Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Foster Tax Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Finance committee pauses Foster tax-agreement action, seeks fiscal analysis
Summary
Committee members questioned a proposed 10-year tax agreement with the Town of Foster covering Providence-owned watershed land and voted to continue the matter while asking city staff for a fiscal analysis and related documents.
The Providence City Committee on Finance on Jan. 23 considered a proposed tax agreement among the Town of Foster, the Providence Water Supply Board (an enterprise fund of the city), the Providence Public Buildings Authority and the city of Providence that would set fixed annual payments for the city-owned watershed land in Foster for 10 years.
A presenter briefed the committee on key terms: the agreement in the packet sets annual payments that range “402,950 to $573,005.34,” ties future increases to a maximum of 4% per year and allows the town’s collector to classify the land as forest land. The presenter said the agreement would protect about 200 acres and could be extended for an additional 10 years.
Committee members raised fiscal questions: whether the agreement represents a savings compared with taxation at assessed values, how additional property acquisitions would be handled and whether Foster could seek additional increases via the General Assembly that would affect the city’s payments. One member asked specifically for a comparison showing how much the city would pay under the agreement versus what taxes would be if the properties were taxed at assessed value. The city’s chief financial officer said preliminary figures showed approximately $503,000 in taxes in the most recent year compared with the agreement’s starting figures.
The committee voted to adopt an amendment substituting the signed agreement in the packet and then voted to continue the item to a future meeting to allow staff to provide the requested fiscal detail, relevant comparables and any other documentation the committee requested. Members asked staff to return with a clear calculation showing what the city would pay under assessed-value taxation versus the proposed agreement and with comparisons to other tax agreements the city has made.
Ending Committee members said they appreciated the watershed-protection work but requested the additional fiscal analysis before final committee action. The item was continued; staff will provide the requested documentation to the committee at a subsequent meeting.
