K-ZONE WPKZ FM105.3/AM 1280

Your Hometown Radio

listen nowLISTEN NOW
listen nowLISTEN NOW
K-Zone Studio Line 978.348.1280

taxes

How Boston pieced together the Lego headquarters move

by

The Lego project snapped into place quite suddenly.

No, not the mini Millennium Falcon set your kid is playing with, or even the near-life-sized giraffe made out of blocks in Assembly Square — rather, the whirlwind of activity that led to the toy giant announcing that it will be moving its western hemisphere headquarters to Boston.

“Boston is the place to be and shows no signs of slowing down,” an upbeat Boston Economic Development Chief Segun Idowu told the Herald on Tuesday following the first announcement of the Wu administration of the city successfully luring a company to move a headquarters here by 2026. “We see this is the first of many to come.”

That said, Iduwo described a process that actually didn’t require too much coaxing at all in order to persuade the Danish company to move its Americas HQ from its 47-year home of Enfield, Connecticut, to Boston over the next few years — rather than to the other options of New York City or another Nutmeg State locale.

Here’s how the move, which Idowu said he expects to bring hundreds of new jobs, came together.

The process started with a missive from the business-focused nonprofit MassEcon: a big company’s thinking about coming to Boston. You interested?

They were. City Director of Business Development Alia Forrest and a team began meetings with MassEcon — even though the name of the company itself remained in the shadows.

“We didn’t know it was Lego until the last, like, 72 hours,” Idowu said.

He said they met with Lego for the first time Monday, and really didn’t need to give a hard sell.

“We thought we were going into a pitch meeting, and their first opening lines were essentially ‘Boston has all the things that we’re looking for, and we’re going to tell our team tomorrow that we’re coming to Boston,’” Idowu recounted on Tuesday.

The city didn’t offer any incentives. In fact, the company wasn’t looking for them, Idowu said.

What they were saying, he said, was “music to our ears.”

“They were looking to find ways to be closer to their workforce and their talent — to find a place that had accessible transportation and to find a location that was mission-aligned,” he said.

Aside from obvious outliers like Amazon, which turned its “HQ2” search into a press bonanza, pitting cities against each other, the more cloak-and-dagger routine like this is par for the course. Companies typically want to avoid press until they’ve got a destination nailed down.

MassEcon, a nonprofit that works with homegrown companies and touts the Bay State as a place for others to come, often serves in what Executive Director Peter Abair describes as a “front door” role, looking to give companies the privacy to explore the option without leaving the type of government-communications paper trail that frequently makes it into the press.

“We’re so self-critical, we sometimes don’t convey how special we are,” Abair told the Herald. “So self-critical. Like, ‘the New England Patriots won six Super Bowls. They should have won nine.’ It’s very unique.”

He — and Idowu said similarly — noted that despite the many real complaints about the MBTA, it’s one of the largest such systems in the country. We also have the various colleges, hospitals and a major international airport.

He also gave “all the credit in the world” to Mayor Michelle Wu’s team in Boston and Gov. Maura Healey’s brand-new state administration, who both jumped on this quickly.

“That’s what you need for success,” Abair said.

There’s still a lot to be worked out. Lego hasn’t chosen an actual site for the headquarters yet, though Idowu said he wants it to at least be near downtown, which the Wu administration is trying to revitalize following the pandemic and ensuing shift to hybrid work.

And it’s not like either side has signed anything, either; the company hasn’t affirmed any guarantees, and the city hasn’t given anything to them.

“Boston is ranked one of the best cities in the world to attract and retain talent,” Skip Kodak, the head of Lego Group of the Americas, said in a statement. “This, along with its world-class academic institutions, skilled workforce and great quality of life makes it an ideal location for our US head office.”

Lego declined to make anyone available for an interview on Tuesday following the announcement, but a spokesman, when asked further about the choice of Boston, said “A move to Boston made sense.

“Our priority is to move to a location which offers a large talent pool able to support our business in the future. We already had connections with Boston given our LEGO Education office is located there,” the company said, using its characteristic all-caps styling and referring to the spot in the Back Bay where somewhere in the ballpark of 100 people already work.

The move will begin to roll out in 2025 and wrap up in early 2026, according to the company.

