Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
The City Assessor’s property classification and residential exemption recommendation was approved last week by the Board of Aldermen.
By Joe Ruvido
The Board of Aldermen unanimously approved the property classification and residential exemption recommended by the City Assessor at their meeting on Tuesday November 22.
The Board heard a presentation by Marc Levya, Chief Assessor or Somerville. Per Massachusetts Law, commercial and residential property values and the processes that determine those values need to be reassessed every three years. The city uses these assessments to calculate the projected amount of property taxes they will collect to finance the city budget. The city cannot run a fiscal deficit so the valuations are an important step in financing city operations.
The Board of Aldermen cannot control the valuation outcomes, but they can change the property classifications and exemptions that apply to residential properties. The classification of property approved by the board allows Somerville to tax the commercial sector at the highest possible rate relative to residential properties under Massachusetts law. The exemption is the amount that can be subtracted from a property’s value to reduce the taxable base of that property. Exemptions can only be claimed by owner-occupants, a tax rule enacted to discourage absentee landlordism.
Valuations are calculated using the average value of real estate sales in city neighborhoods. They are measured in dollars per square foot. In keeping with trends in the Boston Metro Area, most valuations have increased this year. The biggest increases were seen in East Somerville and Winter Hill where values jumped an average of 23 percent. According to the presentation, about 68 percent of homeowners will see a “light to moderate increase” in property taxes as a result of the revaluations.
The Board approved a residential property tax exemption of $235,399 for fiscal year 2017. This will save the average homeowner an estimated $2,747.11 if properties were to be taxed at their full valuation. The proposed tax rates are $11.67 per $1,000 dollars of value for a residential property and $18.80 for a commercial property. The exemption and the rates are subject to approval by the Department of Revenue.
The Aldermen cannot set the rates at which properties are levied. Instead, according to Alderman President William White, aldermen can do two things: set the residential exemption amount used for property tax calculations and the classification of commercial property.
White made the point that although the increase in assessments is frustrating, the main factor driving the need for that revenue is increased city spending. Valuations simply determine the percentage of residential property taxes relative to that.
Alderman Lafuente concurred saying, “The numbers are what they are. It’s all about the budget. We need safeguard in place regarding how we go forward with developers.” One vehicle for enforcing such safeguards could be a Community Benefits Agreement for the big projects that the city is proposing. CBAs will be discussed in greater detail at Tuesday’s meeting of the Land Use Committee.
After the Assessor’s meeting time was spent on committee reports. Of note was the approval of $50,000 for a city utility vehicle used to repair road signs. The current vehicle is unsafe and cannot pass inspection.
Rodent control issues were also discussed, in particular the use of dry ice to suffocate large rodent populations in areas of the city. Development tends to exacerbate rodent issues as trenching, dredging, and digging uproot rodent populations.
The meeting began with the re-election of Alderman-at-Large White as Board President, and Ward 7 Alderman Katjana Ballantyne as Vice President. The Board meets on Thursday for further discussion on the Green Line Extension Project.
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
I am confused. Why did the city (foolishly) just vote on a prop 2.5 override only to to have the tax rate drop by $0.86/1k? I guess the fact that even with the drop in property tax and the increase in exemption I am still seeing a 8% increase in my tax bill year on year.
You got it Matt. Just another nail in the coffin for many of us living on small limited incomes. Left with very little to give up except for the obvious which is move out. We have to pay for the bloat in this city caused by the higher ups with increased spending and salaries.
Oh, but Matt, don’t you remember? The tax override was only for the building of the new High School….right?
Of course, there’s nothing to stop them from applying it to anything else they want to and tell us that it’s part of the deal.
As a single-family homeowner, I’m very grateful for the residential exemption. But then, why are we also expected to deal with property tax increases if we’re not making any income from our homes? Shouldn’t we be entitled to pay less in property taxes?
Nothing makes sense when you think about it, it only makes sense to the ones who are setting the rules.
Correct to the 1st 3 replies. 1st is was $50 million. Now the Mayor has added another $70 million for infrastructure. How many of those $millions will pay for “infrastructures” that should be paid by the developers involved in Union Sq. area? (
We are already paying a $25 million+ bond that should have been the responsibility of the Assembly Row developers) and he can keep on adding $$ Million$ upon million$ to attaining his goal of assisting the developers.. It was said in the start of the eminent domain process for the Union Sq. area, that the property owners would get a fair price for their properties. They are NOT receiving a fair price for their property. Residents should demand that Senator Jehlen, Rep. Provost, lead the Somerville legislators in their quest to change the eminent domain law back to its original intent. That eminent domain only
be used for issues such as public highway, bridge projects.
Meanwhile our Board of Aldermen must Delay these Bond projects. No need to rush. There was no problem housing the Union Sq. [Engine Co. 3] fire fighters in a dilapidated trailer home for over 30 years before they replaced it. Remind them that they are on the BOA for the citizens, not the mayor and developers.
Like the Tufts University “Master Plan” to overtake neighborhoods in West Somerville, The “Mayor’s Master Plan” is overtaking neighborhoods in East Somerville forcing long time Somerville residents out of the city.
Other cities require that developers pay for the infrastructure needed or their sites. Only our mayor wrongfully throws that debt burden upon the residents.
Linda, I get what your saying, I guess the override lasts until the highschool is paid for and the city now has a blanket permission to raise taxes up until that point? Perhaps its just me but voting today to raise taxes as many times as needed for a project at some unknown point in the future is a bit crazy.
Raising taxes is the easy way. Would be a lot of work to cut out the tons of wasteful spending here and decrease overpaid public employees(higher ups) and overpaid positions which we never needed. How about all that income which was to be generated? What happens if funding is stopped here because the mayor violated his oath of office? His last raise alone is more than many even make here and have to live on within their budgets. Did we have a chance to decide if we wanted to atke on a 50 million dollar debt which will be more likely to triple before all is done and said. Some of us do take notice of what is going on. And it is not good.
It’s OK, folks. You are still in time to buy shares in FMCC before it shoots back up to 70. 🙂
Is everyone sure they read their tax bills right?
Don’t you remember before they broke ground on Disneyland over at Assembly Square that you were promised that your property taxes would go down – way down – because of that?
Five years later, maybe you’re reading your bill wrong.
Look – the somerville ballot was pretty clear on the high school exemption. “Shall the City of Somerville be allowed to exempt from the provisions of proposition two and one-half, so-called, the amounts required to pay for
the bond(s) issued in order to design, engineer, construct, and equip the new Somerville High School?”. That means, only the amounts required to pay interest on bonds used to build the high school are exempt from prop 2 1/2. That means first the funds have to go to building the high school, and second those bonds can be paid for with taxes above prop 2.5 limits.
Jimmy, there was an article I read in this very paper prior to the vote by someone who was extremely knowledgeable and thorough in his analysis of this subject.
According to the author, Jim Thomas, the override wasn’t actually necessary to pay for the high school, and:
“While passing Question 5 does make it easier to finance the school, it also frees up capacity to help fund those other projects. So what you are really voting on isn’t just a school – it’s an entire capital spending plan.”
So, the wording of the ballot question was very carefully put to encourage voters to agree, when in fact it was misleading because it implied it would only be used for the high school and no other purpose.
Here’s the article if anyone wants to read it:
http://www.thesomervilletimes.com/archives/71376
It’s smart of them to put it to the public vote, so that no matter what happens, they can’t be blamed because “we” voted for it. In other words, passing the buck. Typical government