By Colin A. Young, State House News Service
The Massachusetts Senate plans to debate a bundle of local tax relief bills this week, after its Ways and Means Committee voted on Jan. 8 to advance four bills meant to give municipalities tools to ease property tax burdens on lower- and middle-income homeowners, seniors on fixed incomes, and others. With new amendments— including one from Sen. Liz Miranda that would cap residential tax hikes at 6 percent— filed on Monday afternoon and debate set for Thursday, the Senate is fast-tracking the measures after a contentious round of public testimony.
“These local options have real impact on increasing affordability for everyday Bay Staters,” Senate Ways and Means Chairman Michael Rodrigues said. “I am proud that the Senate is prioritizing these common-sense measures in our first major act of the new year, particularly as the cost of living, home values, and household expenses continue to skyrocket.”
In some cases, the bills are redrafts of “tax shock” bills offered by Sens. William Brownsberger and Nick Collins as options for senators who want a statewide alternative to the tax shift plan that Mayor Michelle Wu has been unsuccessful in lobbying the Senate to pass.
One bill, S 2899, would give cities and towns the ability to shield vulnerable taxpayers from “extraordinarily high” tax bills in years when the municipality’s residential property tax levy increases by more than 10 percent, according to a committee summary.
Another, S 2900, would allow cities and towns to provide enhanced rebates to lower- and middle-income taxpayers who already receive a residential tax exemption. The Senate also plans to consider S 2901, which expands eligibility for the Senior Tax Deferral program. And S 2902 would make it simpler for municipalities to offer local property tax exemptions to seniors on a fixed budget, according to the committee.
Critics argue the Senate’s measures fall short of addressing deeper structural constraints, particularly in Boston. Much of that tension surfaced in written testimony submitted to Senate Ways and Means over the final weeks of December, after the bills were routed directly to the committee without an in-person hearing.
The sharpest note of opposition came from Boston City Councillor Benjamin Weber, who warned that the Senate’s approach would force the city to “bite its nose to spite its face” by cutting essential services rather than confronting what he described as a revenue problem baked into state law.
Weber urged senators to reject the underlying bills (S 1933 and S 1935) and advance a home rule petition seeking temporary authority to shift more of Boston’s tax burden onto commercial property owners. Without that flexibility, he wrote, targeted credits and rebates would leave Boston little choice but to shrink its budget and lay off workers.
“Rather than shift the tax levy onto commercial entities so that they will only see slightly less in decreases to their property taxes (but will still see large decreases nonetheless),” Weber wrote, “the Senate’s proposals only allow the City to cut taxes or issue rebates,” a move he said would undermine funding for basic services.
Amendments to both bills, including one by State Senator Liz Miranda (D-Roxbury) were filed by a 3 p.m. Monday deadline. Miranda said her amendment would create a “local-option tool that allows cities and towns to protect homeowners from property tax increases greater than 6 percent” annually by “allowing municipalities to shift to the full commercial corporate tax allowance” and by creating a “Payment in Lieu of Taxes” levy “from large tax-exempt property owners.”
The proposals have emerged as Boston homeowners face average tax increases of roughly 13 percent in their tax bills that came at the beginning of January, a figure frequently cited in testimony both for and against the bills. Supporters frame the legislation as overdue guardrails against tax spikes they say are driven more by local spending decisions than by unavoidable fiscal pressures.
Boston resident Dennis Hong told senators the city’s budget has grown more than 26 percent in four years while reserves have climbed past $550 million, even as tax rates rise. He argued that Boston is “choosing to raise taxes while pretending it has no other option,” eroding trust and squeezing households already grappling with higher costs.
Hong said the city’s interest in financing and renovating a soccer stadium in a public-private partnership with a professional team shows that Boston’s challenge is not a revenue crisis but a “spending discipline problem.”
Others warned that the issue extends beyond Boston. Dr. Eliza J. Wilson, chair of the Brockton Redevelopment Authority, said municipalities statewide are approaching a post-pandemic fiscal reckoning as one-time federal ARPA funds run out.
She said the tax shock bills would give cities and towns a way to return surplus revenue to taxpayers and promote accountability without destabilizing long-term budgets. Several lawmakers also weighed in. Sen. John Cronin submitted testimony backing the phased-in relief approach, writing that no homeowner should face housing instability because of a sudden mid-year tax spike.
“This is a practical, locally driven approach that would enable cities and towns to deliver meaningful, targeted relief while maintaining the flexibility to meet local needs,” he wrote.
Speaking at a virtual town hall last month, Brownsberger told constituents that Boston should avoid destabilizing the tax classification system and instead focus on spending control and downtown revitalization, while the state provides targeted relief.
“For those individuals who do have acute property tax situations,” he said, “that is something that the state Legislature can help on.”
Sal Pinchera, a Boston resident who attended the virtual meeting, said shifting taxes onto struggling businesses is not a long-term solution.
“Thirteen percent for this coming year is one thing,” he said. “What’s going to happen next year?”
Weber argued the Senate’s approach sidesteps Boston’s reliance on property taxes under Proposition 2½ and home rule law, leaving rebates and credits as temporary fixes rather than durable solutions.
“The two proposals under consideration fail to address the way the City has been handcuffed regarding how it can raise revenue,” he wrote, “and by ignoring the problem, it would simply exacerbate it.”
