Jesse Floyd
Belmont homeowners will see a lower tax rate this year, but the actual tax bill for most homeowners will still increase.
“We are raising the same amount of money, with a 2 ½ percent increase, but just because the tax rate is coming down does not mean people will pay less,” said Board of Assessors Chair Robert Reardon.
In a letter to the Select Board, Reardon explained that because of an increase in property values, the lower tax rate will still raise more money in total, as allowed under the annual Proposition 2 ½ increase as well as certified new growth.
Select Board Chair Roy Epstein clarified in an interview that tax bills do not all change by the same amount under Proposition 2 ½. The change in a specific tax bill depends on how the assessed value of the property changed from the year before, as well as the tax rate.
Reardon presented Belmont’s current tax situation to the Select Board Monday night.
Highlights of the assessors’ presentation include:
- A fiscal 2024 tax rate of $10.57 per $1,000 of assessed value — down from $11.27 per thousand in fiscal 2023.
- The average single-family home has an assessed value of $1,615,200, up from fiscal year 2023 average value of $1,436,500.
- The actual tax levy — the amount of money the town can raise after increasing real estate by the maximum annual 2 ½ percent — went up from $102,870,712 in FY 2023 to $106,318,549 in FY 2024.
- Debt exclusions add an additional $13,143,693 to the amount owed. The debt exclusions in the presentation Tuesday night do not include the new library or ice rink, which will show up in fiscal 2025, Reardon said.
- New growth was $876,000. According to the state primer on Proposition 2 ½, new growth represents properties that have increased in assessed value because of development or other changes.
Reardon emphasized the historic importance of the new growth figure in Belmont’s budgeting.
The tax rate for FY 2024 could change slightly when the state Department of Revenue certifies Belmont’s submissions, Reardon said.
The Select Board voted unanimously to retain a single tax rate for both homeowners and businesses.
A split tax model shifts a higher burden of property taxes to commercial and industrial properties. However, the model only creates savings in specific situations.
“It works well in larger cities and towns that have a good-size commercial tax base,” Reardon said. “It simply does not raise one dime more from taxes, just splits the way taxes are paid.”
The result according to Reardon: A split rate would have an outsized impact on the commercial and industrial property owners without a corresponding benefit to residential owners, scaring off potential commercial development.
“You would potentially save some residential owners pennies, but it would shift that cost. The problem with shifting that cost at a time when we are trying to encourage businesses to come to town, this isn’t the time to do this,” said Select Board vice chair Elizabeth Dionne.
According to Reardon, a town would need to draw 30% of its revenue from commercial or industrial property before a split tax rate would make sense.
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to clarify information from the original.
