ORDER-2021-81 : AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF MELROSE TO REGULATE CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ELDERLY

Transcript (~18 min @ 1:20:38)

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

▶ 1:20:37 Speaker 1: Councilor Thomas? Yes. Councilor Jamaleddine? Yes. President Cinella?

▶ 1:20:47 Jeff McNaught: Yes. 11 yes. Motion passes. Next we have order 2021-81. an act authorizing the city of Melrose to regulate certain property tax exemption eligibility requirements for the elderly also sponsored by the mayor Mr. Wilcock

▶ 1:21:14 Speaker 7: will you be speaking okay yes I will as far as the the local options on this I believe this is referring to 41a which is our referral program this would be an increase of the income from from 40,000 to 60,000, which would allow more people to defer tax bills, water and sewer bills, and trash fees until they sell the house. So 40,000 was a number that was used for a long time. 60,000 is more of today's number. By a local option, we can increase it up to 61,000.

▶ 1:21:55 Speaker 8: The other item would be to rate to lower the age from 65 years of age to 60 years of age for people to qualify.

▶ 1:21:57 Speaker 7: So, if someone qualifies for any exemption, the remaining balance of their taxes, do that, they're able to defer on that property up to 50% of the total value of that property until they sell it. Where they pass away, this is this is a legislation to keep people in their houses and defer their tax. Payments until until something happens with the ownership of lives.

▶ 1:22:29 Jeff McNaught: Thank you. Mr. Wilcox does. Do any counselors have any questions on this order? Counselor McMaster Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

▶ 1:22:39 Shawn M. MacMaster: Mr. Wilcox, how many residents currently qualify for the deferment program that we, that we have.

▶ 1:22:47 Speaker 7: Right now, we're about 10 or 12. It's a low number.

▶ 1:22:56 Shawn M. MacMaster: And with respect to reducing the age to 60, just going back to the demographic data, what worries me here is that our 60 plus population as of today is at about 7,000 residents in Melrose. And that's a 17% increase since 2010. If you look at the projections for 2030, nine years from now, our 60 plus population will jump to 8,000 residents, which will be 28% of our population. So between 2010 and 2030, that's a 32.3% increase in the 60 plus population during that period of time. Just wondering with more residents qualifying for the deferment, can we handle or can we handle an associated loss in revenue? I mean, I would expect it's a deferment. We're going to capitalize on it at some point, but as more people qualify, what might the impact be in the short term on the city in terms of revenue loss?

▶ 1:24:06 Speaker 7: Yeah, I'm happy to answer that. You're absolutely correct. It is a deferment as far as payments coming in. Currently, right now, the percentage rate is four and a half percent. So, the city would be accruing four and a half percent simple interest. On anything that's deferred personally, I don't think it's a popular program. With seniors, they, I don't know if it's a trust factor. It's never been something that's been popular in any of the communities I've worked in. Um, I don't see a major shift. I've been in other communities that have reduced the age and increased it.

▶ 1:24:44 Speaker 7: And the net effect is not that much. It's. It's a trust factor. It's they want to leave their house free and clear when they sell it. Um, but I, 1 thing I want to let the board know is. I do have residents every year that call me that that haven't worked. for a while based on maybe disability, and they are trying to stay in their house and they're at the lower end of a defined senior. Two in particular are right at that threshold that call every year, are we adopting something, has something come up? So I don't really have anything to answer to them right now, but I know if the age was lower that those two people that are on either SSDI or are not really working anymore, could stay in their house and defer the taxes um in until they they sold the house

▶ 1:25:38 Speaker 4: mr chairman if you don't mind that's the i want to hone in on one particular point because i

▶ 1:25:46 Speaker 6: believe mr wilcox you asked how many people are eligible not how many people take advantage

▶ 1:25:49 Speaker 4: um two different questions because you can tell the the take-up rate is very low for the reasons

▶ 1:25:58 Speaker 6: that mr wilcock explained so you you won't see even though there is a lot of eligibility

▶ 1:26:02 Paul Brodeur: uh potentially the take-up rate tends to be very narrow uh so really it's just a matter of for the

▶ 1:26:07 Speaker 6: folks that are you never know certainly but for the folks that tend to turn to this it's because

▶ 1:26:15 Speaker 6: they feel like they're out of other options uh so it is you know it is uh no disrespect to you know

▶ 1:26:25 Speaker 6: know, folks that may be partaking of a reverse mortgage, but it is a cheaper alternative for some folks than compared to some other products that might be out there to accomplish

▶ 1:26:34 Speaker 4: the same thing.