“I look forward to supporting LEGO Group as they transition their headquarters to Boston and join our mission to become the most family-friendly city in the country,” Wu said in a statement. “This news finally has my kids impressed.”

Facing a steep property tax increase, Lunenburg residents make waves

by

LUNENBURG — Facing an “unprecedented” property tax increase, waterfront residents made waves before the Select Board on Tuesday.

A disgruntled crowd bombarded the Select Board and members of the Board of Assessors with questions about the property tax increase that could force some residents to pay 300% more compared to the previous fiscal year.

Select Board Chairman Michael-Ray Jeffreys sympathized with those in attendance and made it clear that both the Select Board and Board of Assessors would do what they could to investigate potential issues and address potential abatement requests in a timely manner.

“It’s clear that many of our neighbors and friends are terrified they now can’t afford to live in their homes, in a community that they love because their property tax evaluations are resulting in tax increases up to 300% higher than the previous fiscal year,” Jeffreys said. “An investigation will answer the bottom line question of why it is that we are here at this place in time, outline the series of events that led us to this collective moment and will provide recommendations to ensure that we avoid such a calamity in the future.”

“After speaking with the members of the Board of Assessors over this past week, I know they are genuinely committed to diligently, expeditiously and equitably addressing all abatement requests,” he said.

Multiple Select Board members described the spike as a “disaster” for residents and, as they called for an investigation into the assessment process, said such a disaster could never happen again. Vice Chairman Tom Alonzo, meanwhile, criticized the Board of Assessors for a lack of oversight of the assessment process and said he would support “any investigation” that ensured as much.

“This is a disaster for a lot of people, there’s no question about it,” Select Board Clerk Louis Franco said. “If you look at the situation, something went wrong and we need to figure out what that is.”

“If we’re just saying ‘this is what the state tells me to do’ and if we’re slaves to that, then we have a lot more to worry about than an investigation into this board,” Alonzo said. “We have managed to create not a win-win, not even a win-lose, but a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.”

“I’m going to support any investigation that gets to the bottom of this because we can never, never let this happen again,” he said.

The Select Board voted unanimously to investigate the assessment process and said that a “road map” of that investigative process would be created and shared with residents. Jeffreys said the source of funding for the investigation would be addressed at the Select Board’s next meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 24.

The Board of Assessors and Principal Assessor CJ Carroll maintained that there was no error in the assessment process and that their values were within state parameters. That said, Board of Assessors member Kevin Fish apologized for a lack of communication with residents throughout that process, which occurred back in November, and prior to the issuance of individual tax bills.

“I do think the mistake was not in the process, the calculations, but in the lack of communication,” Fish said. “I will stand and publicly apologize for that now.”

As he did at their meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 10, Jeffreys urged residents to request an abatement of their property tax assessment. He also clarified that, while residents were not necessarily “required” to make their property tax payments by the Feb. 1 deadline, state law would require the town to attempt to collect the full amount of that unpaid tax plus interest if a resident’s abatement was denied.

When questioned as to whether the Board of Assessors could push back the Feb. 1 deadline, Jeffreys said that would be something both the Select Board and Board of Assessors would “have to look into.” Board of Assessors member Christine Cosgrove Higdon said that, if possible, she and other board members would vote on it.

“If we have the right to extend the deadline, that’s exactly what we would want to do to help people,” she said.

Regardless of a potential deadline extension, Carroll said the Board of Assessors would “guarantee” that every resident that felt their home had been improperly valued would have the chance to file an abatement.

“[An abatement] is something that everyone here has the right to,” Carroll said. “And [the Board of Assessors] will ensure that everyone has a fair shake at that.”

Lunenburg Select Board to address concerns over steep property tax hikes

by

LUNENBURG — Hoping to quell the concerns of the town’s waterfront residents, the Select Board is expected to address steep increases in property tax payments during their Tuesday, Jan. 17 meeting.

Residents located near or along Lake Shirley, Whalom Lake and Hickory Hills Lake voiced their displeasure with what they believe to be a miscalculated or even targeted increase in their most recent property tax assessment. With frustrations growing, they lobbied the Select Board to take action at their most recent meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 10.

