Boston City Council could vote Wednesday on request for temporary increase in taxes on commercial property

In an emergency Zoom meeting this morning, the City Council agreed to hold a public hearing before voting on a proposal to potentially increase taxes on commercial properties over a three-year period to help cushion the blow on residential property owners from expected large decreases in the value of downtown office buildings because many have higher vacancy rates as a higher percentage of workers continue to stay home in the aftermath of Covid-19.

The vote to formally refer the issue to a council committee means the council could possibly vote Wednesday on what would be a home-rule petition asking the state legislature and the governor to let Boston adjust its commercial tax rate.

Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata (East Boston, North End, Charlestown), who chairs the committee on government operations, which will hold the hearing, told colleagues she will hold a public hearing to let residents have their say. Although she did not specify a date for that hearing, to get it voted on on Wednesday, and to comply with a 48-hour notice requirement under the state open-meeting law, she would have to hold the hearing on Tuesday.

That did not sit well with Councilor Ed Flynn (South Boston, South End, Chinatown, Downtown), who has opposed the temporary increase, anyway. Flynn called for a series of public hearings across Boston neighborhoods to really let residents have their say, a process that could take weeks. But otherwise, he said, his opinion is that "it's almost as if we're a rubber stamp and we're trying to get this out Wednesday afternoon," he said. "Is that inaccurate?" he asked Council President Ruthzee Louijeune.

Louijeune declined to get into a debate with him on that issue, only agreeing with him that that was his opinion.

The council actually voted in June to approve a measure under which commercial property could be taxed at a higher rate than normally allowed under state regulations, and the measure went to the legislature, where the house approved it but the senate sat on it.

The city has to submit an entirely new request because that measure would have allowed a higher rate and to let it gradually return to normal rates over five years instead of the lower rate and three-year sunset clause agreed to last weekend by Mayor Wu and some owners of big city businesses and commercial buildings. The new measure also would commit the city to using $15 million a year while it's in effect to provide tax breaks for smaller business owners in the city - and allow them to exempt a higher percentage of their "personal property" from taxes.

City officials, including Louijeune, say time is of the essence because the measure has to be approved by the legislature and signed by the governor in time for the city to formally set new tax rates in November - in time for bills reflecting the new rates to start going out in January. Officials say the measure will not stop anticipated increases in residential tax bills, but will reduce the amount.

Today's meeting seemed like it would be a brief session. Louijeune called the meeting to order, councilors formally voted unanimously in a roll-call vote to hold the meeting, voted unanimously to refer the issue to Coletta Zapata's committee for a hearing, then voted unanimously, again in a roll call, to adjourn all with no discussion, save for Flynn asking to raise a "point of order" before he voted to adjourn, which Louijeune said she would allow him to raise after the vote was taken, because once a roll-call vote starts, there's no stopping it.

Flynn made his point, points actually, and then councilors Erin Murphy, Julia Mejia and John FitzGerald raised questions. Because council meetings are only formally adjourned when the president says "this meeting is adjourned," not when the last roll-call vote is tallied, and Louijeune had not actually uttered that phrase, she allowed them to speak.

Murphy said she wanted to make sure the council have a chance to weigh in and consider the issue. She said it seems like a lot of other people in the city have have "the pleasure of the opportunity to be really involved in this, but we on the council have not been."

FitzGerald asked Coletta Zapata if the hearing could include "panels" - groups of several people called up to testify on the matter - to ensure that both sides of the issue could be aired. Coletta Zapata said her intent is to old a hearing and to allow for public testimony, but that she had not yet decided on the format.

Mejia said the fact that Flynn was asking about hearings got her worried - she thought referring something to committee meant a public hearing.

"It makes absolutely no sense that Councilor Flynn is asking whether or not we're going to have a hearing," she said. "I didn't walk in here with any fear and I don't want to walk out of here with any fear."

Coletta Zapata said her intent was always to have a hearing. "This is an important matter to all of us and to the city of Boston," and it's vital to provide a space for residents to be heard, she said.

As what was turning into a debate about the issue and the public and meetings, Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson (Roxbury) expressed some irritation: If her colleagues had wanted to have a discussion, they should have voted "no" on adjournment to begin with. She then said she wanted to rescind her vote to adjourn, made that in the form of a motion and the council held a second vote on whether to adjourn.

The council then voted 7-6 to adjourn - Breadon, Coletta Zapata, Durkan, FitzGerald, Pepén, Santana, and Weber voted to adjourn; Fernandes Anderson, Flynn, Louijeune, Mejia, Murphy and Worrell voted to keep talking. Louijeune then declared the meeting adjourned.

Mayor's request for a home-rule petition (1.4M PDF).