▶ 1:26:39 Shawn M. MacMaster: I think my only other question, this one might be for Mayor Broder, is with more and more seniors working later and I believe the average age now of unemployment is 67 excuse me an average age of retirement is a 67 that number you know continues to increase from your perspective what is the need or the reason to reduce this

▶ 1:27:09 Speaker 4: to 60 yeah I would refer back to the the gerontology report that talked about

▶ 1:27:19 Speaker 6: That need, particularly in the exacerbated by the pandemic, but still a real thing, which is that, you know, there's been a significant impact on folks.

▶ 1:27:28 Speaker 6: 60 to 69, I think we're applying it prudently. We also know. That while some people are working longer. um when the workforce is disrupted as it is at a time like now it is very difficult for folks quite frankly 50 and over to sometimes get back into the workforce and so that that was part of the thinking uh excuse me that is part of the thinking uh that went into lowering the threshold

▶ 1:28:06 Jeff McNaught: thank you mr mayor thank you mr wilcox any other counselors in the queue i didn't see any hands

▶ 1:28:16 Cory Thomas: Councilor Thomas. Thank you. Mr. Chairman again. Thank you all for being here. It might have been brought up earlier, or maybe Mr. Wilcox during your presentation, but what is the need or urgency to do this now?

▶ 1:28:33 Speaker 7: In the middle of the pandemic, as far as provide relief.

▶ 1:28:36 Cory Thomas: Yes, why now in February of 2021 does this need to be done? Would this be better off at the end of the fiscal year or the start of the 2022 fiscal year? What is the urgency behind this right now?

▶ 1:28:54 Speaker 7: As far as just the senior means test, it's going to take a while to move through. So the sooner that we can get started on the process, the faster we can find relief. So that one could take a while depending on how the state kind of does their approval process as far as the deferral um as i mentioned there's two residents that call me every every year that would qualify with a lower um age basically and and that that's what you know that's that's what's motivating me i don't think that a lot of people are going to go on to it um but uh i would I believe seniors are hurting right now, so I would provide, I would recommend providing relief as fast as I can for any of these initiatives.

▶ 1:29:38 Cory Thomas: Absolutely, you know, we do need to take care of our seniors. My mother is approaching 80, and she's been in Melrose for almost 50 years now, and she might qualify for this program. So. Personally, these are typical questions for me to ask, because I know my mother might be qualifying. The burden of this program, though, is going to be shifted to other taxpayers that might also be struggling due to the pandemic. People that might have been laid off people that might be unemployed people that might be sicker infirm themselves. You know, amidst this pandemic, I'm just questioning the timing of it all right now.

▶ 1:30:19 Cory Thomas: Yeah, I don't know what what the answer is, but I wanted to ask the question.

▶ 1:30:30 Speaker 7: Yeah, and maybe I can defer to the administration on that. My role, as you can see with the board of assessors is a 2nd in charge. I believe this was all initiated. By the administration, and it is happening all around Melrose too. It's not just Melrose specific as far as the, the means test as we brought up earlier. Reading's been in this program for 2 years. Wakefield's been in it, the state has had a couple of different versions. Our, our local. Representatives on Beacon Hill have their own version. So that's why the board of assessors felt. It was time for the city council to to talk about it and they were in favor of getting this.

▶ 1:31:07 Cory Thomas: And getting all the information to you to make a decision. Mr. Wilcox. Thank you. I'd love to hear your response on that. But Mr. Wilcox, do you know, out of the 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts? How many have adopted this?

▶ 1:31:18 Speaker 7: I was trying to find that number today and I know that it's it's at least 10, probably more. I think the staggering number is how many people are. Have it in queue, they're ready to do it. Um, it's very popular around assessors a lot of. You know, a year or 2 years ago, they weren't talking about it now. Everyone's trying to find out. How are we going to get it through? How does this work in my community? So there is a lot of buzz in the assessing world. About it, I tried to find the number as far as communities, but. Uh, anything that's already enacted in Deacon Hill would have been. Pretty much started 2 years ago, so, um. I don't know if that's a true representation of how popular it is at this point in time across the Commonwealth.

▶ 1:32:07 Speaker 4: Just a couple of thoughts, I suppose is that. It's a little bit hard to tell you because folks have done very slight variations on the theme.

▶ 1:32:19 Speaker 6: As as they build these things to make them particular. To their communities or their circumstances, and, you know, some folks have. Learn from folks that have gone before so it's not always easy. Sometimes the count how many people have done this this exact program to to.