Some residents said their tax payments increased by as much as 135% compared to the previous fiscal year. Resident and Lake Shirley Improvement Corporation President Joanna Bilotta described that increase as one most residents simply could not afford.

“A lot of people in this area are elderly, retired or live paycheck-to-paycheck,” Bilotta said Monday. “They can’t afford this, none of us can, really.”

In an interview Monday, Select Board Chairman Michael-Ray Jeffreys said Tuesday’s meeting would provide an update for concerned residents and, likely, a vote to initiate an investigation. With Principal Assessor CJ Carroll also set to attend, Jeffreys said there would be time for Carroll to explain the assessment process and answer questions before inviting public comment.

“It’s clear that many residents are upset and that something needs to be explained or that something is amiss,” Jeffreys said. “We need to conduct an investigation to figure out the details of what transpired, why it transpired and what we can do from here.”

The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the Lunenburg High School auditorium.

At the Jan. 10 meeting, many residents asserted that the increase must be the result of an error either by the Board of Assessors or in their assessment process. Select Board Vice Chairman Tom Alonzo agreed that it was “clear that there is a serious problem here” and went on to say that he would lobby for a review of the assessment process if able.

“There’s nobody in this room that’s coming before this [Select Board] or making an appeal to the Board of Assessors that they shouldn’t pay taxes or that they are surprised that their taxes increased,” Alonzo said. “This has exposed a serious problem that people shouldn’t be facing at this point, there should be triggers and mechanisms and safety valves in place to prevent it.”

“Even if every rule and regulation was followed, there’s something morally and ethically wrong with the result of the equations that got us here. If it’s within our power, I would certainly lobby for a review of the entire assessment process for this year, so we know that these values have been properly assessed,” he said.

That said, Jeffreys and Alonzo both stressed that, while the Select Board could investigate, any significant action would fall under the authority of the Board of Assessors.

On Monday, Bilotta said she and others just hoped to receive some sort of explanation at the next meeting.

“We’re hoping that this whole thing is just a mistake, a miscalculation,” Bilotta said. “But, if it’s not, we’re hoping that the Select Board, the Board of Assessors have some sort of explanation, an answer or some way to fix this.”

Maura Healey holds first meeting with Beacon Hill leadership

by

After meeting for the first time as the triumvirate that controls the levers of Beacon Hill power, the so-called Big Three on Monday downplayed questions about policy disagreements among them and said they are looking forward to working through any differences they might have.

In addition to their party affiliation, Gov. Maura Healey, Senate President Karen Spilka and House Speaker Ronald Mariano share many of the same broad priorities — but they predictably don’t completely see eye-to-eye-to-eye on the fine details that could turn those priorities into policies.

One glaring example was highlighted Sunday when WBZ-TV aired an interview that Spilka did with Jon Keller. The Senate president, who called on Wednesday for free community college (tuition and fees) for all, told Keller she did not know why Healey’s proposal is to make community college free for students over 25 without a college degree.

“I look forward to working with her on this issue to iron it out,” Spilka said. “So we both have the same values, same priorities, in this area, which is very exciting and makes it more likely that it’s doable. I look forward to hearing why it’s over 25 on her plan.”

Asked about the differing community college proposals after Monday afternoon’s roughly 90-minute meeting, Healey said she and legislative leaders “talked about a number of things: our general approach, we talked about some of the priorities that we share in terms of the work for people in this state, residents, and businesses, and the health and well-being of the state.”

“We did touch on issues of education and, you know, I expect that there’s an area — we’ve all articulated support for education and I know we’ve talked about community colleges, and we’ll we’ll find a way to work through that. And that’s all good,” she said.

To get any kind of free community college policy onto Healey’s desk for her to sign it into law will require both the House and Senate to be on board, but Mariano was non-committal Monday and borrowed one of former Gov. Charlie Baker’s favorite lines when asked where he stands on the issue.

“Well they’re two separate proposals, and so now the devil is in the details as we begin the discussion,” the Quincy Democrat said. “You know, there’s a cost involved, we have to ascertain what the costs are. There’s a whole lot of questions that haven’t been answered about it.”

At another point, when asked where he is on the free community college idea, Mariano said, “I haven’t thought about it. I just found out from the governor and the Senate president.”

