ROCKLAND — In July, a property assessor, KRT, distributed its findings from a recent assessment of property valuations in Rockland. The results sent residents into a frenzy, with many in the South End feeling the brunt. 

Former teachers, social workers, and veterans on fixed incomes were left wondering why government turned its back on them after they dedicated entire careers to helping others succeed. They now seek assistance from the City that claims to be, “All in this [pandemic] together.”

“The worst part is the way that the City just doesn't care who lives here,” said South End resident Laurie Southard, in an email.

Southard has lived in her house for 38 years, having paid $18,000 for the property in 1982. The house is now valued at $198,000. She works for a nonprofit healthcare organization at minimum wage, and in recent years has come to rely heavily on overtime. Her three children grew up in that house as she struggled to pay the taxes. Now, retirement is on the distant, yet visible, horizon with the teaser of reduced hours, if not outright cessation.

“Now I don't know how that will be possible unless I sell my house,” she said.

Southard’s KRT valuation increased her assessment by $50,000, or 38%.  

Halfway across the city, a house appraisal for Phyllis Prescott, age 90, resulted in a 49% increase in her home’s valuation.

According to a letter to the Rockland City Council from Dorothy Prescott, Phyllis’ daughter, the two opened KRT’s valuation statement on July 30, which was dated July 17. KRT gave a deadline of July 29 to request more information. The Prescott’s called the number on July 30, and were denied, they said.

During the Aug. 10, Rockland City Manager Tom Luttrell announced that KRT Appraisal has extended the residential appeal process to the end of the commercial appeal process. The commercial has not been finalized yet, according to Luttrell.

“So, I would say that you have at least another two to three weeks of appeal process,” he said.

To make an appeal, call of email the Rockland assessor’s office to start the process.

But, is there another way to keep people in their homes?

The net difference in prior assessed property values and the new assessed values is an increase of over $59 million.
 
Of the 2,851 drive-by assessments, the value of 0.7% stayed the same, 20.2% decreased in value and 79.1% increased in value.
 
Of the 2,256 homes with an increased assessment, 1,135 (just half of them) had an increase of 20% or more.
 
The average increase of the 2,256 Rockland properties that increased in value is $32,620 or 26.7%. Mechanic Street homeowners (representing less than 1% of the number of assessed Rockland properties) have an average increase in value of $102,025 or 60.1%.
 

But what else can be done?

During the Aug. 10, city council meeting, Councilor Nate Davis proposed pilot programs intended to help the residents of Rockland, or at least, a few of those residents.

Ordinance amendment 29, The Basic Income Program, met its demise within the scope of Council, with three councilors voting against it in First Reading.

Its preceding ordinance, Senior Citizen tax deferral, was postponed so that more data could be brought to the September meeting.

Senior Citizen Tax Deferral Plan

“Funding of municipalities and schools via local property taxes is an unfair system in a few ways,” said Davis. “The one that’s most relevant to this first ordinance amendment (number 28) is the unfairness of gentrification, whereby someone who may have lived in a house, and in a property for quite a few years is pushed out by market forces, essentially, through no fault, through no action of their own.”

In keeping with such a mindset, Davis urged Rockland to apply to a State program for municipalities that assists property owners ages 70 and older, who have lived in their homes for at least 10 years, and who generate an income of less than 300% of the Federal Poverty Level. (Household of 1= $38,280. For a family of 2 it would be $51,720, according to Rockland’s Community and Economic Development Director Julie Hashem)

If the program moved forward in Rockland, the City would gain remittance of the deferred taxes upon the sale of the property – either when the owner moves away, into nursing care, or passes away. The risk for the City, along with the number of potential applicants, is where Rockland would stand in the line for reimbursement after the house sale.

“When it came time,” said Councilor Valli Geiger, “who would take precedence? Medicaid for recovering what is owed to them through the value of that house, or the City of Rockland for what it’s owed for those deferred taxes plus interest?”

The answer was not stated in the program’s description.

Hashem, along with Noel Musson, calculated the figures of many different categories, sub-demographics, censure statistics, tax data, and varying rationales in order to estimate that an approximate 634 private, primary residences in Rockland are potential applicants.

A mechanism for repeal is added to the State statute, according to Davis: The program may be discontinued. However, any taxes deferred will continue to be deferred under the conditions of the program at the time the program ended.

The town of Wells is already a part of the program, according to Davis. By August 10, the Wells plan had zero applicants, he said.

In Rockland, if 100% of the people were eligible and apply, the City is looking at roughly $1.8 million annual fiscal impact, according to Hashem. If only 25% met the criteria and applied, the cost to Rockland would be just shy of $500,000.

“If it wasn’t that many people, I think it would be a worthwhile investment in the community to keep old people in their homes,” said Councilor Ed Glaser. “But, it’s too iffy at this point.”

