An amended non-utilization tax ordinance was advanced by the town council at its meeting Tuesday night, Oct. 13, though plenty remains to be sorted out prior to and during what is expected to be the second of two necessary readings at the body's next session in November.

Led by Council Vice President Keri Cronin, the council moved "Chapter 7, Finance and Taxation. Article 6, real estate, non-utilization tax, Section 7-145 definitions, Section 7-146. imposition and implementation and Section 7-147, exemptions, notification and assessment procedures" for further consideration and the accompanying public hearing as required by charter for ordinance changes.

At Cronin's behest, the town's legal counsel led by Solicitor Anthony DeSisto was charged with strengthening the wording of the existing law. 


"So this is something that I've been pursuing for a long time, and I believe that the language that we have here now is more emphatic and gives the town a little bit more power to hold irresponsible property owners responsible," Cronin explained, leading into a broader discussion at the October meeting.

She noted among other aspects the definitions of such terms as "actively marketing" were better spelled out. Cronin also sought to have more language added pertaining to which party, the town or the property owner, was responsible to pay for any certified mailing costs associated with notification of potential fines. Cronin asked that it be explicitly shown in the ordinance the owner should pay.


"I just want to make sure that any cost incurred by the town to pursue an irresponsible property owner, who is not utilizing their property appropriately, goes back to them, and not the town," Cronin said. DeSisto said it could be added at the second reading.

Councilor Louis Rego asked how is the term "fair market value" determined. In response, DeSisto explained the state housing court would be the arbiter.

Rego also wondered if the existing ordinance, adopted in 2020, has ever been attempted to be enforced.

"So, an ordinance was put in place to try to put some fire under people to get things done. And I can understand that. But if no one's ever knocked on anyone's door, to have it comply, what good was this ordinance to begin with?" Rego said.

Town Building Official Matt Cabral entered the discussion, saying it has, but pointed to its rather lenient language as being a hinderance.

"I think the original question that you asked was if I have tried to implement this ordinance, and I have," said Cabral. "The issue that's come about is that there was two properties, and one, basically, was meeting the standard of it was actively marketed. I was brought in on a couple potential tenants. Another one during the process, there was actually a lease sign, a couple businesses moved in, then it became inactive."



Cabral continued, "And I watch the properties. We do have a couple that are vacant, but for the most part, I think it's a good thing for the town. A lot of our properties, they don't stay vacant long. People they want to come here. We have commercial buildings being built on Market Street as we speak that there's several businesses that are fighting to go to those buildings."

Later on, Council President Joseph DePasquale, while acknowledging the virtue of Cronin's aim, asked rhetorically, "At what point are we taking away someone's opportunity to do what they want with the building they own?"

To wit, Cronin said, "We haven't gotten even near to that yet, because, clearly, there are enough properties in this town that have sat empty, vacant or being used as mini storage for years. We're not doing enough, but we need to do better." and more."

DePasquale said, although it may not be satisfactory, if an owner wanted to simply use their property for storage or any means it was their prerogative.

Cronin countered, saying she wasn't concerned about what owners were using their buildings for, but the fact that so many weren't being used at all.

"I don't think that it's an inappropriate use of buildings in our vibrant downtown business district," said Cronin. "And I want to make that very clear to anybody who wants to buy property in this town. I don't have a problem with this at all. And it would look like most of the people in the room here would agree with me."

With that in mind, Cronin asked if changing the word "may" to "shall" on usage could beef up the local law.

DeSisto said he was concerned that strengthening the language of the town's ordinance beyond what was already established in state law would be an overreach.

Again when Cronin questioned the effectiveness of the wording, the solicitor said, "It's toothless because the state statute is toothless. And I'm reluctant to go beyond what the state statute grants, because ultimately it gives the property owner the opportunity to say, 'you didn't have the authority to do that, because this is a tax statute.'"

DeSisto further explained, "Just like we have different categories for taxes for industrial property, for solar, for all of those categories that are special. You have the special tax here, a tax on a vacant building. That's what this is. So, you can do it. I get it. But the difficulty is, you can't exceed the state statute."

Councilor Derrik Trombley, himself a lawyer, concurred with the solicitor's observation about the state law limitations, but said the amended language of the ordinance being proposed was better than its predecessor.

"What I would say is, the rationale behind this is that vacant and abandoned property, and I understand you can buy a property and use it however you wish, but vacant and abandoned property in town, especially in downtown, it leads to blight, it can lead to negative health outcomes. It can lead to a cascading impact on the health safety and welfare of our town residents. So we should attempt the best we can to encourage these properties to be used to their maximum efficiency. And I think that this is a good way to thread the needle and try to strengthen it, so I would encourage my colleagues to support this," Trombley added.

Rego expressed his sympathies for Cronin's idea, but thought the process was flawed, including any potential financial penalties.

"I think my goal is your goal Keri," Rego said. "I think that we just have different approaches. I'm more, let's knock on the door, let's try to get him to do it, because at the end of the day, I did the math on one. It's probably the highest taxpayer. And when I did the math, it cost them $1,444. And he's probably spending $20,000 right now if you do the math on taxes and insurance. That's a drop in the bucket. You (the property owner) probably just say, 'hey, take the 10%. Leave me alone.' And I guess that's the problem I have with this. It doesn't really change anything other than us collecting 10%."

Cronin responded, "The language here puts some onus on the building official and the and the town to develop this list and engage with these property owners. It's not just like go for the hammer first. But I guess it creates a path to accomplishing what we want. My goal is not to just be exclusively punitive and taxing. If we get some money out of it, that's great. I'd love to have a little more money in the coffers here, but it's to get these properties developed and thriving and vibrant and used."

Councilor John Hanley offered up his rather concise view of the matter, noting empty commercial spaces were an overall drag on the town.

"Number one, we're not getting tangible tax out of it. Number two, if it was a restaurant, we would be getting a tangible tax and our percentage of the meals tax. So by not using that property, you are costing the town money. And you're also hurting the neighboring businesses," said Hanley. "I mean, if you're walking down the street, down Water Street, looking in the windows of the shops, all of a sudden, you come across this great, big, empty one, God forbid, you get two in a row, the people are gonna say, 'Hey you don't want it. I mean, you know, these shops are empty.'"

DePasquale offered up his opinion, saying, "I don't have a problem with it as long as it was cleared up, that it can legally be applied without infringing on someone's rights. We also can put this in the form of a resolution for next month. So the language change would go to the legislature, and if we're looking for a way to incentivize this, we also could have Ms. Policastro (town planning and community development director Bianca Policastro) research how we could expand the historic tax credit program, which works great for the historic properties."

Near the end of the October discussion, Rego said, "I think it's something we all want to accomplish. It's just not an easy fix."

A motion was made and supported to move the item for a a second reading with the amended language at the council's November 10 meeting.