Activists have been publicly clamoring for years about making college free, or at least more accessible to people, and the community college plans from Spilka and Healey are beginning to show what may be possible.

Spilka said on WBZ this weekend that she estimates her plan would cost about $50 million, but Mariano said any bills on the idea would go to the Education Committee.

“The House will have a hearing, we’ll try and assemble some information about it and go from there,” he said.

But first, the House and Senate will need to organize themselves into committees to begin holding hearings and processing legislation. Asked Monday what his timeline is for making committee and leadership assignments in the House, Mariano said, “quick.”

There’s also the issue of tax reform and relief.

Spilka and Mariano last summer agreed to a $1 billion package of tax code changes and immediate relief, but later tabled those plans after a state law triggered $3 billion in tax relief. Healey and Spilka each said last week that they are interested in resurrecting at least parts of that plan in the new session, but Mariano suggested last week that he had not “thought about any of that stuff” and said the House would have to “look at where we are economically” before making any commitments.

On Monday, the speaker said the consensus revenue hearing this month would influence his feelings on tax relief and reform.

Healey said Monday that she would be “back to you more about that” and said the idea of permanent tax relief is “certainly something that we’ve talked about.” But she also deferred to the consensus revenue hearing.

Mariano did tell reporters one thing that is likely to be on the House’s radar this session: changes to the 1980s voter law known as Chapter 62F that required the state to send nearly $3 billion back to taxpayers after collections exceeded a cap.

“I’m sure it’s going to be something that we discuss. When I have a leadership team and we have an opportunity to talk about that agenda for this session, obviously 62F is going to be something that we talk about,” Mariano said.

The governor deflected when asked if she had any plans to make or go along with changes to 62F, which upended plans at the end of formal sessions last year and led to record tax refunds.

“I think today, again, it’s day four. I am grateful to everybody who’s welcomed us into the building — who’s literally, quite literally, had to show us around — because there’s a lot new to figure out here,” Healey said. “And so, you know that’s where we are. In addition to sitting down with some of our teams, I think the work on the budget is incredibly important, obviously, and we’re looking to get after that. As well as beginning to flesh out some of the things that we’ve talked about over the course of this campaign and just really grateful to be in this position.”

Maura Healey, other constitutional officers in line for 20% raises

by

The state’s top officials are in line for substantial pay raises in the new year, with constitutional officers likely taking in 20% more than in 2022.

State lawmakers are also set to receive their fourth pay raise since 2017, this one worth more than 4%.

In a letter sent Thursday to Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, Gov. Charlie Baker said that median household income in Massachusetts has risen by 4.42% over the two years since the last adjustment to lawmaker pay. Adjustments to legislative base pay are required biennially under the state Constitution, based on changes in the median household income statewide.

A 4.42 percent increase for the 2023-2024 session would bump the base pay for elected lawmakers from $70,536 to about $73,654, a raise of $3,118 a year. Any lawmaker can choose to turn down the increase in base pay if they so choose. For many lawmakers, the base pay is supplemented by substantial stipends tied to committee and leadership posts.

In past years, especially during recent recessions, some legislators have rejected the pay increases and others have accepted the money, but pledged to donate it to charity. Most have accepted the raises.

Lawmakers got a 4.2% raise at the start of the 2017-2018 session, a raise of 5.93% at the start of the 2019-2020 session, and a 6.46% increase when the 2021-2022 session began. If median household income were to go down, legislative pay would also be slated to be cut.

The process of calculating the 4 percent bump in base pay for lawmakers is set in the state Constitution, but the origins of the 20% increase that statewide officers — governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, auditor, treasurer and secretary of state — will see in their paychecks comes from a controversial law passed in 2017 that ties officials’ salaries to changes in state wages over the past eight quarters rather than to median household income.

Though the state treasury does not make official determinations regarding other constitutional officer’s payrolls, the treasurer’s office did the math as specified in the law to calculate that the statute entitles constitutional officers to a 20.1% increase in 2023.

The required salary increases “reflect the aggregate quarterly change in salaries and wages in the commonwealth for the most recent eight quarters as determined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the United States Department of Commerce,” according to the law.

