The Massachusetts Residential Property Tax Exemption

 

For many Massachusetts municipalities, the residential tax burden is partly relieved by property tax exemptions and, in those cities and towns with a sizable business and/or industrial sector, a split tax rate.

Unfortunately, many residents are not eligible for property tax exemptions. Though split tax rates, which shift the tax burden away from residential taxpayers and onto the commercial, industrial, and personal property (CIP) assessment classes are common in large cities, most communities use a single tax rate. As of 2021, 241 of 351 municipalities have single tax rates–including Shutesbury. 

Some communities have adopted a different way to alleviate the residential tax burden for their more vulnerable residents: the residential property tax exemption. Instead of shifting the tax burden between the residential / open space (RO) class and the CIP class, the shift occurs within the residential sector only. 

How it Works

Under this system, primary residences of lower value shoulder less of the property tax burden than vacation homes, rental properties, vacant land, and highly valued homes.  The formula looks like this:

(A)Total Residential Value / (B)Total Residential Parcel Count = (C)Average Residential Value

(C)Average Residential Value ✕ (D)Selected Residential Exemption % = (E)Residential Exemption 

(E)Residential Exemption  ✕ (F)Number of Eligible Residential Parcels = 

(G)Total Residential Exemption Value

(A)Total  Residential Value - (G)Total Residential Exemption Value = 

(H)Total Residential Value minus Exemption (New Taxable Value)

A new, higher, residential tax rate will emerge since the total assessed value has been reduced by the “total residential exemption value”. 

For fiscal year 2022, only 20 municipalities, mostly in eastern Massachusetts, offer a residential tax exemption to homes where the property is the taxpayer’s principal residence. The exemption applied cannot exceed 35% of the city or town’s average assessed value of all residential properties. This percentage, voted annually by the community’s Select Board or Mayor, is applied to the assessed value total and subtracted from each residential property. The percentage can vary from one municipality to another. No matter which percentage is chosen, no property may have its taxable value reduced to more than 10% of its full and fair cash value.

Are you confused yet?

Real-World Example: Shutesbury

To try and simplify this complicated process, I used the formula above and data from the Division of Local Services Residential Exemption Calculator to see how a hypothetical 35% residential tax exemption would look for Shutesbury. 

To determine the number of properties eligible for exemption, I started with 997, the total number of all residential parcels including vacant land. 749 of these properties are single family homes and 32 are a mix of multifamily dwellings, primarily duplexes, for a total of 781 developed parcels. Shutesbury has approximately 130 vacation homes. Subtracting the vacation homes and half of the multifamilies (estimating they are 50% owner-occupied) from the total number of developed parcels yields 635 properties that are eligible for the residential exemption: (781-130-16) = 635.

Note: These numbers are presented for informational purposes only and are not to be construed as an exact representation of Shutesbury’s suitability for the residential tax exemption. The figures in the formula below have not been rounded off.

(A)$214,968,088 / (B)997 = (C)$215,614.93 ✖ (D).35 = (E)$75,465.23

(E)$75,465.23  ✖ (F)635.12 = (G) $47,929,476.88

(A)$214,968,088 - (G) $47,929,476.88 = (H) $167,038,611.12 

Because the total amount of taxable value has decreased, the tax rate will increase:

Total Tax Levy Fiscal Year 2022 / Total Residential Value - Exemption (New Taxable Value)  ✖ 1,000 = New Tax Rate

$5,001,897 / $167,038,611.12  ✖  1,000 = $29.94 

The new tax rate would be $29.94 compared to the current $21.82 and would be applied to a qualified (owner-occupied) home’s assessed value after subtracting the exemption amount of $75,465.23. According to the chart below, the “break-even” value would be $278,597.90. 

