infield. I don't find it to be an effective, effective model. And then the third point is we can't get our own people in these units that are getting built. Good luck trying to find an apartment for somebody when we know they're getting built all over the place. No. Yeah. 800th on the list. You've been on the list for ten years. Can't get you in. So there's a problem there some place I'd like the city to start actually owning the buildings that we're building, using our money and building infrastructure instead of just giving it to developed to developers. Because a lot of the money that's made in affordable housing is made in building fees. That's how that's how the people that are building these are making the money. And then and then it gets and then it gets managed to we have to do lotteries and everything else to get our people in. So I hope I didn't I made some sense there. But thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel Baker. The Chair recognizes District Councilor Ken Rivera and this will not be council of our is made in speech console of our view of the floor. Thank you, President Flynn, as the chair of the Housing and Community Development Committee and as the City Councilor representing District six, I just want to reiterate my support for this home law petition. District six has one of the highest concentrations of seniors in the city, and in addition, our neighborhood in the past decade has seen an increase of displacement, lack of affordability and gentrification, which has made affordable housing that much more important. It's for that reason that I think it's not only important that we pass the transfer fee, but also the expansion of 41 C together. And so I ask that the Council not bifurcate those two, but keep them collective at this moment. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Anyone else like to speak on this matter? Thank you, Councilor Arroyo, the chair on the committee. The Chair of the Committee of Government Operations seeks acceptance of the Committee report in passage of Docket 0222 in a new draft. Let let me call on counsel. Bork, would you like to speak before we do the vote? I just want to say. This. And I think we need more resources for affordable housing of all types all over the city. And it's a very, very urgent thing. I actually wanted to thank Councilor Flynn. I think that the the hearings and working sessions that we had on senior property tax relief last year at his behest because of hearing orders that he filed, really allowed the administration to start getting into the weeds at 41 C. And so I think the ability for the administration to add that piece to this and combine the two really came out of that conversation we had in Ways and Means last year. So just wanted to acknowledge that I think this is a proposal that has been worked through by some really good council work, both by Councilor Flynn and our committee, and then also of course, by Councilor Edwards and some of our predecessors on the council. So I just wanted to thank everybody for all the work of the council in partnership with the mayor to get to this point. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Mark, and apologize for not calling on you sooner. Um. So Councilor Arroyo, the chair on the Committee on Government Operations, seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of Docket 0222 in a new draft. All those in favor say aye. All right. All those are proposing a a mr. Kirk, will you please do a roll call vote? Roll call vote on docket 0222. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Name? Councilor Baker. No. Councilor Book. Yes. Councilor Bullock. Yes. Councilor Braden. Councilor Braden. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Councilor Edwards. Yes. Councilor Fernandes Anderson. Councilor Fernandes. Anderson. Yes. Council. 30 Years. Council 30 years. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Council. Council. Ah. Ah yes. Councilor Lui Gin Council. Region. Yes. Councilor me here. Councilor Murphy. Councilor Murphy. Yes. And Councilor World. Yeah. Councilor Warrell. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Docket zero to Tokyo has passed. Motions, orders and resolutions. Mr. Quiroga, please. We talk at zero 3 to 1.