For incoming Gov.-elect Maura Healey, the raise means she will make $37,185 above Baker’s current $185,000 salary. In addition to the $222,185 salary, Healey is set to receive the governor’s standard $65,000 housing allowance for a total compensation of $287,185 in 2023.

The lieutenant governor’s pay will increase from $165,000 to $198,165 under the 2017 law..

Healey spokesperson Karissa Hand said Healey and Lt. Gov.-elect Driscoll will both “accept the salary that has been established by statute.”

Attorney General-elect Andrea Campbell and Auditor-elect Diana DiZoglio will also accept the increased salaries, press representatives said.

In response to an inquiry whether Secretary of State William Galvin would accept the raise — up from the $179,367 he made this year — Galvin spokesperson Deb O’Malley said, “The Secretary will be reviewing the numbers before making a determination. With preparations for his roles in the swearing-in and inauguration ceremonies next week, he does not expect to have a chance to do that until after next Thursday.”

Lizandra Gomes, chief of staff for Treasurer Deborah Goldberg, said Goldberg “will need to review” the available raise. Goldberg brought home $189,560 in 2022.

“As you probably recall, [the] Treasurer did not take any pay increase during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Gomes added.

The 2017 law also affects stipends that lawmakers receive for being in leadership positions or being chosen to chair a committee, separate from the changes in compensation that the governor is required to make every two years. The Senate president and speaker of the House each receive $35,000 in additional compensation for each two-year session.

House Speaker Ron Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka each made $178,473 this year in total compensation including stipends. The pay bump would bring their packages to more than $214,000 in the new year if they are re-elected to lead their chambers as expected.

A representative for the speaker said Mariano “plans to accept the salary that the Treasurer deems correct.” Spilka’s team did not respond to a request for comment.

The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a conservative-leaning advocacy group, criticized the optics of state officials accepting the pay raises to start on the same day a new voter-approved surtax goes into effect for the state’s wealthiest residents.

“In response to the narrow passage of Question 1 which will take more money from taxpayers and dump it into the legislatively doled out general fund, State House politicians feel they can afford the largest pay raise since 2017,” said MassFiscal spokesperson Paul Craney. “If that is the case, then taxpayers should be afforded broad tax cuts and tax eliminations to help keep Massachusetts economically competitive in response to the economic harm associated with Question 1.”

Shirley adopts Community Preservation Act at Special Town Meeting

by

SHIRLEY — With eight articles on the warrant, Special Town Meeting drew a sizable crowd to the Ayer Shirley Regional Middle School auditorium Monday night. As 147 voters signed in, long lines at the check-in tables prompted Town Moderator Chip Guercio to delay proceedings for a couple minutes.

Article 2 was the likely reason for the strong turnout, judging from the exodus after it passed.

Article 2 proposed adopting the Community Preservation Act, adding a 1% surcharge to annual property tax bills for homeowners and businesses. With a simple majority needed to pass, the article easily met that benchmark on a raised-card vote and the moderator’s declaration that it passed.

In a presentation before the vote, CPA Implementation Committee Chairman Paul Przybyla summarized his group’s 20-page report to the Select Board that appointed them a year ago.

Charged with studying the CPA law and whether it might benefit Shirley, the four-member committee’s conclusion was that it was a win/win for the town. “We urge it’s adoption, Przybyla said.

Enacted by the state legislature in 2000, 55% of Massachusetts’ cities and towns have adopted the CPA, he said, including Ayer, Harvard and Groton.

There was some discussion, most of it favorable.

But one resident raised concerns. Citing current economic conditions and her own challenges as a senior on a fixed income, Kathy Bradley, of Peabody Road, said this was “not the time to add a tax.” Later in the meeting, she asked for a paper ballot vote on the issue. Absent a second, the motion failed.

Resident Barbara Yocum, of Lawton Road, a member of the Planning Board, asked why the committee had settled on a 1% CPA surcharge. “I understand you can do up to 3%,” she said.

Przybyla said that’s true, but it wasn’t needed now. Although a higher surcharge would build up the CPA fund quickly, there were not enough projects queued up to justify it, he said. Another consideration focused on the impact on taxpayers. “We wanted to keep it (annual add-on) under $50 …” he said.

