| Author |
 Topic  |
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 12:13:21 PM
|
You are correct that the city council did opt to take the summer off, which I am against, but, the mayor also said he could call them back at any time. I feel it would have been more prudent of the mayor to call them in earlier than this week and he and the city council should have been more prepared.
I know from my own perspective, when I originally heard about this tax, I was not for it. It's the word "tax". I then read up on it and began to understand how little the taxpayer would be impacted personally that I began to change my view. We all need to be educated on issues and at times we look to our city father's to do this for us. All too often, none of them are prepared.
"Deb" |
Edited by - massdee on 08/26/2009 12:22:12 PM |
 |
|
|
Marie
Senior Member
114 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 1:28:28 PM
|
| I might be wrong but wasn't the mayor away on vacation on the weeks prior to this week? He would have been unable to call any meetings for city government unless he had done this in July. If he was not around how would city government call him and ask questions? |
|
|
|
just wondering
Senior Member
387 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 1:29:43 PM
|
| good point Marie....what do you think about the comments made regarding the councils responsibilities to be prepared for the meeting ahead of time? |
|
|
|
Marie
Senior Member
114 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 1:59:04 PM
|
| they all should be prepared.......no argument there but if part of being prepared this time was to speak with the mayor they could not do that. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 6:04:49 PM
|
| Even though the agenda on the city website said 7:00 PM, it appears that the BOA meeting is starting at 6:00PM. On ECTV-16 now. |
|
|
|
carlost everett
Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 6:57:25 PM
|
| I distinctly remember the Prescott getting approved for a rooming house license. Another mistruth from the podium |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/26/2009 : 11:39:04 PM
|
Some random thoughts from tonight’s BOA meeting:
I guess the viewers weren’t the only one that were confused about what time the meeting was supposed to start.
Well, we didn’t get a full picture of how the city is going fill the gap caused by the cut in local aid by the state but we did get a clue to another piece of the puzzle. When regular meetings start up again in September, look for an agenda item to re-amortize some of the city’s outstanding debt. The Mayor estimated that this would save the city in the neighborhood of $300k to $400k per year. Even though that by itself won’t solve the entire problem this year, it’s a good move that will save the city a good chunk of change over the years.
On the bad news side though, the TIFF agreement with the power plant will be changing in FY11 and their tax payment will drop from $17.9 million to $15 million. FY11 is looking brutal already.
I’m certainly not an expert on the subject matter, but I really don‘t believe that money can be “appropriated” from the general fund. It may just be mincing words, but I think that it’s a little more than that. The following is the definition of the General Fund from the DOR website
“The fund used to account for most financial resources and activities governed by the normal town meeting/city council appropriation process.”
So, as Alderman Van Campen was attempting to describe it this evening, it would be an addition to the budget. It also looks like the state expects cities and town to use this projected revenue just like other projected revenue that goes into the general fund, i.e., to offset the tax levy in setting the tax rate. (See You must be logged in to see this link. for preliminary information on that.) Therefore, once the tax rate is set, it doesn’t appear to me that you can add an appropriation without funding from some other source than the general fund. Again, maybe I'm wrong about this but I don't really think so.
Carlost is absolute right. The Prescott House/Hotel has received a lodging house license from the city for at least the last three years. (BOA meetings 04/23/07, 6/23/08 and 06/08/09). However, it doesn’t matter if it is classified as a hotel or a lodging house in regards to collecting a room occupancy tax per the following extract of MGL:
Chapter 64G: Section 3. Imposition and rate; exemption; payment
Section 3. An excise is hereby imposed upon the transfer of occupancy of any room or rooms in a bed and breakfast establishment, hotel, lodging house, or motel in this commonwealth by any operator at the rate of five per cent of the total amount of rent for each such occupancy. No excise shall be imposed if the total amount of rent is less than fifteen dollars per day or its equivalent.
I have no idea what the going rates are at the local lodging houses but if they are charging more than $105 per week, the local option rooms tax is definitely something that needs to be looked at, for nore than one reason. |
|
|
|
Fran
Senior Member
250 Posts |
 Posted - 08/27/2009 : 1:53:21 PM
|
I tried to find a Prescott House website to no avail and a mixed bags of reviews. from the customer reviews looks like they charge $25 per night which is over $105 per week. I thought this link was interesting because it advertises a bar. Is anyone aware of such a bar and if so would they need a liquor license to serve?
You must be logged in to see this link. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Joint Convention