Estimated Impact on Residential Tax Bill

Owner-Occupied     Home Value	Tax Bill     Without Exemption	Tax Bill     With Exemption	Change in           Tax Bill
80,000.00	1,746.40	135.77	-1,610.63
130,000.00	2,837.90	1,632.77	-1,205.13
160,000.00	3,492.80	2,530.97	-961.83
190,000.00	4,147.70	3,429.17	-718.53
220,000.00	4,802.60	4,327.37	-475.23
250,000.00	5,457.50	5,225.57	-231.93
278,597.90	6,081.79	6,081.79	.00
310,000.00	6,767.30	7,021.97	254.67
340,000.00	7,422.20	7,920.17	497.97
370,000.00	8,077.10	8,818.37	741.27
400,000.00	8,732.00	9,716.57	984.57
430,000.00	9,386.90	10,614.77	1,227.87
460,000.00	10,041.80	11,512.97	1,471.17
490,000.00	10,696.70	12,411.17	1,714.47

Source: Division of Local Services

The exemption amount of $75,465.23 would be subtracted from the assessed value of every owner-occupied residence, regardless of value. The one exception in the table above would be a house valued at $80,000; the taxable value can not fall below $8,000, or 10% of its fair cash value.

Despite the rise in the tax rate, lower-valued properties would enjoy a discount while higher valued properties would see an increase in their tax bills as the higher tax rate affects more of the home’s value. As you can see, the break-even value of $278,597.90 is only slightly higher than Shutesbury’s current average single family value of $269,151. The residential exemption does not change the amount of tax revenue raised by the town.

Why so Few Communities Adopt the Residential Exemption

It makes sense that shifting the tax burden within the residential class would work best if there is a diverse range of properties within that class, just as splitting the tax rate only makes sense if there is a hefty business presence in the community. If the vast majority of the homes in a particular town are owner-occupied, there will be very few parcels to which the town can shift the tax burden. 

It is more difficult for many towns in Western Massachusetts to apply the residential tax exemption since so many properties are owner-occupied. Cities in the eastern part of the state, such as Brookline and Cambridge, have many rental units. Cape Cod and the Islands have a high number of seasonal homes. In the case of Shutesbury, even homes with values just $10,000 above the average will see some increase in their tax bills. In Great Barrington, where high-priced second homes are raising property values, officials have been talking about instituting the residential tax exemption since 2015. They have yet to do so.

A NextDoor Shutesbury posting from November 2021 indicated that many in Shutesbury may be willing to pay higher taxes so that less wealthy households shoulder less of the tax burden. How do you feel about that sentiment? Weigh in by taking the Progressive Taxation Poll on NextDoor.

Weekly Factoid:

 

Property Tax Exemptions: How does Massachusetts measure up?

 

Property Taxes: A Look at Exemptions, Tax Limits, and Assessment Cycles

 

When Will the Work on Shutesbury Elementary School Begin, and What Will it Cost?

 

Compromised Fascia

The Town Administrator (TA) announced at the January 11, 2022, Finance Committee (FinCom) meeting that the Town has again applied to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) to obtain grant funding for the Phase 2 roof work at Shutesbury Elementary School (SES). Will the second phase of the school roof replacement project be postponed while the Town waits to hear whether or not it has been denied for the sixth time? Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

Though the 2021 Town Meeting approved a Free Cash transfer of $254,100 into the Shutesbury Elementary School Gym Roof Replacement Project (also known as "elementary school roof part 1"), there is no time limit attached to the project. Since the SB signed a contract with a roofing company on June 17, 2021, it seems reasonable that the town wanted the work done before the students returned to school.

By August 3, 2021, the gym roof replacement had already been postponed due to supply shortages. The interior drain work was completed, and a 14-week delay obtaining insulation material postponed the outdoor roof work. The contractor suggested the roof replacement might occur during the school’s Christmas break; a school committee member I asked said no outside work has occurred as of January 12. The contractor submitted a time extension request to April 22, 2022, which the SB accepted on October 26, 2021. COVID certainly has made it difficult to accomplish many projects, including this one.

Roof Tile Issues

While I understand the concern surrounding the cost of a large project like replacing the school’s roof, I don’t understand why the SB and TA chose to rely exclusively on MSBA grants rather than combine that activity with the town’s budgetary process. 

For example, the town began appropriating $25,000 for the Library Building Fund in fiscal year 2013. Town officials knew of problems with the SES roof in 2013; why didn’t they also create the Shutesbury Elementary School Roof Replacement Project Fund at that time? It seems more sensible to put money into a fund to maintain a functioning building in addition to or instead of raising money for a building that does not exist. If the town had done so, we would have $250,000 toward a new roof–more if the town had put as much effort into fundraising for that project as it has for a new library.

