| | Advanced Search

 

Central MA Up + Comer: Vision Advertising CEO Laura Briere—Meet Central MA's rising stars...

FlyORH: Vote for Worcester in JetBlue Contest—Supporting ORH and JetBlue....

Catch the Moscow Festival Ballet With Your WOO Card—Where will you be WOOing this weekend?

Acclaimed Author Leah Hager Cohen to Give Reading at Holy Cross—Will read from new novel 'No Book but…

NEW: Michael Graham Taking Conservative Talk Show to Atlanta—Headed for a warmer climate

NEW: Worcester’s Wormtown Brewery Wins Denver Int’l Beer Award—A major honor bestowed to a local brewery

Paul Giorgio: Elizabeth Warren is Right on Student Loans—MINDSETTER Paul Giorgio examines the student debt crisis

Central MA College Standout: Smith College’s Megan Baker—Spotlight on a bright student...

Organize + Energize: 7 Reasons to Hire a Professional Organizer—With a little help from your friends...

Rob Horowitz: The Civil Rights Act, 50 Years Later—Celebrating a milestone...

 
 

Worcester Tax Rate Showdown Pits Businesses Against Residents

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

 

Worcester's dual tax structure is under fire again as the city council proceeds to set rates for 2014.

Business leaders have lambasted the current disparity between residential and business property taxes, which they say has dampened the city's economic climate and had a negative effect on the overall tax base.

“We need dramatic action. We need some leadership from the city council,” said John Giangregorio, the chair of the Canal District Business Association, who said there was a clear decision to be made, either allowing an “exodus” of business to continue or making Worcester “a little more business friendly.”

“It's critical that we send a signal to keep current businesses and attract more.”

Commercial/industrial currently accounts for 28 percent of total taxable property in the city; however, 39 percent of the levy is paid by that group according to data compiled by the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce.

“We've been arguing that it has had a detrimental effect (for years),” said the Worcester Regional Research Bureau's executive director, Roberta Schaefer. In that group's latest report on city finances, Worcester's commercial tax rate was the second highest in the region, leaving the city “at a competitive disadvantage when trying to attract business.”

“In addition, higher commercial tax rates have not guaranteed Worcester's residents the lowest residential tax rate,” the report continues. That residential rate was the sixth highest in central Massachusetts in 2013.

Differing opinions on tax rate structure

The annual discussion in Worcester spurs an ideological debate over taxation while prompting a thorny dilemma: By reducing the relative tax burden on business now, the proportion of the tax levy borne by residents will rise.

“I'd like to do whatever I can to keep the residential side in the same ballpark as it is now,” said City Councilman George Russell, one of two dissenting voices during last year's tax vote that increased both rates and narrowed the divide.

Russell said he saw the debate as a continuation of wrangling after 2012's revaluation, which saw some commercial assessments go up dramatically. While he said he didn't agree with the reassessment's approach then, Russell said it wasn't fair to impact residential tax rates now.

Giangregorio said he agrees that residential taxes are too high. “The way out is to broaden the tax base,” he said. “And the way to do that is to attract more business.”

Growth of nonprofits shrinks taxable property base

“The real problem we face as a city is the exponential growth of non-profits in our community,” responded Paul Giorgio, founder of the local publishing company Pagio Inc., and a GoLocal MINDSETTER.

Giorgio said the problem wasn't solely with large institutions and colleges, but also a proliferation of small nonprofits, storefront churches, and social service agencies. While providing a service, those properties are off the tax rolls and not directly contributing toward city coffers.

According to the latest research bureau tally, the value of tax-exempt property currently totals 28.89 percent of Worcester's total property value, or $4.4 billion.

“If we don't solve this problem, no business and no homeowner will choose to live here or afford to live here,” Giorgio opined.

Chamber's proposal

Speaking to the city council last week, chamber President Tim Murray asked for an equal dollar increase in average business and residential tax bills for 2014.

“To us, that was the most fair and equitable rate available,” said Stuart Loosemore, the chamber's director of government affairs and public policy.

The chamber, which successfully lobbied for the rates approved by the city council last year, has proposed a residential rate of $19.77 per $1,000 property value (up $1.19 from fiscal year 2013's $18.58) and a commercial rate of $30.24 (a $0.61 decrease from this year's $30.85).

