Stockbridge — The Select Board approved a single tax rate for all classes of property within its city limits—residential and open space, commercial, industrial, and personal property—as recommended by the Board of Assessors. The single tax rate has been the historic norm for the town, with the October 28 meeting devoted to the fiscal year 2025 tax classification hearing.
At the session, Principal Assessor Michael T. Blay presented the dais with an estimation of a tax rate for fiscal 2025 of $7.09 per $1,000 valuation, an overall decrease of 28 cents over the fiscal 2024 tax rate of $7.37.
At about $1.23 billion total assessed valuation for fiscal 2025, the residential class of property makes up about 90.8 percent of the total tax levy, leaving the remaining classes comprising 9.2 percent of the tax levy. The average residence is valued at $723,184 for the upcoming fiscal year.
For fiscal 2025, the town’s commercial property is valued at about $63.56 million, with its industrial property valued at about $6.56 million and personal property at about $54.75 million. The total tax valuation of all of Stockbridge’s property classes is about $1.35 billion.
Real estate values have increased year over year, Blay said. Given the town’s 2,714 parcels, he said its total valuation “is quite amazing, that we’re over a billion [dollars] in valuation.”
At an estimated tax rate of $7.09 per $1,000 valuation, the town’s levy is estimated to tally about $9.6 million for fiscal 2025.
Although the Select Board approved a 10 percent small commercial exemption in fiscal 2024 for the town’s nine qualifying parcels (those businesses that employ 10 or fewer employees and valued at less than $1 million), the same measure won’t be applied to fiscal 2025.
With residents in person and attending remotely, the Select Board declined to offer a residential tax exemption.
According to Blay, no other western Massachusetts community has adopted that type of exemption. If that exemption had passed the group’s vote, it would have shifted more of the tax burden on other classes, including the town’s very small commercial base that he said wouldn’t be able to absorb that tax increase. Additionally, second-home owners, as well as accessory-land and rental-property owners, wouldn’t qualify for the residential exemption.
Select Board member Patrick White said the state increased the residential tax exemption for qualified seasonal communities, from a maximum of 35 percent to 50 percent. He said Stockbridge would count among those seasonal community designations.
Chair Jamie Minacci pointed out the action would require a zoning change with a town meeting vote.
At the hearing, Bruce Auerbach said the residential tax exemption won’t pay for a new high school as it doesn’t increase the total amount of taxes collected by the town. He also said the share of property taxes paid by the town’s part-time residents is “disproportionate” to the services provided to those residents. “However, [part-time residents] should be appreciated for that subsidy and not told that they’re not doing enough, and that’s a message the [residential tax exemption] sends,” said Auerbach, who is also a member of the Stockbridge Affordable Housing Trust Committee. He stated the exemption won’t affect housing prices so more middle-income families could become town residents but could affect others who need a bit of help, such as senior citizens on fixed incomes.
“But there are also part-time residents here that may have been here multi-generationally and in inherited homes that may have the same issue,” Auerbach said.
A few speakers advocated for the residential tax exemption, with Anita Schwerner asking the Select Board to try a 10 percent exemption for a year. However, most attendees opposed the measure.
“The exemption just takes money from second-home owners or part-time residents and moves it to residents,” said Joseph Newberg, adding that the exemption is unfair. “What message do you think this sends to part-time residents who own property in Stockbridge and maybe for generations owned it and maybe [are] not wealthy?”
Jane Karlin agreed. “The broad brushstroke [of applying a residential tax exemption] makes so many cultural and socioeconomic assumptions that I find it offensive,” she said, adding that she would prefer research on how to more fairly apply an exemption.
Similarly, Patty Caya also voiced opposition to instituting a residential tax exemption, with such an increase “based only on the perception of wealth, not any measure of it.”
“It provides tax relief without any determination of need,” she said. “Ironically, we never flipped a coin and looked at the other side of this strange way of dividing the town’s taxpayers. There are full-time residents who have more than one house. They too are part-time residents, just not here. But because they designate Stockbridge as their domicile, under the [residential tax exemption], they would have their property taxes lowered. And, in turn, there are part-time residents on fixed incomes living on social security, struggling to survive. Under the [residential tax exemption], they would have their taxes raised. Not all part-time residents live in mansions. Determining property taxes based on anything other than property value is a judgment, not a policy.”
During the Select Board discussion, White acknowledged that “these are hard decisions.” He noted the decline in local school enrollment over the years and the difficulty in hiring firefighters, emergency medical technicians, teachers, and other staffers due to the high-priced housing market. “We’re going to have to keep that balance of the families who provide the jobs that make the Berkshires run,” White said. “It’s not animus; it’s just the reality we face.”
Although he moved to adopt the residential tax exemption, the action failed for lack of a second, and no member put forth a motion to adopt a small commercial exemption.