There is also the question of Shutesbury’s cash reserves. The town has been stockpiling great sums of cash over the past several years but has been loath to use it to rectify problems with the SES building or any other capital project that has arisen recently. In 2017, when the Building Committee (BC) announced that the school roof needed to be replaced, our Free Cash and Stabilization accounts totaled more than $2,000,000. Presently, our reserve levels are comparable, totaling $1,999,746. Shutesbury can easily fund the replacement of the SES gym roof, school roof, and whole-building ventilation system–without borrowing, which would put a larger burden on Shutesbury’s taxpayers.

Estimated Costs

There is no information available in any board or committee minutes concerning the question of installing air conditioning (AC) at SES, despite the recommendations of the 2020 Community Resilience Building study and the Town of Shutesbury Hazard Mitigation Plan of 2021. Both reports note the necessity of protecting school children from the effects of high temperatures and the enhancement AC would bring to the school’s designation as the town’s emergency shelter. 

The Hazard Mitigation Plan also notes that installing AC with the current school HVAC system would be pricey. 

Revisiting the cost estimates put forward by the FinCom on page 3 for necessary repairs and renovations to the SES:

➤Elementary School Roof,  Part 2:  $600,000

➤Whole Building Ventilation: $175,000 - $350,000

➤Total Estimate: $775,000 to $950,000

When I asked a FinCom member if the ventilation system estimate includes installing air conditioning, he said it did not. However, the system would be designed so that air conditioning could be added at a later date if the town so desired. He hopes the Town will be able to access American Rescue Plan Act Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Funds to help pay for the new ventilation system. 

Inflation and soaring building costs will factor into the total costs, as well. At the November 23, 2021, SB meeting attended by the BC, a committee member noted that building costs have gone up 40%. If that is true, the total estimate above of $775,000 to $950,000 may need to be increased by $310,000 to $380,000. 

Suggestions to Expedite Necessary Work at SES

It is obvious that the work needed to remediate problems at SES must be done soon. The commentary in the November 23 minutes showcases confusion and lack of unity on questions of process as well as an effort to ascribe blame for a “philosophical issue about spending money”— obstacles that have kept the school in a state of disrepair for much too long. 

After many hours of research into this matter, including reviewing the 11/23/21 SB meeting recording (available from the Town Clerk), I propose the following in order to resolve the conflict between town officials and promote the timely remediation of the long-overdue problems at Shutesbury Elementary School.

The Select Board must focus on supporting the original charge of the Town Buildings Committee. The SB Chair complained during the November 23 meeting that the charge of the BC is “vague” and that an update of the original charge is needed at this year’s Town Meeting; there was talk of dissolving the BC and starting over (as they did with the Energy Committee earlier in this session, presumably). The “confusion” over the BC’s charge stems not from vagueness but from excluding the BC from a process that should have included them. The BC is admonished for not meeting often enough, due to quorum issues, but the SB refused to appoint a prospective new member to the Committee despite having done so a few minutes earlier for the Recreation Committee. 

This attitude toward the BC from the TA and SB is particularly hazardous to the Town’s investment in buildings. The talent and reservoir of institutional knowledge that has been making the necessary repairs to SES should be retained with new members added as needed to support the renovation projects. As one SB member put it, “if we have a committee asking for help and someone is willing to help I think we should appoint them.”

The SB and TA must honor the process that will best address the problems at SES. In my conversation with a Shutesbury School Committee member, he noted a complete lack of process when it came to redressing infrastructure complaints at the school. He considered this to be the main reason there has been little progress and much confusion whenever projects at SES arise. This behavior is a poor use of taxpayer dollars and a waste of time.

A reasonable process would be to immediately refer all maintenance or repair issues to the BC for investigation and then to listen to their advice. Leaving this Committee out of the communication loop has resulted in many erroneous decisions that nearly led to needless waste of taxpayers’ money. 

Enable, not dissolve, the BC. Much of the November 23 meeting centered on pinning blame on the BC for the lack of progress being made on the problems at SES. The SB Chair made several references to a lack of a “capital needs assessment” of town buildings, putting the onus on the BC for not providing such a document (I found no evidence that this was ever requested). The SB Chair indicated that the town needed such an assessment in order to keep up with building repairs–which is what the BC has been doing all along.