Glaser questioned how Rockland would implement the plan, stating that a mechanism is missing in terms of timing.

“We have a tax year,” he said. “And we figure out our mil rate based on what taxes we need to raise are, versus the valuation of the houses. And if we subtract a certain amount of money out, all of a sudden it changes our mil rate, and we wouldn’t even know what to send out for taxes, for tax bills, if we didn’t have that already in hand.”

Glaser suggested some kind of survey so that the City would have a better knowledge of how many participants they’d encounter.

Davis continued to state approval of the program because of the program’s termination “safety valve.” Geiger stated differently.

“I don’t want to raise any false hopes,” she said. “I think we need far more information before I feel comfortable voting, even in First Reading, for this.”

Basic Income Program

What if Rockland established a general assistance income program that would distribute $100 per month to 100 residents?

That’s the question Rockland City Councilor Nate Davis proposed during the August 10, Rockland City Council meeting. The Council vetoed the proposal, in First Reading, in a 2/3 vote, not for the concept, but for the funding source.

Following the leads of a previous presidential candidate who proposed a similar platform, and of a more recent experiment being played out in Stockton, California, funded by grant money, Davis proposed a similar program for Rockland using tax money.

“We can’t really change the manner in which we collect money,” he said. “But what we can do is just give money to people.”

The single mother who can’t afford childcare, and an elderly couple who can’t stay in their homes, what do they have in common? What they need, said Davis, is money.

According to him, conservative or libertarian literature would say: “It’s more empowering to enable someone to spend money on their own needs than to enable a bureaucrat, let’s say, to spend money on their behalf.”

Davis acknowledged the counterarguments to this proposal.

1) Why not just donate to Social Services?

“Yes, Social Services are very important, vital part of the social fabric here,” he said. “But they don’t really address the truly broadest case of people simply being priced out of Rockland. They address bits and pieces of that, but they don’t address that issue directly.”

2) People who don’t need it will get money

Interested receivers of the assistance would sign a certification stating understanding that the program is meant to contribute to the health and dignity of all residents of Rockland.

“It seems unlikely to me that a large number of well-off people would sign that certification on a public document.”

Davis kept the application process minimal due to the trade-off between ease of application, intrusiveness of application, and staff time in evaluating these applications.

3) Just too much fiscal impact

Davis quoted Joe Biden during the 2008 presidential campaign: “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.”

Rockland recently passed a “very forgiving” $200,000 loan program for businesses, he said. Yes, he said, it’s a loan program, not a giveaway, and it came from a single pool of money. Rockland also approved $335,000 in capital improvement expenditures.

“We deal with sums of money on this scale all of the time,” he said. “It seems quite appropriate to me to at least think about giving that directly to people.”

4) $100 per month is not enough to make a difference

“I chose $100 a month and 100 people to try to create a large pool of people so we could see if there actually is that much need or interest.”

Councilor Ed Glaser stated a problem with using property taxes.

“Property taxes are probably one of the most regressive taxes that we have,” he said. “It affects people in Rockland – not based on how much they can afford, but sheer circumstances.”

Glaser cited the 634 people over 70, earning less than 300% of the Poverty Level, and have lived in their house more than 10 years.

“We’re stuck penalizing the people we’re trying to help,” he said.

Glaser offered to support the program if another payment option existed, such as a local sales tax or income tax, or going in a different direction by enforcing a local minimum wage higher than the surrounding towns. The Council did not continue conversation of Glaser’s suggestions.

A similar income program in Toronto ran for 10 months of its intended 15 month duration. The program’s demise wasn’t due to any fault of the experiment, according to Councilor Valli Geiger, but from a new administration that was philosophically opposed.

Closer to home, Geiger equated the recent stimulus checks as a mini experiment.

“Maine was one of the two states where the majority of the people participating actually ended up making more than they were making before,” she said. “The anecdotal evidence coming out of that was, for the first time, people were making the equivalent of $15 an hour for a 40 hour work week. It allowed them to get caught up on bills, to pay for their rent and utilities, to in fact lead a life that many of us take for granted without fear.”

Geiger said the real solution is progressive taxation and a minimum wage that is a living wage. Though she said she’d love to support the program, the amount of participants is too limited, especially following the one statistic alone of 634 residents over 70 potentially needing assistance with property taxes.

In the end, Councilor Ben Dorr voted along with Davis in support of the ordinance.

“I think that by saying that we’re willing to participate in a program like this gives us greater leverage as a community if we did want to apply for grants or other ways of funding something like this,” he said, “To say that we’re willing to walk the walk. And I think that the potential added cost to the City doesn’t outweigh our opportunity for leverage with other organizations that we may be able to find if we are willing to commit to something like this.”

Reach Sarah Thompson at news@penbaypilot.com