The controversial property-tax shift bill proposed by the Wu administration that has driven months of debate will not receive a vote in the Senate, the chamber’s top Democrat said on Monday night. Senate President Karen Spilka released a statement confirming that she will not bring the Boston property tax shift proposal to the floor for further debate.

Despite compromises struck between the city and stakeholders, Spilka said she has “heard clearly that there currently is not sufficient support for this proposal. As this compromise legislation has progressed through the Senate, the Department of Revenue recently released new certifications of data submitted by Boston that predicted a much more modest tax increase for residents than previously presented by the City,” she noted, adding:

“This new understanding has left stakeholders and Senate members with serious concerns about the bill’s impact on the competitiveness of the state as a whole. Many in the Senate believe that this proposal tips the scales too far in one direction, with a stalled economic recovery in Boston as an unfortunate potential outcome.”

Spilka said the Senate is “acutely aware” of affordability issues statewide, pointing to the recent housing bond bill and tax relief package that were signed into law as ways the Senate helped protect its “most vulnerable residents.”

The statement follows South Boston Sen. Nick Collins’s procedural delay of action on the bill for the third time on Monday. He said the negotiations that led to the revised property tax bill were based on “false information,” citing Department of Revenue property tax valuation data certified last week that he said proves “the sky isn’t falling” in Boston.

Collins said the data the city submitted to the DOR is “materially different” from what city officials presented at a stakeholder meeting weeks ago; he blamed the city for the “unfair characterization that they were waiting on the DOR” for data, when officials didn’t submit city data to the DOR until the day before Thanksgiving.

Collins called the city’s pleas for the shift a “campaign of fear and manipulation.” Other senators joined him in speaking out against the measure.

Belmont Sen. William Brownsberger, a Democrat, said he has “always had strong reservations” about the measure, and suggested the city move forward setting its tax rates without the shift.

“Numbers matter. Now that we fully understand that Boston taxpayers are not looking at a 33 percent tax increase, but rather a 10 percent year-over-year increase. It is clear that we should lay this proposal aside,” Brownsberger said on the Senate floor.

Republican Sen. Peter Durant of Spencer said that while his district is far from Boston, “as the city of Boston goes, so does the rest of the state.”

Sen. Liz Miranda, who represents parts of Dorchester, Mattapan, and Roxbury, was the bill’s only voice of support on the Senate floor on Monday. She said the bill will help protect low-income seniors and the city’s most vulnerable homeowners who “can’t afford a property tax increase of any percent.” Miranda homed in on the long-term impacts that residents could see over the next three years.

Wu for months has been urging the state to give her administration the power to push a greater share of the city’s property tax burden onto commercial owners, arguing that it’s the best way to prevent an all-at-once spike from hitting residential owners in 2025.

The first version of her plan cleared the House and stalled in the Senate, and Wu then decreased the proposal’s scope in a compromise with business groups. That second iteration also won House approval, but for weeks has idled in the Senate.

Last week, the state Department of Revenue certified property valuations for the city of Boston, which altered projected tax bills.

Wu’s office previously forecast that residential bills would increase 14 percent year over year under a “worst case” scenario without action. Now, her team thinks bills would climb 10.5 percent annually with no shift and 5.2 percent with the legislation in place and utilized to its maximum.

Opponents quickly jumped on the new figures and argued they are no longer serious enough to warrant action that would shift more burden to commercial property owners.

“Whether that was intentional or not, we don’t know,” Collins said, soon adding, “Now we know the sky isn’t falling.”

Wu, however, did not change her position based on the DOR certification. She continued to argue that even a 10.5 percent increase — which Collins said would amount to about $40 per month for the average homeowner — is too much for Bostonians to absorb during a period of high housing costs.

In a Sunday letter to leaders of business groups who supported the compromise legislation before changing course and calling for a pause last week, Wu said city officials repeatedly emphasized during debate that the numbers were “estimates and that they should not be taken as final.”

“That caveat was explicit on every example sheet given in writing throughout the last eight months, and it was expressed verbally every single time any of these numbers were discussed,” Wu wrote.

Ashley Groffenberger, Boston’s chief financial officer and collector-treasurer, pushed back against arguments that the impact without action would be roughly in line with the average 9 percent annual increase in residential tax bills over the past five years.

“The average annual tax increase for a single-family home in Boston was 5 percent over the last decade, 4.8 percent over the last 15 years, and 4.1 percent over the last 18 years,” Groffenberger wrote in a letter to city councillors on Monday. “Without legislation, this would be the second-highest annual residential increase since 2010, and the jump in the residential share of total taxes would be the highest single-year increase since 2007. This would be a significant burden of compounding high tax increases for families and especially seniors struggling to afford to stay in Boston.”

Labor and senior activist groups who had been advocating for the bill voiced frustration Monday.

“Today’s terrible, even though we knew it was going to happen. We were hoping against hope,” said Sherry Peterson, a Mattapan resident and member of the Mass Senior Action Council. “We’re on a fixed income, even if they tell us it’s not that much. And even when you work, you’re on a fixed income. We’re very frustrated.”

Darlene Lombos, president of the Greater Boston Labor Council, said Collins’s opposition to the measure will “absolutely” weigh on the group’s consideration of whether to support him moving forward. “If they won’t call us back for this issue, I’m not sure we can count on them for other issues,” she said.

It was not immediately clear what city leaders will do now. The City Council was scheduled to meet on Wednesday for what is supposed to be its final session of 2024. Assessing Commissioner Nicholas Ariniello said last week that the council needs to vote by Wednesday on property tax rates “to make sure that we still did everything that needs to happen to get bills printed” on time.

Collins called on the council to “cancel their planned three-week vacation and get this matter right before the end of the year. It puts the onus on the City Council to come forward with a new home-rule petition that can target relief for residential homeowners. I think that’s something that’s viable, that would have support here in an expedited fashion,” he told reporters.