With those numbers, the average residential tax bill would increase $172, while the average commercial/industrial bill, $171.

Loosemore said last year's revaluation process weighed heavily for the chamber after some businesses saw their tax bills skyrocket. “With those valuations being just a year old most of those businesses are still reeling from the increase,” he said.

For Giangregorio, the proposed shift is moving at a “snail's pace”.

“The city council needs to make a hard decision,” he said.

Dual structure reasonable, say some residents

Joan Crowell, director of the Accurate Worcester Assessments on Real Estate Coalition, contends that the chamber rates are far from fair and equitable. While the average single-family home tax bill would increase in line with the average business, condominiums and multi-family homes would see larger hikes.

Worcester being the second largest city in Massachusetts, Crowell points out that all 10 of the largest communities in the state have dual rate structures, most with a commercial rate more than double that of their residential rate.

Instead of reducing business rates, “Worcester has to do a better job in marketing the attributes that make Worcester a great city and a destination for both residents and businesses,” she said, adding the city should consider adopting residential and small commercial exemptions.

Schaefer acknowledged the contention that other large cities have dual structures, but “the problem is, we're not near them.”

“If a company is looking to relocate, they're looking at a region,” said the research bureau head. By moving into a surrounding community with a single, lower tax rate, Schaefer said that company would benefit from Worcester's resources without paying Worcester's taxes.

Question on whether delayed vote will be held

Crowell said she didn't expect a vote to be held this week regardless, given state Department of Revenue guidelines covering public disclosure periods before a triennial revaluation year. (The city is scheduled for revaluation in 2014 after receiving an extension the last time around, pushing that revaluation from 2011 to 2012.)

At the last council meeting Dec. 10, the city's Chief Financial Officer Thomas Zidelis said he expected certification from the state in time to allow tonight's hearing and vote. Lack of that final certification held up the process one week.

Schaefer said she expected to see tax rates in line with the chamber's proposal pass. But to continue narrowing the difference between residential and business taxes will take years. “This is a really long-term process. ... There has to be a commitment every year,” she said — dependent on finances, and political will.

Christopher Pinto, a member and former vice-chair of the Worcester Republican City Committee, said anyone who can live or run their business outside of city limits should do so “ASAP”.

Given current tax rates, without an incentive tax-increment financing, or TIF, agreement, “why would it make any sense to come to the Woo?” Pinto asked.

 

Related Slideshow: Worcester’s Most Dangerous Neighborhoods

Neighborhood search website Neighborhood Scout indexed violent and property crimes data from the Federal Bureau of Investigations to determine the crime rates on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis in Worcester. The slides below show the overall crime index (a score of 100 is best) as well as the per capita crime rates broken down by violent and property crime. The data is sourced from 2011 figures, the most recent year available from the FBI. The online resource is created by Location, Inc., a Worcester-area company that bills itself as a leader of location-based data and risk analysis information.

