By Geena Monahan—For the North Star Reporter
North Attleborough’s Finance Subcommittee spent over an hour Wednesday night discussing options to help seniors — and potentially other struggling subgroups — to lower their tax bills.
Two measures were on the table for discussion: an amended proposal from Town Councilor Mark Gould to authorize a means-tested senior citizen property tax exemption of $1,000 and another from Town Councilor Dan Donovan for an affordable housing property tax exemption.
Gould brought this amended version of his measure, no longer tied to the high school vote this June, to the Town Council meeting on March 10. Although Gould’s measure did not receive support to move to a vote, the council did vote to move it, along with any other ideas to help seniors, to the Finance Subcommittee.
“This is for supporting seniors and strengthening community,” said Gould. “We want to encourage them to stay in the communities they grew up in and not be forced out of their houses in their old age.”
Gould’s proposal requires that residents must first qualify for the Massachusetts Senior Circuit Breaker tax credit, which has a maximum income criteria of $72,000 for a single individual or $109,000 for a married couple filing a joint return.
Seniors in North Attleborough expressed concern over this, as those who make above that income would not qualify for Gould’s tax exemption. However, Gould noted that his measure is special legislation and could be untied from the Circuit Breaker requirement, in turn allowing more households to qualify and apply.
Town Manager Michael Borg weighed in on the discussion, suggesting the possibility of treating the measure like a small commercial exemption, where the town would shift the increase to the other residents instead of coming out of the overlay budget. This would fund the $1,000 tax exemption by adding approximately $17 a year to North Attleborough residents, but could be moved slightly to businesses as well when the Town Council looks at next year’s tax shift.
“Councilors, I think you have a number of tools here,” said Town Manager Michael Borg. “I think the discussion of criteria is an excellent discussion because you’re establishing where the floor is and targeting a number. I would say that if you could avoid putting this in the overlay, that takes a significant pressure off the budget.”
While Gould initially had his proposal tied to the overlay, he did agree that the tax shift seemed like a better option.
John Simmons, Town Council Vice President, noted that it doesn’t have to be just one thing the council does to help seniors, suggesting a switch from North Attleborough’s current 41C $1,000 real estate tax exemption to a 41D exemption tied to a cost of living adjustment each year. This could also bring tax relief to a wider range of seniors faster than waiting for Gould’s proposal to go through the Home Rule petition process, which requires a vote from Town Council, a vote from the Massachusetts state legislature and then a signature from the governor.
According to Assistant Assessor Cheryl Smith, for Fiscal Year 2024 the maximum income a single person could have to qualify for 41C is $25,834, with assets not to exceed $30,000. For a married couple, the joint income maximum is $48,751, with $55,000 or less in assets. Under this current criteria, families who own multi-family units are typically excluded because rent contributes to their income level, and Smith said she has received a lot of calls from people who make just slightly above the maximum and do not qualify. Right now, it’s only helping about 18 people.
Smith said a shift to 41D would increase the income and asset maximum by 3.4% each year, greatly expanding the pool of people who would qualify for the $1,000 exemption for years down the road. According to Smith, the reception from the Board of Assessors has been favorable and wouldn’t result in a huge change in workload.
“It’s a big change for the people that need it but for us, process wise, it’s not a big deal,” said Smith. “We’re already doing the 41C; we would just have to adapt to how we review the forms.”
Simmons noted that while this may not look like a big deal at first glance, that 3.4% increase compounding year after year would make a huge difference 10 years from now.
“I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t support a move to 41D,” said Simmons. “I just want to make sure we don’t stop this discussion with that.”
Donovan took Wednesday night’s meeting as an opportunity to propose some relief to residents who are not seniors, such as renters. Donovan suggested the adoption of Massachusetts’ Affordable Housing Property Tax Exemption, which was signed into law in 2023, as a way to shield tenants from rent hikes in the case of a property tax increase.
According to the Municipal Financial Law Bureau’s Informational Guideline Release, “For municipalities that accept it, this new tax exemption would apply to the property of residential unit owners who rent their units to income-qualifying persons at affordable rates on a year-round, annual basis.”
According to Donovan, the affordable rate would be determined by the town, and landlords would have to apply annually through the Assessor’s Office. There is no domicile requirement, so it doesn’t have to be owner-occupied, however, North Attleborough could make that a requirement.
“We could create all the criteria in there that we want,” said Borg. “ What I do like about the discussion is it does address a population that has not been well represented before the council and this committee before, and that is the folks that don’t have the capacity to pay a lot. When you see a $1,000 increase (in taxes) on the average home price, that’s going to be passed down to the renters.”
The Finance Subcommittee also discussed the option of a tax freeze, where the amount of taxes a resident pays freezes once they reach a certain age, something that is done in Rhode Island. However, Borg said after speaking with the Massachusetts Department of Revenue he learned it isn’t currently legal in the state, although there are bills going through the legislature to possibly change that. Simmons suggested looking into this further to see if it would be constitutional to freeze the bill charged by the town versus the rate or assessment.
Two motions were made and unanimously passed to move both measures on to further discussion at the Finance Subcommittee’s next meeting on April 2. This will allow the town manager’s office time to gather additional information on census data, median income and other data requested to present to the subcommittee. Simmons set a goal to get a measure in place to present to the Town Council by their April 14 meeting.
