SACO — Residents voiced their opinions Monday night regarding a proposed tax deferral program.
In order to qualify for the program, one must be at least 70 years old, have lived in the city for at least 10 years and their income must not exceed 300 percent of the federal poverty level. The deferred property taxes would incur an interest rate of .5 percent above the otherwise applicable rate for delinquent taxes.
Taxes would be collected when the owner dies, or the house is sold or transferred to a new owner.
About 11 people spoke at Monday night’s public hearing at City Hall, many of them elderly and in favor of the proposal.
Margo Johnson said she was trying to hold onto her home on Bayview Road that has been in her family since 1947. She said the state’s discontinuation of the circuit breaker tax refund program has had a huge impact on her.
“I’ve found myself in a situation where I’m actually embarrassed to be standing here,” she said.
Maureen Clark, 77, said she receives Social Security and a pension, and is paying a second mortgage and a home equity loan. She said her son used to help her out, but can’t anymore, and questioned why the taxes in Saco are higher than other communities. She was in favor of the proposal.
“This is extremely important to me if I want to stay in my home,” she said.
A few spoke out against the proposal.
Beth Johnston said the economy has taken a toll on many people, and she didn’t see it turning around any time soon.
“I don’t have a fixed income, I have a declining income,” she said.
She said the city already had mechanisms in place to help those in need, and the proposed program targeted a special interest group and singled out people of a certain age.
Johnston said she would like the city councilors to rethink the proposal.
“It just seems to me this is the wrong tool,” she said.
The city council will vote whether to approve the proposed tax deferment program on May 5.
— Staff Writer Liz Gotthelf can be contacted at 282-1535, ext. 325 or [email protected].
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less