Providence residents, renters and small landlords push back on mayor’s proposed tax changes

Dozens of Providence residents, neighborhood advocates and small-property owners urged the Finance Committee May 6 to reject or revise parts of Mayor Smiley’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget that they said would shift a disproportionate tax burden onto renters, small multifamily homeowners and people on fixed incomes.

Speakers at the public hearing said the mayor’s plan — which several commenters said includes a roughly 4 percent levy increase for some single‑family homes and a larger (reported by speakers as about 16 percent) increase targeted at two‑to‑five‑unit residential buildings — would prompt rent increases and force longtime residents to leave the city.

Why this matters: Providence’s housing stock includes many small multifamily buildings that residents and speakers said house lower‑income and multigenerational families. Several witnesses said raising taxes on those properties would accelerate displacement and undermine efforts to keep housing affordable for renters and older homeowners on fixed incomes.

Public testimony and examples Jackie Goldman, a neighborhood resident who said she has knocked on thousands of doors in Providence, said: “They cannot afford to live in this city.” She and other speakers described repeated assessment increases over several years and called for more accurate assessments and different tax treatment for very small landlords.

Several speakers asked for targeted relief for seniors. James Wolfgang, who said he is 72 and on Social Security, described pressing the mayor at a community meeting for an elderly exemption; he said Councilwoman Ryan and the mayor increased the elderly exemption and that the change reduced his tax bill. Wolfgang said that change contributed to his support for the mayor’s proposed budget.

Other testimony urged structural changes: speakers asked the council to pursue higher payments from large nonprofits and colleges, to end tax breaks for luxury developments, and to adopt tiered tax rates so large institutional or corporate landlords pay more than owner‑occupied small multifamily properties.

A range of affected residents Multiple speakers described being one medical or financial emergency away from homelessness, with some offering personal examples: Andrea Rojas said neighbors face serious medical bills and rent hikes; John Sherman, who said he has a small multifamily property, urged the council to reconsider the share of revenue borne by taxpayers and to show detailed calculations of impacts on small owners.

Supporters of portions of the budget also spoke. Ronald Coyer, business manager of Local Union 1033, called the mayor’s budget “the budget as submitted will ensure that the vital services that our members perform...will continue,” citing public service continuity as a reason to approve the plan. Others, including several downtown and investment stakeholders, said lowering commercial tax rates could spur investment and new housing production, a point some speakers linked to long‑term relief for residential taxpayers.

Clarifying details from testimony - Several speakers referenced a 4% levy proposal for single‑family homes and a larger percentage increase for 2–5 unit homes reported in public comments (speakers described the two‑to‑five unit increase as about 16%). - James Wolfgang said the elderly exemption was increased by 25% (as presented to him at a community meeting) and that the change reduced his tax bill. - Speakers described earlier city negotiations that produced voluntary payments from nonprofits and contested tax‑stabilization agreements (TSA) as factors that limited other revenue sources.

What the council heard but did not decide Public testimony consisted of appeals and recommendations; the transcript records questions and suggestions but no formal vote or change to the mayor’s budget during the hearing. The Finance Committee closed the public comment period at the end of the hearing to continue deliberations.

Looking ahead Speakers asked the council to explore alternatives such as tiered tax rates, better enforcement of parking and other city ordinances to raise revenue, expanded voluntary contributions from large institutions and revisiting exemptions. Committee members did not announce formal actions during the hearing; deliberations on the FY26 budget will continue in committee and at later council sessions.