It is disingenuous for the SB to claim that they have no idea of the status of SES and other town buildings. The SB and the TA participated in both the Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Community Resilience Building Workshop and filed several grant applications to the MA School Building Authority since 2014. Those applications required detailed descriptions of the school’s problem areas such as the roof and HVAC system.

End the quibbling about spending money on SES. Disinformation was dispensed at the November 23 meeting regarding the cost of recent repairs to the school’s sidewalks, heating system, and water heater replacement. The TA accused the BC of being cheap with sidewalk repairs, replacing only those areas that had buckled and leaving the rest alone. She alleged that because the entire sidewalk system at SES was not replaced, “people were tripping and falling”. In my discussion with the school committee member, he said he personally checked the sidewalks and there were no problems.

It is noteworthy that the situations in which the BC are accused of scrimping on costs are also examples where they were excluded from the process and an incorrect initial diagnosis was made by someone else (sidewalks, boiler, and water heater). Only after the BC Chair and a FinCom member interceded were these problems rectified and solved– providing Shutesbury taxpayers proper stewardship of their building and good value for their tax dollars.

Moving Forward

Those pleading for a clear procedure when it comes to preserving our town structures must be listened to, and town officials’ reluctance to spend money on building maintenance and repair must be overcome. A Town Meeting vote to move a minimum of $1,000,000 of Shutesbury’s cash reserves into a building fund specifically for the school should put the matter to rest and promote the maintenance and repair of Shutesbury’s most valuable asset: the Shutesbury Elementary School.

Weekly Factoids:

 

2020 Total Per-Pupil Expenditures, by Massachusetts school districts:

 

Highest: Provincetown, $40,538.17

Lowest: TEC Connections Academy Commonwealth Virtual School District, $10,290.32

Amherst-Pelham Regional: $22,489.13 

Shutesbury: $21,623.14

Source: School and District Profiles

How Procedural Missteps Postponed the SES Roof Project

 

To understand how the deterioration of the school roof went on for so long, I referred to Shutesbury.org to find the mission statements and interrelationships of the various committees involved with the Shutesbury Elementary School (SES) building (charts courtesy of Shutesbury.org).

The Town Buildings Committee (BC) “examine(s) and oversee(s) renovations, new construction, and maintenance of Town-owned properties.” It is an advisory committee to the Select Board.

The Capital Planning Committee “stud(ies) proposed projects and improvements involving major non-recurring tangible assets and projects which 1) are purchased or undertaken at intervals of not less than three years; or 2) have a useful life of at least three years; or 3) cost over $5,000.” All Town Boards and Committees are to submit their project plans for the next six years whereupon the Capital Planning Committee will consider their worthiness and fiscal impact on Town finances. The Committee then submits its recommended Capital Improvement budget to the FinCom and Select Board for approval.

The Finance Committee (FinCom) weighs the various budget requests of boards, committees, and departments against anticipated revenues in order to prepare a balanced budget.

The Select Board (SB) is the governing body of the town.

Using the above information, it seems the BC was fulfilling its mission, dealing with issues as soon as it was notified. 

As for Capital Planning, several small repair or renovation projects (flooring, sliding glass doors, sidewalks, landscape edging) at SES made their way into the Capital Planning Recommendation list between FY2013 and FY2021; extensive repair/replacement of the roof did not. Assumedly, it was never requested.

The FinCom also weighed in on the Capital Planning Recommendation list, indicating that the committee also did its due diligence.

The minutes indicate that issues such as misdiagnoses of infrastructure problems at SES and the postponement of needed repairs originated with the Town Administrator (TA) and Select Board and consisted mainly of a lack of communication and inattention to detail.

Procedural Lapses Lead to Inaction on Repairs

Minutes reveal several occasions described below in which the BC was ignored by the TA and SB when repair issues were discussed or investigated.

Roof

There is little doubt the SB was kept up-to-date concerning the issues at the school. The TA attended nearly all BC meetings as a guest, presumably to serve as liaison to the SB and assist the BC whenever possible. The TA was the primary driver behind the MSBA grant applications described in the first article of this series; the BC was not averse to applying but also agreed the roof work needed to be done whether or not grant funding was secured.

The February 15, 2013, TA Report states that the BC “is requesting funds (Capital Planning Committee section) for repair to the elementary school gym roof in conjunction with a grant.” There is no such request listed on the Capital Planning Recommendations list for that year, however. 

