Watertown Residents to See Property Taxes Rise 4.5 Percent
The Town Council approved a tax increase for Fiscal 2013, but will give owner-occupied homes a break.
Watertown residents will see their property taxes rise by 4.5 percent, on average, after the Town Council approved the tax rates for Fiscal 2013 on Tuesday night.
The average assessed home is worth $420,841 and the tax on that home will rise $212 next year for an owner-occupied home, said Francis Golden, chairman of the Watertown Board of Assessors. The rate will be $14.68 per $1,000 of assessed value. A non-owner occupied home of the same value will have a $266 increase on its tax bill.
The CIP (commercial, industrial and personal property) rate will be 27.15 per $1,000 of assessed value, Golden said, a 3.44 percent increase, or an increase of $1,434 on the average bill.
The increase would be more if the Town Council did not also approve a 175 percent shift of the tax rate toward the CIP class and a 20 percent residential exemption. The Town Council has approved the shift and exemption for the past several years, Golden said.
Watertown 2013 Property Taxes
| Assessed Value | 20% Residential Exemption | Non-owner Occupied Home |
| $100,000 | $232 | $1,468 |
| $250,000 | $2,434 | $3,670 |
| $500,000 | $6,104 | $7,340 |
| $750,000 | $9,774 | $11,010 |
Source: Watertown Board of Assessors
Of the 9,746 residential properties in Watertown, Golden said that 63.5 percent receive the residential exemption. The difference can be a big, with the tax bill on the average home being $4,942 with the exemption and $6,178 without – a difference of $1,236. Homes worth $650,000 or more will not benefit from the shift, however.
The residential exemption could be higher - a much as 30 percent - and Town Councilor Angeline Kounelis pushed for a 25 percent exemption.
“Last year we increased the residential tax rate by 4.25 percent and this year we are proposing raising it 4.5 percent,” Kounelis said. “I hear from so many residents that this is truly a hardship.”
If the exemption was 25 percent, the average valued owner-occupied homes would pay $80 more, while a non-owner occupied would pay $502 more.
Kounelis said she thinks landlords could handle the higher tax rise.
“When we have absentee landlords (the rental) is for-profit,” Kounelis said. “I think they will be able to absorb the $502.”
Lexington Street resident Paul Fahey said he supports the 20 percent residential exemption.
“While part of me (as a homeowner) would enjoy the 25 percent exemption, I have been a renter most of my life,” Fahey said. “Whenever possible I think we should have a sense of equity (between owners and renters). There are a lot of reasons why people have rental properties, and I think the 20 percent exemption is reasonable.”
Watertown’s tax rate appears to be higher than surrounding towns, Golden said, with the $14.40 rate in Fiscal 2012 being higher than Arlington, Belmont, Boston, Cambridge, Newton and Waltham.
When you look at the average tax bill, however, Watertown falls in the middle, being around half the amount of Belmont and Newton and two-thirds the amount of Arlington, but higher than Cambridge, Boston and Waltham.
Not all communities have the residential exemption, Golden said, and he said it helps keep Watertown affordable.
2012 Residential Property Tax Rates
| Town | Tax Rate | Ave. Tax Bill |
| Arlington | $13.66 | $6,565 |
| Belmont | $13.35 | $9,963 |
| Boston | $13.04 | $3,305 |
| Cambridge | $8.48 | $3,919 |
| Newton | $11.17 | $8,912 |
| Waltham | $13.35 | $3,952 |
| Watertown | $14.40 | $4,730 |
Source: Watertown Board of Assessors
Sonny Beaches
11:06 am on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
What's the tax on the Oakley Country Club?
Charlie Breitrose
2:44 pm on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Not sure about the Oakley CC. I don't think they qualify under residential.
Gary M
3:47 pm on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Oakley pays zero. Non-profits do not pay real estate taxes. Watertown Yacht Club doesn't pay anything to the town either. They are on state on land. They pay a leased rate to the state.
Charlie Breitrose
3:55 pm on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
I don't think Oakley is a non profit. Plus, they usually work out a deal to pay something to the town rather than the tax rate. I know that Harvard owns the Arsenal on the Charles land, and they don't have to pay, but they end up being the largest tax payer in Watertown.
Gary M
4:04 pm on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Charlie,
The Patch published an article last year identifying Oakley as a nonprofit.
http://watertown.patch.com/articles/watertown-residents-air-concerns-about-oakley-country-club
Charlie Breitrose
4:08 pm on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Ah, I stand corrected. Looks like they pay some tax, but I'll have to see how much. Not likely the market rate.
RubyTuesday
4:14 pm on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Regarding property tax paid by the OCC, this is from an article by Robert Shay last year:
" For example, the Oakley Country Club in 2011 paid only $161,000 in taxes on its 88 acres, a subsidy of over $1.5 million compared to the commercial rate if that land was assessed at its market value. "
Gary M
4:32 pm on Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Thanks RubyTuesday.
Charlie,
A potential bigger tax revenue impact is the rumor that Harvard is in negotiations with AthenaHealth for the sale of the Arsenal to them.
That will most likely cause either a huge swing up or down in town revenue based on the parcel (the sale price was estimated to be $362m -$200m more than Harvard paid).
Elodia Thomas
10:23 am on Thursday, November 29, 2012
What about Prop 2 1/2? Doesn't this kind of a tax increase require an override?
Charlie Breitrose
11:29 am on Thursday, November 29, 2012
Elodia, Prop. 2 1/2 applies to the overall tax levy limit, which cannot be raised more than 2.5 percent. This year's levy limit increase includes the 2.5 percent allowed under Prop. 2 1/2 and the new growth AND the debt payments, so it actually went up 4.8 percent, according to Francis Golden's presentation.
WaterInfo
11:54 am on Thursday, November 29, 2012
In the writeup he also attempts to explain why Watertown's tax rates are higher than say Newton(his example). Stating that the same house in Watertown would be valued more in Newton and thus bring in more taxes. I'm not doubting this but he doesn't go the next step: Why is the same house worth more? IMO one of the main reasons are schools. Something to ponder down the road...