Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable Jay R. Kaufman, House Chair
The Honorable Michael J. Rodrigues, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Revenue
State House, Boston
Dear Chairman Kaufman, Chairman Rodrigues, and Distinguished Committee Members,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association appreciates the opportunity to offer testimony on several bills relative to the property tax before the committee today.
In addition to the specific comments regarding the seven bills discussed below, we respectfully request that you issue an unfavorable report to all bills that are not local option, or that would make changes to previously adopted local-option sections. Imposing new conditions and rules on communities that have already voted to adopt local-option statutes may be legal in a technical sense, but such action is very poor public policy and undermines the local-option process by discouraging communities from adopting local-option laws out of fear of future changes that could mandate costly and unexpected burdens. Further, we request that you similarly issue an unfavorable report to non-local-option bills that would have a negative impact on municipal revenue receipts, or that would create an administrative burden at the local level.
Please support H. 2655, An Act Enhancing the Volunteer Service Tax Deduction for Seniors, as revised. H. 2655 is a local-option provision that would allow those cities and towns that adopt a program to reduce senior citizen property tax liability in exchange for volunteer service to the community to issue a property tax credit to participants equivalent to up to 125 hours of work under the Commonwealth’s minimum wage. Under the legislation, each city or town offering the program to senior property owners would not be required to offer 125 hours or any other fixed number of hours of volunteer opportunities to each participant in the program, but would be allowed to offer up to 125 hours without returning to town meeting to make the change. The MMA supports H. 2655 because it would increase the administrative capacity at the local level to make modest changes to the senior volunteer service tax deduction program, if appropriate, and we urge you to give the legislation a favorable report.
Please oppose S. 1497, An Act Expanding Senior Tax Reductions for Volunteer Services. S. 1497 would allow a Council on Aging in a municipality that has adopted Chapter 59, Section 5k (relative to a reduced property tax liability for seniors citizens in exchange for volunteer work), to include qualifying homebound persons over the age of 60, at the Council’s option. The legislative body of a city or town adopts Section 5k, and any changes to the section should be subject to a vote of the legislative body, but instead this bill would transfer any decision regarding acceptance of the expanded Section 5k away from the legislative body and grant it to the Council on Aging, which does not report to the legislative body. The MMA opposes S. 1497, as this legislation would interfere with the existing local-option statute and impose new requirements on the community without proper consideration and approval by the legislative body.
Please oppose S. 1551, An Act Relative to the Assessments of Long Term Care Facilities. S. 1551 would create a new local property tax exemption for certain long-term care facilities. A local property tax exemption for long-term care facilities already exists, and the MMA opposes S. 1551 for this reason.
Please oppose H. 2496, An Act Relative to a Real Property Tax Exemption for Recipients of Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income Benefits. H. 2496 would create a new property tax exemption for a property owner who receives disability benefits or benefits through the supplemental security income program under the federal Social Security Act. This is a new tax exemption that would lower municipal revenue receipts, and the MMA opposes H. 2496 for this reason – the bill would impose an unfunded mandate on cities and towns.
Please oppose H. 2518, An Act Relative to Certain Real Estate Tax Exemptions. H. 2518 would make changes to the eligibility standards relative to income for senior citizens qualifying for tax exemptions (under Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41C). Under current law, senior citizens may qualify if their annual income is not more than $13,000 if single or $15,000 if married. This bill would increase the eligible annual income to not more than $20,000 if single, or $30,000 if married. Clause 41C is adopted through local option, but this change would impact municipalities that have adopted it previously with the understanding that the income eligibility was set at $13,000 if single and $15,000 if married. The MMA opposes H. 2518, as this legislation would interfere with the existing local-option statute and impose new requirements onto the community without proper consideration and approval by the legislative body. In effect, this bill would NOT be a local-option statute for all those who have previously adopted Clause 41C, which means this would impose an unfunded mandate.
Please oppose H. 2534, An Act Relative to the Property Tax Deferral Program. H. 2534 would change eligibility standards relative to the age for senior citizens qualifying for property tax deferral (under Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41A). This bill would lower the age of eligibility from 65 to 60. This broadened eligibility criterion could result in a significant increase in the number of property tax deferrals, which would negatively impact municipal revenue receipts and endanger the provision of critical local services. The MMA opposes H. 2534 for these reasons.
Please oppose H. 2691, An Act Providing Property Tax Relief for Certain Caregivers. H. 2691 would create a $3,000 property tax exemption for a caregiver to a spouse or dependent over the age of 65. However, the clause is not local-option and would require municipalities to offer this exemption, regardless of the impact that it might have on municipal finances. The MMA opposes H. 2691 because it would impose a costly unfunded mandate on cities and towns.
In summary, the MMA appreciates your leadership on fiscal policy issues, and your record of balancing the interests of all parties to protect municipalities, taxpayers, and the Commonwealth. Communities give top priority to administering the property tax in the fairest manner possible. We urge you to issue an unfavorable report to the bills referenced above that would impose an unfunded mandate on communities, or have a negative impact on municipal revenues and administrative capacity. If you have any questions regarding these issues, please do not hesitate to have your staff contact John Robertson or Catherine Rollins of the MMA at (617) 426-7272 at any time.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
MMA Executive Director & CEO