Based on a formula noted in his presentation, Przybyla said the surcharge would add about $39 to the annual tax bill for an “average” single family home in town, minus an exemption that reduces that base valuation by $1,000, for calculation purposes.

There are other exemptions that could cut or even cancel the surcharge pay-in, as well, for low income residents and low to moderate income seniors, for example. Most likely, most people over 60 won’t pay a surcharge, he posited, based on state-set thresholds. They must apply for the exemption, however.

Przybyla explained that the CPA fund — the amount collected by the town from the surcharge — plus money kicked in by the state that comes from deed registration fees (32% now) can only be used for three purposes: Open space and outdoor recreation, affordable housing and historic preservation.

The law states how much of the total nest egg must be used for projects in those categories, he said, 10% each. The remaining 70% can be saved, building up the balance each year. That money can be used to buy land for open space or recreation, for example. It can also be applied toward local matching amounts required for some government grants. Or for affordable community housing, which in turn could help the town meet its quota under state law.

Under the provisions of that law, known as Chapter 40B, the state requires that each community in the Commonwealth meet a specific benchmark: 10% of existing units.

Communities that fall short, including Shirley, are open to so-called “hostile 40B” development, which allows developers who set aside 25% of the units they build to site their projects almost anywhere in town, regardless of zoning and to bypass other zoning bylaw requirements, such as density.

“What is the danger of not adopting CPA?” a resident asked, phrasing the question in that light.

Przybyla said that adopting CPA won’t in and of itself stave off 40B development. But it can help the town determine its own destiny by funding community projects in the three categories, including affordable housing initiatives.

It can also help fund projects the town budget would otherwise need to  fully pay for, such as repairing historic town-owned buildings, town athletic fields and recreational facilities. Coupled with other expenses, such as public safety and schools, those added expenses could up property taxes.

“Keep in mind … we don’t want to be the kind of community” that residents’ children and their families can’t afford to live in, Przybyla said.

Residents spoke of  their love for the town and urged others to vote for CPA, to help preserve it.

Beth Quinty said her father had told her, years ago, that Shirley was a “beautiful town” and would be a fine place to raise her kids. Which it was, she said, noting a college essay her daughter wrote, touting the sublime side of Shirley life. She added that she hopes her son, now in Alabama, can settle here.

Gaynor Bigelback gave a rousing endorsement of the town — and for CPA, body language and all.

“Isn’t Shirley a fantastic place to live?” she asked, swiveling from the mic to face the crowd. “We love this place … CPA is another tool to help us preserve our lovely community!”

Having passed muster with Town Meeting voters, the measure now goes to a town-wide ballot vote at the election in May.

Przybyla explained what would happen next. If the ballot question passes and CPA is adopted, a seven-member CPA Committee will be seated, with several town boards represented and two-at large members appointed by the Select Board. The committee will review proposed projects each year and make a recommendation to Town Meeting, which decides which projects CPA funds will be used for.

The other warrant articles passed on majority voice votes.

Article 1 asked to appropriate $6,850 to pay a prior year’s bill from the engineering firm Weston and Sampson, for work on a pump station sewer control panel on Hospital Road.

Article 3 asked to establish a Tax Title Collection Revolving Fund, beginning in Fiscal Year 2023, for expenses related to collecting back taxes, including foreclosures.

Article 4 asked to bring the current OPEB Fund up to meet government requirements. This is the fund that must be established, by law, to meet future obligations to retired town employees.

Article 5 asked to transfer PEG access receipts to the Shirley Public Access Corp. to cover operating expenses and equipment.

Town Administrator Mike McGovern said the money comes from Comcast, not taxpayers.

As part of its contract, Comcast, which provides the town with internet and cable TV service, sends a quarterly amount to the town, he said. The money is intended for SPACO, the nonprofit group that provides local programming on the town’s three public access TV stations and films and broadcasts town events, including Monday night’s meeting, which aired live.

Article 7 sought voters’ approval to transfer funds to cover the first fiscal year of a collective bargaining agreement with the Shirley firefighters’ union.

Article 8 asked to amend a previous town meeting vote, increasing an amount transferred from American Rescue Plan Act funds by $39,000, so the Fire Department can hire another firefighter.