Marlborough Hotel Tax Hike Sends Wrong Message

The Marlborough City Council is considering utilizing the state law that allows cities and towns to add additional local taxes to the state 5.7% room tax rate. Residents hearing of this tax increase would logically believe the proposed 2% tax is for local services and expenses. The City Council stood united against this proposal when it came before the state legislature. The fear was that if the state passed the legislation there would be a temptation for the city to dip into this tax revenue source because it does not directly affect property taxes or fees for services to residents living in the city. Instead, it levies taxes on those who find themselves visiting Marlborough for business or pleasure. It is always easier to pass on the cost to others than take to ask the residents of the city to decide if services are worth the price of increased taxes.

However, in this instance the taxes levied do not save vital services. These funds raised are for the Marlborough Economic Development Corporation, a public-private partnership focused on bringing business to Marlborough. When the Marlborough Economic Development Corporation project was proposed, the issue of future public funding was one of the concerns raised. Many felt the Chamber of Commerce for years had acted as a force to attract and retain local businesses to the area. Some in the community felt a stronger organization was required to manage the task of recruiting and retaining businesses in the City of Marlborough. There were assurances at the time that this body would not be a burden to the taxpayers of Marlborough. The argument of using the hotel tax technically makes the original statement true. It will not likely be Marlborough residents paying. However, their families who visit, guests from out of town, business travelers, and other hotel guests will be paying the cost for this investment with no guarantee of a return to the residents of Marlborough. Therefore, technically the proponents of this partnership are keeping their word. The use of this tax is still questionable.

Those who oppose this new tax question what the Marlborough Economic Development Corporation has accomplished to date. In an article in the Main Street Journal, Michael Hogan, former Mayor and current member of the board, discusses what can be done in the future with money invested in the program. What is curious is that he avoids mentioning any current positive actions by this group with their current funding levels. In a MetroWest Daily article, he discusses that BJ's chose to relocate their headquarters to Westborough, not Marlborough, because of lower property tax rates. One would think that was a failure on the part of the Marlborough Economic Development Corporation, hardly a success. He does not mention how this board can lower property tax rates to make Marlborough more attractive to businesses. The City Council has struggled for years to keep the rates from creeping any higher. Mr. Hogan has not always been supportive of those attempts. How is raising taxes on another industry going to help corporations to see Marlborough as business friendly? If Mr. Hogan hoped to swing support of the local public towards this tax, he would not have mentioned failures by the partnership, but successes that additional revenue could help the group continue their progress. Taxpayers are rarely motivated to invest in ventures that cannot demonstrate success.

Voters should research the Marlborough Economic Development Corporation and then contact their City Councilors regarding their opinion on this issue. They should know that City Councilor Arthur Vigeant, who normally opposes taxes, is a board member of the corporation that will receive the funds to promote economic development in Marlborough. That was not specifically stated in the articles referenced on this topic, but residents can find this information on the Marlborough Economic Development Corporation's website. Marlborough would benefit from a stronger business tax base. However, this group has yet to demonstrate they can deliver on an investment of taxpayer dollars.

Michael Hogan, "It Does Not Happen by Accident" ,Main Street Journal

Paul Crocetti, "Marlborough Hotel Tax Could Raise 450K" ,MetroWest Daily News

Department of Revenue, "Room Occupancy Tax" ,Commonwealth of Massachusetts