Prev Next

38. Heard Street

Crime Index: 83 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 1.45

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 11.62

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 13.08

Prev Next

37. Main St / Goddard Memorial Dr

Crime Index: 73 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 2.74

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 14.61

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 17.35

Prev Next

36. Westchester / Assumption

Crime Index: 70 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 2.08

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 16.32

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 18.4

Prev Next

35 (tie). Mill St / Worcester State U

Crime Index: 67 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 1.63

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 17.96

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 19.59

Prev Next

35 (tie). Oakland Heights / Massasoit

Crime Index: 67 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 5.69

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 14.1

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 19.78

Prev Next

33 (tie). Jamesville / Ludlow

Crime Index: 65 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 4.14

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 16.57

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 20.71

Prev Next

33 (tie). Burncoat

Crime Index: 65 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 1.63

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 18.88

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 20.51

Prev Next

31. Chadwick Square

Crime Index: 61 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 4.88

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 17.78

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 22.66

Prev Next

30. Sunderland

Crime Index: 60 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 3.17

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 19.67

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 22.85

Prev Next

29. Webster Square

Crime Index: 59 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 12

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 11.59

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 23.59

Prev Next

28. Westwood Hills

Crime Index: 57 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 2.56

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 21.65

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 24.21

Prev Next

27. North Worcester / Summit

Crime Index: 55 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 5.33

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 19.93

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 25.26

Prev Next

26. Pleasant St.

Crime Index: 48 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 5.99

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 22.98

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 28.97

Prev Next

25 (tie). Greendale

Crime Index: 47 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 3.35

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 26.56

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 29.9

Prev Next

25 (tie). Bloomingdale

Crime Index: 47 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 9.12

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 21.07

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 30.19

Prev Next

23. Clark U / Main St

Crime Index: 46 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 2.79

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 27.94

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 30.73

Prev Next

22. Tatnuck / West Tatnuck

Crime Index: 45 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 2.39

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 29.07

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 31.46

Prev Next

21. Lakeview

Crime Index: 43 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 4.32

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 28.09

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 32.42

Prev Next

20. Holy Cross / College St

Crime Index: 39 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 0.82

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 34.26

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 35.08

Prev Next

19 (tie). Columbus Park

Crime Index: 37 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 9.73

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 27.14

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 36.87

Prev Next

19 (tie). Hamilton

Crime Index: 37 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 10.95

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 25.81

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 36.76

Prev Next

17. Brittan Square

Crime Index: 34 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 10.44

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 28.86

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 39.3

Prev Next

16. Pinecrest

Crime Index: 33 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 5.65

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 34.12

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 39.77

Prev Next

15 (tie). City Center

Crime Index: 29 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 16.8

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 27.03

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 43.83

Prev Next

15 (tie). South Worcester

Crime Index: 29 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 14.9

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 29.26

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 44.16

Prev Next

13. Beaver Brook

Crime Index: 28 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 12.9

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 31.85

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 44.75

Prev Next

12 (tie). Swan Avenue

Crime Index: 24 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 11.72

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 37.37

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 49.09

Prev Next

12 (tie). June Street

Crime Index: 24 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 8.05

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 41.46

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 49.51

Prev Next

10 (tie). University Park

Crime Index: 20 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 12.42

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 41.75

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 54.18

Prev Next

10 (tie). Quinsigamond Village / College Hill

Crime Index: 20 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 12.15

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 42.45

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 54.6

Prev Next

8 (tie). Umass Medical / Lake Ave N

Crime Index: 16 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 7.54

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 53.28

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 60.82

Prev Next

8 (tie). Water St / Grafton St

Crime Index: 16 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 21.62

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 40.39

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 62.01

Prev Next

6 (tie). Beverly Road

Crime Index: 15 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 7.64

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 55.73

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 63.37

Prev Next

6 (tie). WPI / Highland St

Crime Index: 15 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 11.31

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 51.74

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 63.05

Prev Next

4. Oak Hill

Crime Index: 13 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 21.26

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 46.78

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 68.04

Prev Next

3. Belmont Hill / Shrewsbury St

Crime Index: 8 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 20.38

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 61.97

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 82.35

Prev Next

2. Chandler Hill

Crime Index: 6 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 27.72

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 64.36

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 92.08

Prev Next

1. Great Brook Valley

Crime Index: 4 (100 is safest)

Violent Crimes per 1000 residents: 32.64

Property Crimes per 1000 residents: 71.07

Total Crimes per 1000 residents: 103.71

 
 

Related Articles

 

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.

Comments:

Iron Mike Farquhar

This dance has been replayed a thousand times in cities and towns across Massachusetts – and all of New England.

Elected officials ~ almost always ~ cater to 'the residents' – because they represent MORE VOTES – and tax them much lower than businesses [fewer votes].

Slowly every business that can, - moves OUT of town, – OUT of state, – OUT of the country. The jobs go away.

Then the residents wonder why they can't find work. They end up on welfare.

The few folks left working then have to pay EVEN HIGHER TAXES...

And surely as NIGHT follows DAY, - the bitter old unionists and democrats will come blaming those 'greedy fat-cat Republicans' who went looking elsewhere for cheap labor.

There WAS A TIME [in my lifetime] when Massachusetts was a manufacturing and political powerhouse.

Decisions, choices, and votes have consequences.

If you voted for Kennedy, Kerry, McGovern, Warren, Markey, Obama, Deval Patrick, - and for Democrats in general for the past 20, 30, or 40+ years, all those blighted cities, run-down towns, and empty factories are YOUR doing. Republicans didn't chase those jobs away, Democratic politicians did!




Commenting is not available in this channel entry.