ORDER-2021-79 : AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF MELROSE TO ESTABLISH A MEANS TESTED SENIOR CITIZEN PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.

Transcript (~1 h 11 min @ 8:06)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 7:59 Jeff McNaught: Motion to suspend the rules? Second. Motion to suspend the rules by Councillor Garipay, seconded by President Cinella. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

▶ 8:06 Speaker 1: Chair McNaught? Yes. Vice Chair Eccles? Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councilor McMaster? Yes. Councilor Garipay? Yes. Councilor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councilor Migliorelli? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Thomas? Yes. President Cinella?

▶ 8:34 Jeff McNaught: Yes. 10 yes. The motion passes. The rules are now suspended. And 1st, up this evening we have Order 2021-79, an act authorizing the City of Melrose to establish a means tested senior citizen Property tax exemption, this is offered by the mayor and I believe we have some folks from the administration coming in. Madam clerk bringing in the mayor now.

▶ 9:00 Speaker 1: And Mr may, if you could let me know, actually, I'll just bring everyone in from the administration.

▶ 9:12 Speaker 4: Excuse me good evening everyone. Can you all hear me?

▶ 9:16 Speaker 5: Yes, good evening. I, uh.

▶ 9:22 Speaker 6: I have learned over our year with this that that is always the appropriate way to start one of these presentations. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak. With your indulgence, I'm going to try to offer a few brief remarks

▶ 9:38 Speaker 4: about the whole package that is before you this evening and then turn it over, and of course

▶ 9:44 Paul Brodeur: will be available for questions, but we'll turn it over to the experts within the administration

▶ 9:47 Speaker 4: about how they can um about the nuts and bolts of the program and how and how each piece of it would

▶ 9:55 Speaker 4: work uh going forward so as many of you know i did in fact talk about during the campaign

▶ 10:04 Speaker 6: uh creating a means-tested uh property tax exemption if you will for some of our truly

▶ 10:12 Speaker 6: low-income seniors. And I wish I could say the idea was something that I thought up on my own,

▶ 10:20 Speaker 6: but this is something that I actually, when I was in the legislature, filed on behalf of Donna Wakefield as a home rule petition, and that Senator Lewis and Rep. Lipper-Garabedian

▶ 10:35 Speaker 4: brought across the finish line towards the end of last session. And it is part of, probably the most important part of what we're speaking about this evening, including some additional relief that does not require legislative approval around tax deferral and eligibility,

▶ 10:50 Speaker 6: some relaxing of eligibility therefore.

▶ 10:59 Speaker 4: So, the way, by way of background, I think it's important to know, I've got a bit of a background in in elder services,

▶ 11:15 Speaker 4: And the things that we are concerned about in COVID focus, our particular stressor for our seniors, and particularly for those on fixed incomes, meeting the rising costs of living are very challenging, and Marlowe's is not an inexpensive place to live.

▶ 11:33 Speaker 4: So, during the campaign, we talked a lot about affordability and there's a lot of pieces to that. One of them is simply, you know, being able to.

▶ 11:46 Speaker 6: Pay the bills, and this is something that is designed to help again. Those low low income seniors in particular. To a means tested proc process.

▶ 11:56 Speaker 4: Make sure they can do that help those folks and 1 thing is important to know what white covert has put a particular lens on. This is the.

▶ 12:04 Speaker 6: The mass gerontology Institute, which works out of the University of Massachusetts, Boston campus. Did a study around impact of covert on team is really talked about.

▶ 12:14 Speaker 4: That cohort of folks between 60 and 69.

▶ 12:21 Speaker 6: And the real impact that the economic downturn has had.

▶ 12:27 Speaker 6: Upon that cohort, so it's only justifies not just the, the means tested property tax exemption, but also the lowering of the, the eligibility age and 1 of the other programs.

▶ 12:36 Speaker 4: To 60, and another thing I think is important to point out and, uh.

▶ 12:47 Speaker 4: You all know that seeing some of the progress of some of our prior home will petitions is that I know how important it is to be deliberative and press all to understand.

▶ 12:54 Speaker 4: These impacts, I am delighted to say that many communities.

▶ 12:59 Speaker 6: I've done this before with success, so it is something of a tried and true methodology, but.

▶ 13:05 Speaker 4: Needless to say, the sooner we can get this.

▶ 13:08 Speaker 6: Before the legislature, because should you decide to advance this?

▶ 13:12 Speaker 6: That really just starts the process really at the House of Representatives, potentially the Senate and.

▶ 13:22 Speaker 6: That can be a little bit of a slow process sometimes, and as Mr. Wilcox will tell you later in the presentation, we need to hit certain deadlines within the city so that we can offer that particular form of relief.

▶ 13:34 Speaker 6: So, with that, I very much appreciate your attention. I am very excited to offer this, not just to fulfill a campaign promise, but because it will provide real value to our seniors.

▶ 13:51 Speaker 4: With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Wilcox and Mr. DelaRusso for a more nuts and bolts presentation.

▶ 13:55 Speaker 6: I thank you very much for your consideration.

▶ 13:59 Jeff McNaught: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and for the folks at home, Mr. Wilcox is our city assessor and Mr. DelaRusso is our city auditor. I don't know who's up first, but thank you both also for being here this evening.

▶ 14:14 Speaker 7: Great, thank you. I think I think I'm up. I have most of the presentation and I hope everyone found the presentation very helpful. I took some time as I usually do any time in front of the city council. To kind of sit in your seat and find out what I would want for information. Uh, to make the best decision with with any of these orders. So. The copy of the presentation is on the website. It's also on my website. So, if anyone at home would like to follow this, please go to the assessors web page under proposed tax relief programs and you'll see all of this information. What I'd like to do 1st, is just kind of scroll through and go through the slides that we. We have starting on page 7. And this is the agenda packet. What this is, is just a overall view of what the circuit breaker tax is. The circuit breaker in Massachusetts is an income based tax and what cities and towns are doing is using that as a as a means to to see to add additional tax relief for seniors based on income. So, on on page 7, what it does is all the qualifying information for anyone that is a circuit breaker resident. This would be the thresholds that they, they would have to use as far as the income side. So, all this information would come from the state, it would be part of their income tax kind of filing and they would bring that into us. In total and Melrose, we have about 560 people that take advantage of this. A circuit breaker income tax out of those. Um, there's a certain percentage that own homes and that would qualify for further relief on their taxes. If they rent their unit, they would not qualify. They have to live in the house. And they have to own the house and it has to be their main domicile. So. Um, at least half, if not more of the 560 is renters. So, I think that's very important. I'll get into those numbers in a little. On page, this is income packet page 8. What this is, is this is the qualifications once they pass the qualifications for the state income side. The city of Melrose will qualify the applicant. Based on support information from their income tax credit. They'll validate the age of the resident, the person applying, but also the co applicant. has to turn 60 years of age. They have to own and occupy their house in Melrose for the past 10 consecutive years. So if someone just moves into the city, they would not qualify until they've lived here for 10 consecutive years.

▶ 17:13 Speaker 8: On the local side,

▶ 17:16 Speaker 7: we will validate all of the significant assets. That could be large investment portfolios, it could be a second home, Anything that that we, we deem, you know, a large asset would disqualify an applicant from receiving. As the mayor stated, there is a timeline to get this done. Applications are coming in in August. So, by the time it gets to the state and legislature to approve. If it's after August 1st, we have to push this program out a full year.

▶ 17:55 Speaker 7: That is not leaving me a lot of time to adjust the tax rate and get into appear in front of the board. For the classification here, and so the September 30th deadline is crucial for me getting the tax bills out timely for the 3rd quarter.

▶ 18:14 Speaker 7: On on the next page packet page number 9. What I wanted to do is kind of just show the effects of what is out there for senior relief right now. And where taxes in Melrose are going and where taxes in the state are going. On this graphic at the bottom in green. That is the 41 C currently that's the only tax relief based off of income and assets that the city offers. When I took this position in 2014. we advocated changing this from 700 a year up to a thousand that's where you see the the jump on on the bottom line from 2014 to 2015. um from there if that is maxed out we are at 100 over what the state allows so we are we we don't have a local option to raise that anymore

▶ 19:06 Speaker 7: it is at the max but if you follow this slide as the years go up the the average The average tax bill for the state in red is going up. The average tax bill for the city is going up. And you can see that $1,000 in tax relief is kind of staying flat. So I thought the best place for why do we need this exemption would be right in that middle as things are separated. In 2002, the impact of that tax relief was a lot. I mean, you're looking at about $3,500 a year for taxes and the tax exemption was about $700 of it. Now we're up to about $7,200 annually for taxes and the tax relief is at a thousand. So percentage wise, that's off a little and I think that's common, not just in Melrose but across the Commonwealth. And that's why this program is popular in other municipalities and the Board of Assessors thought it was very important to bring it to the City Council to discuss it and possibly pass it. The next slide that I have up is actually packet page number 10. And that actually puts a dollar amount for how many people would be vetted after we qualify ownership, that it's their main domicile and that they don't have any significant assets. So out of the 562 filers, which was the latest number from the Department of Revenue, we anticipated right around 150. What I wanted to do was add a couple more levels in there to be conservative as far as our estimate and provide you with the information. What happens if we had 180 applicants? What happens if we had 200? So these are all based off of information that came from other communities that have adopted this kind of tax relief. And again, I went on the side of caution to provide this board with very conservative estimates. How do we fund this initiative? This initiative would be a shift in the residential rate. If you go to the next slide, which is packet page 11, this is basically the blueprint on how the city brings in money through taxation. what we have is different classes of property and we have different rates that are applied to each class. This senior means test would be born exclusively in the residential class. So that top line of 91.8139%, that would be where the funding would come. And how do you get the funding? What you would have to do, just as you would do with a residential exemption is you would increase the tax rate to pay for whatever the program costs. Each cent that you raise on the tax rate roughly adds $57,000 to the kitty or the fund for the senior tax relief.

▶ 22:16 Speaker 8: So every time you go up a penny,

▶ 22:18 Speaker 7: you're basically generating an extra $57,000 to pay for this program. And that's what was used in the previous slide to estimate the 25 to $35 for the average single family house. Who has adopted it? I think that at some point in the near future, this is going to be more popular than. The residential exemption, a lot of communities are coming up with legislation. Because of the Max of the 41 C, which is the current senior exemption. Wakefield has done it reading has done it and all throughout the state. Other communities are kind of investigating this and passing local. local options with it. Currently, right now, Senator Lewis and Rep. Lippert-Garabedian have a pending bill up at the State House. I believe that that might take too much time for us to get it passed by this August 1st, if that's the will of the Board. That's why we've kind of drafted our own, but the one that's up on Beacon Hill is very, very similar to the one that we have. And this, this, for me, is probably the most important slide. You know, there's a lot of steps in between from, you know, when the administration comes up with a relief program and when is it enacted.

▶ 23:37 Speaker 7: So, what I wanted to do is kind of share what is needed going forward. The mayor's office came up with this initiative. I thought as a member of the Board of Assessors that we should discuss it in case anyone wanted to have any, you know, votes or opinions on it and what we said is we should push it to the city council this is uh something that's adopted in other communities like melrose and um if the city council adopts it i think that that decision should be made there so um once it passes approval from the city council it goes up to the state house and then to the tax relief in melrose so um the deadline is you know august 1st as far as getting relief for this year if we go past that we'd have to push it off a full calendar year based on kind of how taxes are are calculated in the state of massachusetts so at this point i if anyone has any questions i i don't mind answering it i believe the information that's submitted below it is for another agenda item but i'm happy to answer any questions that

▶ 24:50 Jeff McNaught: you might have mr dolorosa are you going to be speaking on this at all or do you think it's a good time for us to take questions for Mr. Wilcock. Oh, I got it. Sorry. No, yeah, hi,

▶ 25:06 Speaker 7: good evening everyone. Yeah, I think Chris could follow up with questions on the presentation. It does seem pretty detailed and in its own way very clear and precise as typical Chris Wilcock presentations, respectfully. So, but I am here if there's any additional questions. Okay.

▶ 25:29 Jeff McNaught: Okay. I don't have anyone presently in queue. Do we have any questions? All right. One second. Let me take all these down. Hands are flying up. We'll start with Councilor Stewart. If everybody else could please keep their hands up.

▶ 25:46 Robb Stewart: Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Mayor, Mr. DelRusso, and Mr. Wilcock for being here tonight, particularly Mr. Wilcock with your detailed information. A couple of questions. When

▶ 26:01 Speaker 7: you have 10 consecutive years of being a resident, how's that decided? Is that something that's mandated or is that something that you decided within The city, tell me a little bit about that. Yeah, sure. This mirrors a lot of the exemptions that are offered by the state. Some have local options to reduce that for veterans exemptions. But it is not uncommon in the Commonwealth to have a certain years living in a community before you can apply for an exemption.

▶ 26:38 Robb Stewart: Okay, so it is a bit arbitrary, but you're going based on what other

▶ 26:45 Speaker 7: Communities are doing this would be actually in mass general laws. So I don't I don't have them all in front of me. I can. Uh, definitely answer that, but I know there's a local option. To reduce that for veterans, but a lot of the exemptions have a 5 or 10 year. Um, kind of a residency requirement before you can get the benefit of the tax relief.

▶ 27:08 Robb Stewart: In that community, right? Right. Okay. Thank you. The 2nd question that I had is in the. Order print out section 6 states that this act shall be repealed after 3 years of implementation of the exemption. Could you clarify what that means? Does this mean this is only a 3 year term and when it ends so we'll have a bump those 3 years and then goes back down. I believe the intention of that is to have the elected officials at that point review. The program, and to find out if it's working, I believe that's common in all of the local legislation for this type of tax exemption. A lot of these items were mirrored off of. Communities that I've already adopted it. That would be 1 of the items that I believe all the communities have in, but it's a review. Broadband camping might have to answer the legalities of that, but that might be present in other local options. It's not in perpetuity that's reviewed on a 3 year kind of basis. I think you may understand my concern about that. You know, someone. That's 61 years old that pays into this and then they get to 65 and we can take advantage of it and they don't have the option anymore. I think once we put this out there, it needs to be out there. I don't think we can repeal it per se. I don't think that's fair for the community. And I don't just think that, you know, if you look at the lines that are all going up on your graph. I don't think we want to even have a consideration of that dropping back down. So that's something that I would feel more comfortable if that section 6 Was either restated or clarified in terms of what that really means.

▶ 28:59 Speaker 6: Councilor, if I may, I know from my experience. I'll show that with the weight field experience that that was something that.

▶ 29:08 Speaker 6: House and Senate Council insisted on, so I suspect without knowing for sure that that is the sun setting. Is is a requirement to get it through the process and to your point. my expectation would be that once this is once this is created it would routinely be reenacted or potentially tweaked one way you know one way or another but the basic premise would hopefully you know be something that the city would never turn its back on except under the most dire of circumstances

▶ 29:48 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate that clarification. My last question is more just basic understanding. So when we say 150% of match, does this mean that a resident will take advantage of 100% of what state offers and then gets an an additional 150% above and beyond that. So the benefit would be approximately 2,500 in total, or is the benefit in total only 1,500?

▶ 30:22 Speaker 7: Yeah, I can answer that. So on the state side, that would be, that would have to do with the income. So whether it's a credit or a reduction on their income taxes, that's completely separate. This would be completely on the real estate taxes. So there would be an exempted amount up to that $1,500 Or 150% just on the real estate tax. So if you combine income tax and local real estate tax, it would be that total amount. But it is it is 2 separate taxes. 1 is from the state.

▶ 30:58 Robb Stewart: 1 is from the municipality for income. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. chair. I have no more questions.

▶ 31:05 Jeff McNaught: Thank you counselors to it next step. We have counselor Thomas.

▶ 31:13 Cory Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for being here. Members of the administration, Mayor Broder. Mr. Wilcox, thank you so much for this PowerPoint. It's very detailed as usual. So thank you for your expertise in this field. On page, back at page 9, estimated circuit breaker vetted property owners out of the 562 filers. You said a conservative estimate is 150 that will qualify?

▶ 31:45 Speaker 7: That is correct. We used two cases or two cities to get that number. One was Redding and the other one was Wakefield. Other communities like Concord or other Metro West communities would not be comparable in my opinion. That's why I added kind of the conservative larger numbers just to give you the ballpark if we went higher than that.

▶ 32:06 Cory Thomas: Okay, so has anyone dug a little bit deeper into this and crunched our numbers or these just estimates based on the 562.

▶ 32:21 Speaker 7: These are my son's going to practice these are the 562. it was supplied from the Department of revenue. What we did was a percentage roughly 30%. uh based on wakefield's numbers but we don't have the numbers until they start applying we don't know who has significant assets second homes we don't know how this is going to go whether they rent they might have another domicile it might be in a trust that doesn't qualify so to answer the question i would love to go through the numbers i just don't have access to everything right now so we have to use two kind of comfortable communities to come up with 150 but me being conservative on that i'd like to give you at least two bumps up worst case scenario

▶ 33:03 Cory Thomas: sure and do you have the hard numbers from reading in wakefield exemption information is um is uh

▶ 33:07 Speaker 7: confidential i cannot get a handle of those filings i just have to look at the total amount and talk to the administration in both communities and find out how they vetted everything and how Redding's had it up for two years and Wakefield's had one year. So just to find out how they're doing it.

▶ 33:29 Cory Thomas: Sure. Mr. Broder, did you have something you want to say?

▶ 33:33 Speaker 4: Yes. To Mr. Wilcox's point,

▶ 33:40 Speaker 4: folks need to understand that this is a benefit that you would apply for,

▶ 33:50 Speaker 6: And we would expect to market it aggressively and we'll obviously have the office available to help folks. Navigate the application process, and we do have a pretty good analysis of how we expect it to play out.

▶ 34:07 Speaker 6: Based on the reading and wake field experiences, but to Chris's point until we actually go through it. You know, we anticipate 150 people if for whatever reason. only 120 follow through on the process then there'll be less of an impact

▶ 34:22 Speaker 6: but yeah i want to make it clear with with all the initiatives that that you'll be considering tonight we will be marketing them or explaining them aggressively to our seniors to make sure that they have every opportunity to take advantage mr mayor thank you and mr wilcox thank you very

▶ 34:36 Cory Thomas: much uh you know for including you know that lower number as well you know you can see with the um estimated effect for each single family home and how it goes down and up so thank you for again for

▶ 34:53 Jeff McNaught: the information you provided thank you all thank you councillor thomas next we have councillor

▶ 35:01 Shawn M. MacMaster: mcmaster thank you mr chairman thank you mayor broder for being here thank you mr wilcock mr wilcock uh you mentioned that uh the port of the sester's uh decided not to make a recommendation on this is that unusual um for the last three years i dodge all tax policy questions

▶ 35:19 Speaker 7: as a full-time employee i don't believe it's the business of myself or the board of assessors to get into tax policy so the decision was made to put it in front of the city council to make that decision we wanted to put it in front of this board because it was accepted in communities surrounding us and that's kind of the only decision except for the 41c has not kept up with where taxation is going in Melrose and across the state.

▶ 35:53 Shawn M. MacMaster: Thank you. You mentioned that you looked at Redding and Wakefield. Can you just give some more specifics about what exactly it is that you looked at when considering those

▶ 36:04 Speaker 7: two communities yeah um what we're looking at is one how how hard is it to administer the program what is the what is the cost what is the process so um we also looked at how many applicants based on the numbers that they received from the state which we did with the 562 what percentage would they would apply and what percentage would get it granted. So 30% is a conservative higher estimate at 150, and that was from both of the communities. Concord does also have it, but again, their program is a little different and I believe the makeup of that community is a little different. So the 150 came from roughly 30% of the applicants from the two years in Redding and the one year in Wakefield.

▶ 36:58 Shawn M. MacMaster: So, if we stick with that 150 number, have we attempted to forecast what this might look like in 3 years, 5 years or 10 years.

▶ 37:09 Speaker 7: As far as the impact yes.

▶ 37:12 Speaker 8: The, the impact would be hard to to.

▶ 37:18 Speaker 7: Let me give you the best example 5 years ago. I didn't think that the average price for a single family house. Melrose would be at 650. It's extremely hard to forecast. I can take averages and put that out there, but we've had a dramatic increase in properties. Any developments would impact that. Any changes, including override, CPA, anything would impact that.

▶ 37:49 Speaker 7: I'm happy to provide just a basic trend forward, but I want the understanding that that's in a perfect world. And I think that Melrose is an example, just based on the assessed values of things can happen. Once the real estate market really goes up, all of those kind of forecasts is kind of thrown out. But I can trend something and I can provide that for you. That's not a problem.

▶ 38:16 Speaker 6: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I suspect without knowing, with 100% surety, because I have not spoken directly to House Council or Senate Council for a long time on this, I think that's one of the reasons why there is a sunset provision baked in because it is very hard to project out

▶ 38:34 Shawn M. MacMaster: over the long term what the impact might be. So beyond assessment forecasts, I'm just wondering about demographic forecasts. I was glad to see that the mayor looked to data from the Gerontology Institute at the McCormick Graduate School. I'm an alum of McCormick, so it was nice to see that data being used at the local level. But that 150 number is not a fixed number, meaning that that number will change when the population changes. And we do know that the 60 plus population continues to increase. So, I'm wondering that 25 to 35 dollars right now that the shift in the, in the tax burden that will presumably increase when the population of residents who qualify for this.

▶ 39:26 Speaker 8: Increases that fair to say, yeah, if I could just back up 1, 2nd on the 3, 3 year kind of re, look.

▶ 39:30 Speaker 7: The, the adjustment that's given out could increase or decrease. So that 150 is 150% is adjustable. We could go down to allow more people to come in or go up if it's not a popular program. So that is 1 of the things that in future years, based on the demographics and based on any of the financials of the city, we can adjust. So I would, I would echo what the mayor said that it's actually good to review that every 3 years to see if there's any major changes in the city.

▶ 40:02 Shawn M. MacMaster: And then my, my final question on this particular item is how will applicants be vetted? How are we going to. Determine who qualifies understanding that there's a lot that actually goes into looking at that.

▶ 40:17 Speaker 7: Yeah, and that would solely fall on my department right now. I have 2 employees that review about 300. um uh exemptions based on uh veterans exemptions senior exemptions uh widow exemptions line all different kind of exemptions so we have a very good process we also at least annually or biannually uh have a course by the department of revenue um with with very detailed information uh any igrs that come out from the state we look at and we're members of the massachusetts assessing Association, which constantly trains all of assessing staff across the Commonwealth. So we have a very good process that we would follow that's a state process and we constantly try and make it better every year.

▶ 41:09 Shawn M. MacMaster: So you feel as if you have the capacity in place in the infrastructure already to look at this and do the work that needs to get done because it's being done in other areas right

▶ 41:22 Speaker 7: now i believe if it's the will of this board to pass it we will find a way to get everything done it's a very similar process to vetting all the current exemptions um i've spoken with my staff and and we we will take this home thank you mr wilcox thank you maine broder next we have

▶ 41:43 Leila Migliorelli: council mcgleer ellie thank you mr chairman and um thank you so much um to uh chris mr wilcox and um Mayor Broder, Mr. DellaRusso, but particularly Mr. Wilcock, this presentation is excellent. It's nice having information presented in an easily digestible way, very clear, and just walking us through it was really helpful. Many of my questions have been asked already, although I don't think anyone's asked the income eligibility level to qualify for the Circuit Breaker Program. is that is that has that been covered or is that um public information yes it is um if you go to

▶ 42:25 Speaker 7: slide i'm sorry it is stamped packet page seven um that's the threshold um from the state so um to go back to the previous question all the vetting for the income side would actually be done from the state so half of the work would already be done before the applicant came to the assessor's office so that's half the work compared to another exemption that we would take in normally

▶ 42:48 Leila Migliorelli: okay thank you um and then um mayor broder i didn't know if you one of my questions was going to be about how this was going to be marketed and um whether you know seniors will have assistance in completing the application um didn't know if you want to elaborate on that at

▶ 43:07 Speaker 4: all in terms of who you think you'd be assisting with that sure i would love to um so in the in

▶ 43:30 Speaker 6: In past years, I think it's a fairly recent development, but the city would have essentially organized sessions, maybe one or two sessions where we would make the staff available to literally almost have like a benefits fair related to seniors and some of the other discount programs and walk them through what they might qualify for.

▶ 43:38 Speaker 6: and how they might go about that process it works terrifically well the one caveat

▶ 43:44 Speaker 6: that i know about from some of my past experiences that is a really good start but you also have to

▶ 43:52 Speaker 4: give folks whenever they're discussing financial matters you also have to be able to kind of talk

▶ 43:57 Speaker 6: to them off to the side because they obviously don't want to uh for very good reason ask questions about their own particular financial situation in public either because you know they

▶ 44:12 Speaker 6: I don't want to share the information. Some folks, quite frankly, are, are shy about claiming these kinds of benefits. They don't think. Particularly with with the older generation, I say it's respectfully.

▶ 44:24 Speaker 6: They don't always take advantage of benefits that they've earned because they feel like it's it's for someone else. So they shouldn't do that.

▶ 44:29 Speaker 4: Um, how we do that in cobit.

▶ 44:37 Speaker 4: Hopefully, we will, we will be out of this and be able to communicate effectively. Um, but we are prepared if need be.

▶ 44:41 Speaker 6: If we decide it's the most effective way to go, we can certainly do a mailing. To all senior property owners, that's 1 thing that I know Mr. Wilcox.

▶ 44:53 Speaker 6: Can do very, very effectively is is target mail or target communications. To folks that are very likely to be eligible for particular benefits, or if if we determine the need, the best way to approach it is.

▶ 45:04 Speaker 6: Literally a mailing or contact to. Everyone over 60 over 65 was certainly prepared, but it's prepared to do that. But we, we definitely want to take a kind of multimedia multi platform approach to make sure we're reaching folks.

▶ 45:22 Speaker 1: Okay, thank you. That's it for now. Next we have council Grigoraitis.

▶ 45:29 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, Mr. chairman and thank you all for being here and just to tag on to the idea of Mr. Wilcox and his department being a great emissary for the city to our seniors. I know when things shut down almost a year ago, 1 of the 1st calls I got was from an elderly resident who had needed to fill out some. Property tax forms didn't have a computer hadn't had a chance to do it before city hall had completely shut down and Mr. Wilcox staff drove those forms to her house, had her fill them out and then leave them in her front door and pick them back up. So. I just want folks to know that we really do have city staff that go the extra mile and thank you for that. My question is related to cobit, which is that. Um, this program, like, so many other things relies on previous year tax returns and I think for those folks who have had a real. Severe and immediate drop in income that's current like, that's not reflected reflected in their 2019 tax return. For example, that's something that's taken effect. Since the pandemic hit, so are there other programs or things that the city is looking to do while we await the hopeful passage of this by the state legislature forward to help our seniors as we're still in this pandemic.

▶ 46:45 Speaker 7: The things that I'm going to speak on are actually exemptions. So I have a very. Defined kind of role with that in the tax side. I don't know from there would want to comment about anything, maybe outside of property tax relief. Not necessarily. I mean, we do have a.

▶ 47:08 Speaker 4: Um, a couple other, um. Programs or innovations, if you will, that were that, um.

▶ 47:17 Speaker 6: Where 1, which we will before you, I think on Monday around. Expanding the council on aging, which I'll be very brief, because we'll be speaking about that later.

▶ 47:29 Speaker 6: But there is a great deal of interest from our CEO, a director states, and the current members of the board and the community quite frankly.

▶ 47:36 Speaker 6: To increase that body to a, to.

▶ 47:42 Speaker 6: Lighten the workload a little bit, but also to recognize the diversity of experience is in backgrounds that.

▶ 47:49 Speaker 6: seniors bring to the table across the Commonwealth, but also here in Melrose.

▶ 47:53 Speaker 4: Another thing that we are doing, and I really want to cite

▶ 48:01 Speaker 4: Councilor Jamaleddine for this, is that we are going to be reinstituting and expanding the role

▶ 48:14 Speaker 6: of the social worker in Melrose. You all know for some amount of time we had a social worker

▶ 48:18 Speaker 4: on staff the milano center regrettably only staffed for five hours a week that service

▶ 48:22 Speaker 6: essentially went away the the person providing that service unfortunately passed away and

▶ 48:31 Speaker 6: we want we want to essentially turn that back on and not to go into too much detail but this is a good vehicle because it doesn't require an order at the present time is we have

▶ 48:45 Speaker 6: of through the grace and generosity of the Friends of the Milano Senior Center,

▶ 48:51 Speaker 4: we have arrived at an agreement whereby the Friends have agreed to fund

▶ 48:56 Speaker 6: an 18-hour week position out of the Senior Center to provide social work, to provide a social worker, ideally a licensed social worker,

▶ 49:06 Speaker 4: and that will turn on July 1st.

▶ 49:10 Speaker 6: The basic parameters of that deal are,

▶ 49:11 Speaker 4: They have agreed to pay for all of year 1. The city, the city of the friends will split the cost. Evenly in year 2, and then the city will take on the entire cost.

▶ 49:23 Speaker 6: In year 3, so it gives us an ability to. To ramp up to it within the budget to covering a full cost of the position.

▶ 49:33 Speaker 4: The most exciting part as we talked about it.

▶ 49:39 Speaker 4: uh and recognizing um the stress that seniors are under and the lack of service because

▶ 49:44 Speaker 6: things like congregate meals and such have gone away um the seniors always face challenges of

▶ 49:51 Speaker 6: isolation and that has certainly become exacerbated uh under covid so we had we wanted to try to

▶ 50:04 Speaker 4: figure out a way to bring the social worker service online before july 1st uh and the good

▶ 50:12 Speaker 4: The good news is this, and one of the reasons why you're not going to see an order is because the money is already built into the current budget, because we, in our collective wisdom, maintain the funding for the 5-hour week position.

▶ 50:33 Speaker 4: And that money is still available and will allow us to bridge that gap to July. So we expect to post that position next week and bring that

▶ 50:42 Speaker 6: Bring that service online as soon as we go through the hiring process and find a qualified applicant. And I, again, I want to stress, you know, we talked earlier today. During this meeting about campaigns and campaign promises. And again, I say, counsel, the because she spoke about this.

▶ 50:54 Speaker 4: During the campaign and absolutely has not let it go. Really in any conversation we've had about.

▶ 51:06 Speaker 6: City departments, city planning, and what is the out of the possible in terms of our.

▶ 51:09 Speaker 4: Financial situation, and through her persistence and some terrific work by.

▶ 51:13 Speaker 6: Station and shallow and Patrick.

▶ 51:22 Speaker 4: We're going to be able to bring that online at a, at a.

▶ 51:26 Speaker 6: You know, at an expanded level compared to what we contemplated in the budget and we're going to be able to move it forward. Couldn't be more excited to offer that.

▶ 51:34 Speaker 6: That that service, it'll be out of the senior center will certainly serve seniors.

▶ 51:38 Speaker 4: But it will be available to the entire community.

▶ 51:47 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, Mr. I didn't know you had said you had some stuff about exemption. I don't want to.

▶ 51:55 Speaker 7: Cut you off. Yeah. Yeah. So, as far as the defined benefits or the exemptions that we have, they are by law, they do have an income. threshold. We cannot go above that. A couple of them we can raise, and one of those orders is before you for the 41A. I don't know if this is the appropriate time to talk about it, but we are adding a cost of living to some of our programs. It's not a lot this year. It was roughly 2.3%, but what it hopefully will do is kind of keep up with the times and keep up with inflation. But we are very restricted, unfortunately, based on income Through the state programs, that's why the seniors senior means test is gaining in popularity across.

▶ 52:41 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, I appreciate hearing from both of you and as someone who works in human services, the idea of wrap around services where we're making sure that we're not just providing. You know, 1 exemption, but not looking for other places of connectivity to provide populations with assistance is is really great to hear. So I'm appreciative that we're taking such a holistic approach. Thank you. I don't have any further questions.

▶ 53:05 Jeff McNaught: Next, we have Vice Chair Eccles.

▶ 53:09 Jack Eccles: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to bring some attention to the time-sensitive nature of this for reference, the last home rule, which was the first thing that many of us voted for for the first time in our first council meeting, took about a year to work its way through. Obviously, that was bridged with the beginning of COVID. Mr. Wilcox, what do you think is the latest you could get a signature on this in a go-ahead for this to work and any risk there to the state?

▶ 53:46 Speaker 7: I would say that I am not an expert at Beacon Hill. I do believe we have someone in the meeting that might be able to estimate that a little better. I would hope it would be as soon as possible, but I really don't have a basis to make that assumption, unfortunately. I don't know if the Mayor would like to answer that.

▶ 54:11 Speaker 4: I can make my best guess, and that is, it would be a guess. I want to make sure,

▶ 54:15 Speaker 6: Councillor Anderson, your question. Are you asking how long it will take to get through

▶ 54:23 Speaker 6: Beacon Hill and get the Governor's signature on it, or are you asking how much time does Mr. wilcox needs once that happens to turn on the system i guess both i mean mostly just you know

▶ 54:30 Jack Eccles: what's what's the latest date that it's no longer feasible for tax year 22 right so from the from

▶ 54:40 Speaker 4: the legislative perspective you know every session is is new there's a there's a you know there's a

▶ 54:54 Speaker 6: As a new speaker, the 1 piece of good news is this in terms of the body is at least on the house side. I'm not sure on the Senate side. The last session, the chair of revenue was new to the committee. And so I had to get himself up to speed on a lot of these initiatives and.

▶ 55:08 Speaker 4: I can tell you that 1st focus comes tends to be on.

▶ 55:13 Speaker 6: Bigger more broad based issues and sometimes the local.

▶ 55:18 Speaker 6: Home rule stuff tends to not be front and center. Uh, but the fact that, uh, chairman has been through this once.

▶ 55:27 Speaker 6: It was his committee, or he chaired the committee.

▶ 55:29 Speaker 4: That dealt with the Wakefield.

▶ 55:38 Speaker 6: Petition, so I'm hoping that because the consistency in the, at least on the outside for chair and staff. That this will be able to move a little bit quicker than the way field petitioned it.

▶ 55:46 Speaker 7: And I can add as far as the application process, I'm sorry, I didn't really understand the beginning of that. So, as far as the slide, if you go to kind of our approval process. The tax relief and Melrose August 1st is kind of where where we need to be that allows. About 2 months for for residents to apply for this and it also that's not a lot of time for me to prepare the numbers for the new tax rate and get all the assessments. So there's a lot of things that are happening in the fall, but August 1st, as far as when can we enact this? I would hope that it will be signed by the state and the governor before that time. August 1st is kind of my deadline based on this program. Anything pass that. I don't think I'd be able to get everything done. that has to get done in the fall, unfortunately. So August 1st. I'm sorry, September 30th is the last date. August 1st will be the first date.

▶ 56:46 Jack Eccles: Thank you. And then my other question is, can seniors who are income eligible also kind of double dip with the tax work off program as well? So could someone get up to you know, $2,500 in tax relief in a year if they did the full work off, which I think is $1,000 or

▶ 57:08 Speaker 7: $1,500? Yeah, so I can give you kind of the most tax relief that an applicant could qualify for. So starting with the 41c, that would be $1,000 off their taxes. If they qualified and they work, the senior work off program is a work program. So they would have to put in 80 to 90 hours, depending on what the hourly rate was that year. And then they could also qualify for this. So you could be up to $3,500 off of that $7,200 for total taxation.

▶ 57:44 Jack Eccles: Awesome. Thank you. I think most of my other questions were answered. I'm glad to see that we're going to do a lot to make sure that eligible people know that they can enroll.

▶ 57:56 Jeff McNaught: Thank you. Councillor Shimala-Dean.

▶ 58:00 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Chairman. I would like to echo my fellow councillors on thanking you about this great presentation. It's such a beneficial and it helps many of us better understand this program. Mayor Broder, you brought very important point that many of our seniors either they are unaware of they won't be aware of this uh program or they are they don't feel comfortable to take to benefit from it um how what is our plan to uh you know to reach out to them and to invite them to benefit from uh this program it's uh it's a little bit concerning that I would probably feel a large number would not put this effort so I wanted to take your opinion on how can we campaign to invite more seniors benefit from that sure and Chris might be I'm still

▶ 59:20 Speaker 4: excuse me, Mr. Wilcox might be able to talk a little bit about how we can identify people with some specificity.

▶ 59:30 Speaker 6: But, you know, this idea of the challenges of engagement, I want folks to understand, aren't just relevant to this particular topic.

▶ 59:41 Speaker 6: uh you know i've done a little bit of work in scam prevention and helping people that have

▶ 59:44 Speaker 4: been victims of scams um and this is kind of true across the board that folks you know they when you

▶ 59:51 Speaker 6: when you talk to them about say a credit card scam or giving out information over the telephone a lot of times the folks in the audience will nod their heads and you'll ask anyone if they have any questions and no one has any questions and you say oh well i'll stick around for a few minutes just in case you know and inevitably the line forms right and folks want to talk about their their

▶ 1:00:17 Speaker 4: particular thing um you know mindful that we do have folks um that don't want to share their

▶ 1:00:25 Speaker 4: stories and quite frankly mindful of folks that might not want to come to a session at the senior

▶ 1:00:32 Speaker 6: center or um you know a forum like that we will do our best to communicate by some more traditional

▶ 1:00:40 Speaker 6: means be it um you know cheaply cheaply i suspect you know a mailing of some kind be it a postcard or quite frankly a more comprehensive mailing the trick of course is you want to provide as

▶ 1:00:53 Speaker 6: much information as possible but also make sure it's digestible you know if we give up a almost

▶ 1:00:58 Speaker 6: like you know a flow chart of how you count your assets that might intimidate people away All right, this is too complicated. I'm not going to deal with it. So, yeah, we're going to do our best again to make sure we kind of get all those notes and try to reach people where they're at in terms of that right amount of information. Information and Mr. look, I don't know if any more thoughts about, you know, specifically target a mailing or some kind of communication. So we are mailing at the parents of school age children or something like that.

▶ 1:01:38 Speaker 7: Which would be delivered more. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, we do have the voter registration that does have data tied to it. So, we do have some correspondence in the city clerks department, or in voter registration that has dates in it that we can provide some target mailings. We also have the reverse 911 kind of call system that we can do a broad message over. But to answer the question, it's going to be a lot of a lot of different media, whether it's in mail, whether it's a phone call, working with a senior center.

▶ 1:02:11 Speaker 7: As much as I'd like to build up my website, I know that sometimes that's not popular with certain groups of residents, but everything will be there also. So, as long as we, we have a active way of getting the information. All the way out through multiple things and work with the Council on Aging. I think that's the best approach. I was here during the senior benefit, the senior benefit fairs that we called them and they started about 2 or 3 years ago. obviously with the state of COVID that's not really realistic now. So we'll have to go to some kind of letter or

▶ 1:02:47 Speaker 8: call unfortunately when things are safer, when things are better.

▶ 1:02:51 Speaker 7: The senior benefits fair was very very well attended and I think everyone appreciated having all the departments kind of lined up so that they could get all the benefits at once. And some people walked away with just paperwork and maybe they didn't qualify that year but next year when they did qualify they would come in or they would actually bring in their neighbor so word about from those events or any events really does go uh a long way i do know that properties um for instance like the melrose towers have uh bulletin boards that's another way that we could target kind of um our elderly uh residents that might live in those towers so um i will work with the administration to get the word out with the proven restrictions

▶ 1:03:35 Speaker 4: and after if i could follow up just a little bit because one of the things we've been talking about is how this is kind of tried and true and the good news is um you know with the with the exception

▶ 1:03:48 Speaker 6: of certain athletic activities we have a tremendous relationship with our with our friends in wakefield that have been through this already the same thing is true of reading but certainly the wakefield connection is strong and we will certainly learn from what they've done well and

▶ 1:04:02 Speaker 6: we'll learn from their mistakes they've been very generous uh with their time in terms of

▶ 1:04:09 Speaker 6: you know their experience on the on the impact side we haven't talked a ton about how they did

▶ 1:04:17 Speaker 6: their outreach uh but i would expect we'll be able to tap them for a lot of good information as well

▶ 1:04:22 Maya Jamaleddine: Great. Thank you. One thought from my own experience, many of the applications, whether insurance applications or benefits for seniors, they would ask their case manager to fill it for them. So in the language that you probably wanted to use, it would be good if you can you know encourage to ask their you know case manager to help them or social worker to help them because I'm sure many of this population they would have someone to support them through different agencies. I know as well that phones sometimes it would scare many of our seniors because they will be afraid of you know uh spams or anything so this is something that we always take into consideration um my last question was to you if um you mentioned about uh you know other cities and communities did five to ten years um uh to be eligible for this program so they have to be resident for five consecutive years or ten consecutive years. How can we make any changes or can we suggest to make it five years or is it something that is determined? And the reason why I'm asking that is because we always have the language of you are the old Merozian, I've lived here for 10 years or for 20 years and you just came into Maros so that would make the new people who no residents feel that not welcomed so this is something that also I wanted to be considered about because I want people to feel that when they come to Maros they belong here and when we We tell them you did not live enough in Meadows to benefit from this program. It's like telling them that you don't belong anymore to that old town that you came from and you don't belong to this community anymore. So, I am suggesting if we can do it in 5 years, but I'm not sure if this is an option.

▶ 1:07:00 Speaker 7: I believe the board can discuss it since it's not a state program. I believe there's a little more flexibility. I would have to ask Robin camping if there's any state law that would will prevent us from going to 5 years. Um, but with a local option, I believe a lot of stuff is on the table. Um, compared to something that's rigid and mass generalize. I can follow up with Robin camping on that.

▶ 1:07:25 Speaker 4: Part of part of what goes into this quite frankly is. Is pricing because, uh, you know, as Mr Wilcox said, and as was pointed out in public participation, this is essentially a 0, some game.

▶ 1:07:40 Speaker 4: Benefit meaning for every dollar and benefit.

▶ 1:07:50 Speaker 6: That we provide a relief, um, we're asking the residential taxpayers that do not qualify. uh to pay a little bit more you know and this is designed really for folks

▶ 1:08:03 Speaker 6: that um the i think part of the presumption if you've been here 10 years have been paying

▶ 1:08:06 Speaker 4: it's likely that you know you have paid in and you have that uh

▶ 1:08:14 Speaker 6: you know you you didn't have the affordability problem and you want to stay which is a little

▶ 1:08:23 Speaker 6: bit of a different type of benefit than offering something to a shorter term resident that might

▶ 1:08:32 Speaker 6: be an incentive to move in in the first place essentially so you know it is designed intentionally to be a benefit for folks who have got do have almost like a bigger social equity stake and so we you know I think that's why other other cities and towns kind of did it the same way and while the model state law that hasn't passed yet is also kind of calibrated on the same

▶ 1:09:04 Maya Jamaleddine: on the same formula if you will okay thank you i'm done with my question thank you

▶ 1:09:11 Mark Garipay: councillor Garipay thank you mr chairman thank you mr mayor mr delarusso and mr wilcock as always thank you for your time and your detailed information um on the 41c how many how many residents do we currently have that take it take advantage of that program currently the the range

▶ 1:09:33 Speaker 7: is about 40 residents that take advantage of that right now um unfortunately the demographic does change quite a bit um uh depending on you know you're getting into aging population so we could have 61 here and 40 so i would say anywhere from 40 to 60 is the range since i've been here since

▶ 1:09:50 Mark Garipay: 2014. and i know that um the criteria to qualify is a little bit different where one i believe the state circuit breaker is based on ink um your ink of tax in in the 41c takes i believe into consideration assets based on what i saw here would there be a um is it is it safe to assume

▶ 1:10:16 Speaker 8: that the 40 to 60 people would also qualify for both yeah uh so the income for the 41c for a

▶ 1:10:21 Speaker 7: single stops right at 20 000. so if someone makes more than that they would not qualify for the 41c if this order was passed they would qualify for the next level which would be the circuit breaker

▶ 1:10:35 Speaker 7: senior senior means uh qualification so right right a dollar over the the maximum income for the 41c they would not qualify even though they made less than the state circuit breaker kind of tax relief so there is a block of people that would not qualify for anything local right now

▶ 1:10:52 Mark Garipay: get that sorry i should have caught that um how how did we uh determine or come up with 150 not 100 or 75 if you can just give us a little uh your thought process on on coming up with that

▶ 1:11:10 Speaker 7: Number sure, the best way to do it is to start with what this circuit breaker amount is for the city. And then to identify other other communities that are like. Melrose and ask them after years of going through the program, what their percentages are based on. Uh, being like Melrose, the amount was roughly 30%, which is the 150. but again, I added 2 levels above that just to show. If it was 32% of 35%, these are kind of the bumps up. So I assume it would be right around 150, but I provided a high end. All the way up to 200, just in case we, we saw more people qualify and models and we thought.

▶ 1:11:57 Mark Garipay: Okay, um, and then on the 41, see, is that is that a program that all communities have, like, uh, reading and Wakefield to adopted this, uh, the, uh, local circuit breaker. Do they also have a 41 C program?

▶ 1:12:17 Speaker 7: The 41 C is a state program 351 municipalities have it across the state. There's local options, depending on whether it's a 1000 dollars, it starts at 500 dollars. on this cost of living adjustments is a couple changes, which we've already adopted in previous years. So we've pretty much maxed out on the benefit of that, but it is a state program and every city in the Commonwealth does qualify to run that.

▶ 1:12:46 Mark Garipay: Okay, thank you. I think a lot of my questions have been answered and you answered them in our conversation, but I think I would like to follow up on, Councilor Grigoraitis had mentioned, had asked about maybe additional programs. So this may be, this is probably a question for the mayor. Do you have any programs or potential capital projects in the future that results in additional tax shifts or additional debt exclusion or taxes To the, uh, for the community, do you have anything coming down the road that would result? I mean, we've heard people talk about the CPA and other things. So. I just trying to get trying to get an idea on that. If you have something, thank you.

▶ 1:13:41 Speaker 4: The short answer is no, no plans at the present to advance anything like that, but certainly not not this fiscal year for sure. Or the upcoming fiscal year.

▶ 1:13:57 Speaker 9: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it.

▶ 1:14:01 Jeff McNaught: Do I have any other councils for the 1st time?

▶ 1:14:06 Christopher Cinella: President, thank you. Thank you guys again for for being here. Just clarity around what's considered significant as far as assets go. And we're looking at qualified assets, non qualified as far as. IRAs 401ks you're going to be using more of like a Medicaid approach as far as assets go

▶ 1:14:32 Speaker 7: yeah what we'll do is as the mayor said we're working with Wakefield and Reading to define what exactly that is this is tax relief for someone that can't afford to live in their house if their assets you know if there's a second home that would definitely disqualify a million dollars in the bank that would disqualify um what we're trying to do is someone uh provide relief for someone that really is in need um and the board of assessors and my staff will come up with an approach to it but just because someone has an investment account and that's their only income stream i don't think that they should uh technically uh be aggrieved by this if they have no other source of income and they're kind of whittling that down that would be an example if we put a threshold just on investments that that person wouldn't qualify so there's a lot of different kind of residents and scenarios and the board would like the flexibility of looking at is that person agreed um and we will have something like i said second homes large amounts

▶ 1:15:40 Speaker 7: and savings that uh and additional revenue sources uh we would factor that out but i believe wakefield has put out and we probably would mirror it a a very detailed kind of list and and we would review it and then they would also have the opportunity to appeal it or ask us to review it again

▶ 1:15:56 Christopher Cinella: and would there be a look back for anyone that may have sheltered assets in a like an irrevocable trust under a separate tax id i mean i don't think somebody would trust to try to save you know two grand if they had a significant portfolio but

▶ 1:16:18 Speaker 8: I've pretty much seen it all in my career so yeah and we go through about 300 applications

▶ 1:16:22 Speaker 7: for exemptions every year we disqualify people for stuff that's in the application and then stuff that we find out we're doing our own due diligence I would say that our staff working with department of revenue knows most of those places where people you know hide things if there's no

▶ 1:16:42 Speaker 7: source of income and they're paying for things well that you know we have to ask questions uh we err on the side of caution we provide more than enough time for them to supply information but that is a judgment kind of call that we we do all the time we've been doing for a long time in our office with other exemptions so what we would do is mirror that process it is a good thing that we don't have to validate the income side that one's a little harder assets businesses are usually in someone's name second homes are in some someone's name so we do have processes to review it but you know even the processes now I mean we they sign under pains pains of perjury you know there's a legal ramification for filling out fraudulent information and we would forward that appropriately if we found it out so um we would whatever the guidelines are the state to uh state department of revenue to validate information for income

▶ 1:17:48 Jeff McNaught: and assets we would follow those thank you do i have uh i suppose um there are no more questions i don't see any hands up i don't think i've missed anyone for the first time With no hands being raised, what is the will of the committee?

▶ 1:18:05 Speaker 10: Motion to recommend. Second.

▶ 1:18:08 Jeff McNaught: Did I have Councillor Tramontozzi motion to recommend? Okay. Thank you. Motion to recommend for passage by Councillor Tramontozzi, seconded by Councillor Migliorelli. On discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

▶ 1:18:26 Speaker 1: Chair McNaught? Yes. Vice Chair Eccles? Yes. Yes. Councilor Tramontozzi? Yes. Councilor McMaster? Yes. Councilor Garipay? Yes. Councilor Grigoraitis? Yes. Councilor Migliorelli? Yes.

▶ 1:18:49 Speaker 3: Councilor Stewart? Yes.

▶ 1:18:50 Speaker 1: Councilor Thomas? Yes.

▶ 1:18:55 Speaker 1: Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. President Sinella? Yes. 11 yes.