▶ 1:32:38 Speaker 6: um mr o'clock's point certainly when we were uh moving the wakefield legislation through the

▶ 1:32:48 Speaker 6: through the house and senate um there was certainly that rising familiarity and

▶ 1:32:54 Speaker 4: um there was certainly a lot of interest in um some essentially in creating a local option which

▶ 1:32:57 Speaker 6: unfortunately has not happened you know would be a much quite frankly smoother process for cities and towns and we've seen this in other areas that we've acted on together but instead of everything having to be a home rule and everyone going through the same process a local option would say here's the program you just kind of put a yes or no answer before your city council or your select board whatever the case may be and you don't have to wait a year for the legislature to move your you can just turn it on or off at your convenience.

▶ 1:33:36 Speaker 4: The reason for the timing, more generally, the need is there.

▶ 1:33:42 Speaker 6: If anything, the pandemic has highlighted the need

▶ 1:33:49 Speaker 6: and there is some, a little bit of the good news,

▶ 1:33:51 Speaker 4: there is some federal relief and state relief

▶ 1:33:57 Speaker 6: in terms of like eviction moratoriums

▶ 1:33:59 Speaker 4: and um and some some stimulus money uh but that doesn't always that that is that is good i

▶ 1:34:07 Speaker 6: applauded a lot of our a lot of our residents need it um but there are folks who are going to need

▶ 1:34:16 Speaker 6: this after the pandemic is long i mean i think it is i think it is quite frankly just good public policy to provide to provide this assistance and uh particular to housing you know we see a housing market that is really uh almost run away and it's terrific because we all we all uh if you're a

▶ 1:34:37 Speaker 6: homeowner you enjoyed the benefit uh of that growth but it does create some problems for folks you know that might want to downsize or don't really aren't really in a terrific position uh to to tap equity or to have quite frankly to have cash flow to be able to stay in their homes

▶ 1:34:55 Speaker 6: And that is something that's just very important to me. I know it's important to all of you.

▶ 1:35:02 Speaker 6: I'm very mindful of the potential impacts on others and particularly appreciate Council McMaster's question about what ultimately is cash flow because on the

▶ 1:35:25 Speaker 6: The referral program, you know, we want to make sure we can get get that money back and we will be able to do that quite frankly is why it's capped at 50% of value because you don't want to risk that.

▶ 1:35:34 Speaker 6: That you can't get it back, but, you know, quite frankly, the, the, the need is there. I think it is. Something that we are financially in a position to do given our.

▶ 1:35:42 Speaker 4: Our relative stability, and it'll help folks that need help.

▶ 1:35:49 Cory Thomas: Mr mayor, thank you very much. I really appreciate your honest and heartfelt statements there. Would this be implemented in 22?

▶ 1:36:06 Speaker 7: Or would this be like, as soon as possible as far as the local options, there is a local option that does have to go to the state. I believe that is the reduction in age. So this deferral would be. 2 faceted 1 would be on the local level of taking. Immediately the 1st, July 1st after so this July 1st, 2021, but the other part that's on that has to go to the state for approval.

▶ 1:36:30 Speaker 7: Could take longer, depending on how how how things are going up there.

▶ 1:36:38 Cory Thomas: Thank you again, I appreciate the information in the discussion. And Mr Delruso hello, I hope you're well, I don't have anything for you, but I just want to say hello. Good evening. Good to see everyone. Great conversation.

▶ 1:36:49 Speaker 7: again these type of options really i would add is that um we never know from my own perspective where you're going to find yourself at a certain point in time um and having these options on the table may not impact someone this year but all of a sudden next year it does and they find that it's really helpful so i've always tried i try to try to take that into consideration that everyone's circumstances change knowing there's an option they may be able to to use is always a good thing rather than not have it that's that kind of thing that's all but thank you

▶ 1:37:34 Speaker 5: do we have any other counselors in queue seeing none what's the will of commit the committee

▶ 1:37:40 Jeff McNaught: second motion to recommend by council Grigoraitis seconded by vice chair eccles seeing no discussion madam clerk may please call the role chair mcnaught yes vice chair eccles

▶ 1:37:49 Speaker 1: yes councillor Tramontozzi yes councillor McMaster yes councillor Garipay yes councillor Grigoraitis yes councillor Migliorelli yes councillor Stewart yes councillor Thomas yes councillor Jamaleddine yes president Tamella yes

▶ 1:38:21 Jeff McNaught: Yes, the motion passes. I believe we can let you go, Mr. Mayor, Mr. DellaRusso, Mr. Wilcock. Thank you very much for being so informative this evening.