Despite the BC’s repeated advice that the roof project should move forward with or without state aid, the SES roof discussions at SB meetings over the next few years focused primarily on trying to secure MSBA grants for the project.

When the fourth attempt to secure MSBA funds was rejected in April 2020, the SB’s unwillingness to commit the money necessary to fund the SES roof project is reflected in the comment, “if no MSBA funding is available, there will be a need to look into other sources of funding and whether there are any exemptions from the State requirements.”

There was no more Select Board discussion of the SES roof project until mid-September 2020 when the TA announced, “An engineering proposal for the school roof project is being sought.” By October 15, she noted that the school roof had been leaking “for a number of years” and the scope of the roof project will require bids from contractors certified by the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM). In order to do this, a Request for Quotation from the Franklin Regional Council of Governments (FRCOG) was necessary. She noted she would be working with Bruce Turner, the Union 28 Director of Finance and Operations. There was no mention of the BC’s involvement.

After the BC Chair procured an estimate from a local contractor for the entire SES roof project, the TA said she would seek a waiver of DCAMM requirements. He is still awaiting the outcome of the TA’s request on this matter.

In early 2021, the Town Administrator (TA) announced she was moving ahead with the SES roof project, consulting with a member of the Capital Planning Committee and a member of the Board of the Assessors. When the BC Chair asked why his committee had been disenfranchised, another BC member stated, “SES paid for engineering study and handed it to (the TA) who put together her team.”

Heating System

Similar lapses have plagued the HVAC problems at the school. In early 2016, the School Committee notified the town that the school boiler needed replacing, making funding requests in February 2016 of $70,000 from Capital Planning (the request was never added to the Recommendations list) and requesting $40,000 in February 2017. The FinCom voted to disallow the last request as the BC, learning of the issue, determined that the boiler was not the source of the SES’s heating system woes. Even so, the SB added a request for a new school boiler in their 2019 and 2020 MSBA applications.

An incident recounted in the SB minutes of 1/7/20 describes the convoluted procedure followed when replacing a water heater at SES. An entity other than the BC had ordered a new water heater, which was delivered damaged and therefore not used. The BC Chair said he had agreed to look at the old heater to assess the situation on behalf of the BC and FinCom. He and a FinCom member with knowledge of such systems found that a different heater was needed, one that would be less expensive. The BC Chair tried to advise the TA of this but was unable to get a callback. With the involvement of the BC, the correct heater was purchased and installed in February.

I asked a member of the Shutesbury School Committee why these two issues took so long to resolve. He said that when there are infrastructure problems at the school, officials notify the Town of Shutesbury directly. Generally, that contact is the TA, who then begins the process of getting the problem rectified. 

According to the BC minutes, the committee was not notified of these issues, which explains the confusion surrounding the heating system and water heater concerns. When the BC found out about these problems, they stepped in to assist–which led to a satisfactory resolution.

Despite the assistance of the BC in assessing the school’s heating system requirements and needs, the TA announced at the April 12, 2021 BC meeting that she was hiring a consulting engineer–with help from the same individuals she chose for the roof project–for the school’s HVAC project. 

When the BC Chair again asked why the BC was not being consulted when the issue had been referred to them, the TA replied that the Capital Planning Committee (of which the BC Chair is also a member) had requested her to do so–though I could find no suggestion of this in the minutes of the Capital Planning Committee. She went on to say that the BC and FinCom, the same committee members who helped correct the heating system misdiagnoses, had “no experience with commercial systems and (were) not qualified.”

According to the BC Chair, the Building Committee agreed that the town should hire a consulting engineer. Inquiries made with local contractors and architects resulted in a referral to Hesnor Engineering, which provided a proposal to engineer and support the installation of HVAC upgrades on May 12, 2021. After providing copies of this proposal to the Shutesbury School Committee, the TA, and BC members, the decision was delayed by the TA, who said the project must be subjected to bidding protocol. Hesnor was finally awarded the contract in late 2021.

Next: How we can move forward, and how much these projects will likely cost Shutesbury taxpayers.

Weekly Factoids:

 

The condition of U.S. public schools:

Data: U.S. School Buildings: Age, Condition, and Spending

2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure: Schools