.

2013 Tax Rates by Municipality: How Does Tewksbury Compare?

Tewksbury's residential tax rate is above the average rate for the coming year in other towns and cities surveyed.

As 2013 begins, property tax rates are increasing for residents across Massachusetts, including in Tewksbury — so how does that compare to surrounding communities?

Out of 27 communities in the area, Tewksbury's 2013 residential tax rate lands among the higher rates, according to rates compiled by Patch through the state Department of Revenue's Division of Local Services.

Chelmsford's 2013 residential tax rate of $17.95 is the highest of the communities surveyed. Cambridge continues to levy the lowest residential taxes, with a 2013 rate of $8.66 (Cambridge also adopts a residential exemption).

The average residential tax rate for those communities surveyed was $13.09 in 2012 and has risen to $13.58 for this coming year.

Boston's commercial tax rate of $31.96 is the highest commercial rate of the communities surveyed, while Winchester is the lowest with a rate of $12.01.

Check the chart below to see comparisons between communities.

2013 Tax Rates By Municipality

Information taken from the state Division of Local Services. In order from lowest residential rate in 2013 to highest. See the attached PDF for more 2013 tax rates as approved by the state.

Community Residential Tax Rate   
   Commercial and Industrial Tax Rate   
   Residential Exemption 2013 2012 2013 2012 Cambridge 8.66 8.48  21.50 20.76 30% Woburn 10.40 10.40 27.01 26.83 Saugus 11.28 11.04 24.90 24.16 Brookline 11.65 11.40 18.97 18.58 20% Burlington 11.85 11.55 31.70 30.95 Peabody 11.98 11.82 23.57 23.43 Wakefield 12.29 11.90 24.97 24.18 Medford 12.36 12.03 24.39 23.72 Winchester 12.77 12.55 12.01 11.77 Melrose 13.03 12.76 19.90 19.47 Stoneham 13.06 12.61 21.00 20.25 Boston 13.14 13.04 31.96 31.92 30% Belmont 13.33 13.35 13.33 13.35
Somerville 13.42 13.09 22.38 21.85 30% Arlington 13.61 13.66 13.61 13.66 Wilmington 13.61 12.14 28.64 28.10 North Andover 13.72 12.92 18.85 19.16 Andover 14.51 14.15 24.26
23.54 Danvers 14.54 13.93 20.23 19.38 Lynnfield 14.82 14.26 16.29 15.56 Reading 14.94 14.15 14.94 14.15 Tewksbury 15.44 14.93 25.60 25.05 Malden 15.88 14.33 25.42 24.84 20% North Reading 16.04 14.38 16.04 14.38 Westford 16.13 15.55 16.38 15.79 Salem 16.38 15.63 31.46 29.81 20% Chelmsford 17.95 17.49 17.95 17.49
Tom January 06, 2013 at 05:16 PM
And is Home Goods now packing up and leaving?
Bob Ferrari January 06, 2013 at 05:49 PM
Cecil, you don't know what you are talking about. The big question on that "expansion" is "who approved building a huge warehouse in the middle of residential neighborhood in the first place." We cannot continue averting our eyes to ridiculous planning from the past and you suggest by ignorance to continue that trend. When the warehouse was built there it included a 200 foot no build buffer between the warehouse and the residents. A few years ago, that buffer "disappeared". How did that happen? Do you even care with your greased palms come from? Apparently not.
Bob Ferrari January 06, 2013 at 06:04 PM
Pensions. They are the only thing that are constant, while taxes go up and services go down. Yet the numbers, 401K don't seem to have registered with the public sector jobs yet.
Karyn January 06, 2013 at 06:28 PM
Mr. Ferrari is correct....there is so much misinformation in Cecil's post it would seem personal. I'm sure he would sing a different tune if he were one of those in the residential area whose buffer zone mysteriously disappeared off the original plan in that infamous "Article 47" fiasco. To blame Mrs. Reed, one of the most upstanding, hard working, and dedicated members of our Planning Board is an injustice and proof he has no clue what he's talking about.
Cecil Moore January 06, 2013 at 10:10 PM
Karen and Bob, you claim that I am misinformed in my post. Though neither of you countered with what I am misinformed about. Bob went over that the warehouse should have never been there in the first place and Karyn posted a violation of Article 47. The thread of the posting is the 2013 tax increase. People asked why we have increased taxes and I am merely making the point that some on the planning board may be anti-growth in regards to Tewksbury's commercial tax base. There was a large loss of excise tax and taxes. If you would like to tell us that there was not, I will certainly correct my statement. I have nothing personal in my post. However, claiming that a planning board member is upstanding and hardworking is personal and clearly indicates that you have an agenda. Your claim as to one's character is hardly and argument that I don't know what I am talking about. It's not personal...just political business.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »