ORDER-2016-7 : Amending Revised Ordinances of the City of Melrose, Chapter 6, Section 6-3.1 (Senior Citizen Property Tax Work-Off Abatement Program)

Transcript (~6 min @ 1:44:08)

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

▶ 1:44:07 John N. Tramontozzi: What is the will of the committee?

▶ 1:44:12 Speaker 1: A motion to suspend the rules.

▶ 1:44:14 John N. Tramontozzi: All right, we'll have a motion to suspend the rules by Alderman Byrd. Second. Seconded by Alderman Forbes on the motion, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed, seeing none, we are suspended throughout the rest of the evening on all the orders on the agenda. Would you like to hear from any member of the administration?

▶ 1:44:33 Jaclyn L. Bird: Yes. All right. I was hoping that any members that wanted to speak on this would come forward please and just describe the order.

▶ 1:44:46 Speaker 5: good evening good evening this order is to amend the ordinance on the senior citizen work off program what we're trying to do is eliminate the income eligibility increased participation and we already had an order to change the amount from 750 to a thousand so this is more of a housekeeping order but here to

▶ 1:45:09 John N. Tramontozzi: answer any questions that you have just some members of the public know that This is real estate abatement program.

▶ 1:45:14 Speaker 5: That's correct, it's the senior work off program.

▶ 1:45:20 John N. Tramontozzi: President Kahn, I'm sorry, President Kahn?

▶ 1:45:23 Speaker 11: Yeah, Mr. Wilcock, do we have any estimates to the cost of the program?

▶ 1:45:28 Speaker 5: Yeah, with the changes to the rate, it's $14,000 using 14 participants in this past year in 2015. At 25, if that was the max, it would be 25,000. The funds come from the overlay account. The Board of Assessors has evaluated the amount, and we think $25,000 is definitely in the budget for the upcoming years.

▶ 1:45:53 Speaker 11: So you believe the maximum cost would be $25,000, and it would be funded not through the general budget but through overlay?

▶ 1:46:01 Speaker 5: That's correct. This program is funded through the overlay account. The most we've had in the last, I'd say, three years is 17 individuals, so that would accommodate you know five eight more individuals in this program

▶ 1:46:13 Speaker 11: and does it come out of the fiscal year overlay that you're in or does it come

▶ 1:46:21 Speaker 5: from prior years overlay yeah it's it's the current fiscal year it's just like a real estate exemption it would come out of that current year okay that's all I

▶ 1:46:28 John N. Tramontozzi: had mr. chairman very good alderman boys I was next yes in the

▶ 1:46:31 Robert A. Boisselle: document there's a lot crossed off here but 6-3.1 section a on the eligibility individual has to be over 60 at this point and section B indicates the city departments will identify the needs but the Council of Aging will review each application and match up the appropriate individual with the jobs that are involved and so forth now when you go down to G section the director of City of Melrose of Council and Aging shall be responsible for determining eligibility for the program isn't that done in A and B or is that something

▶ 1:47:23 Speaker 5: different that was the language that was there we we decided to keep that

▶ 1:47:30 Robert A. Boisselle: line uh it might be redundant but um well i mean first of all they've got to be over 60. that's correct and then the council of aging is reviewing their quote applications and identifying the jobs uh so i'm assuming at that point they're eligible eligible to work so what is the point of this of the director of the coa to make a decision at that point

▶ 1:47:54 Speaker 5: it's just to match up the individual and like i said it could be redundant we could strike that

▶ 1:48:02 Robert A. Boisselle: if that's a recommendation okay that's my only question thank you thank you mr chairman very good

▶ 1:48:06 Francis X. Wright Jr.: thank you mr chairman um just a quick question um the the the senior citizens they'll be performing work it's a work off program that's correct so the work that they do would either be performed by an employee or a vendor or a contractor and if performed by an employee there's a potential it might be done in off hours over time uh yeah it

▶ 1:48:32 Speaker 5: depends on each department but there is some flexibility with the work okay and but there is

▶ 1:48:40 Speaker 5: there's value to the work to the city that's correct a lot of stuff gets pushed off to you know depending in my personal department we we'd like to get we have our wish list the senior worker that comes in and works for us really gets that done and she fills in where we need it and it's it's invaluable so and I can only speak for

▶ 1:48:57 Francis X. Wright Jr.: my department sure okay but there is value to it to the city so it's not we're not giving away this isn't any type of a grant or any type of tax reduction for these individuals it's a work off program that's correct and in

▶ 1:49:08 Speaker 5: the language to identify specific needs and in section B is to kind of address that to make sure that if someone's going to work for the assessing department that they're going to fit the needs of the assessing department great thank you thank you

▶ 1:49:26 Monica C. Medeiros: mr chairman very good any further discussion all the minimum dealers thank you i'm not a member of this committee um i would just i don't think there's a motion on the table yet but i just saw something that i i would suggest someone make as a an amendment to the amendment in section e

▶ 1:49:43 Monica C. Medeiros: that we're inserting the words their specific qualifications to perform the work and i would just suggest uh changing there to ones o n e apostrophe s is that really should be singular rather than there as plural it's just a small grammatical thing you agree with that sir is that

▶ 1:50:11 Peter D. Mortimer: yeah we can make that change i'll make that as a motion as a member of the committee

▶ 1:50:14 John N. Tramontozzi: okay second so we have a motion to make that change uh by alderman mortimer seconded by alderman uh forbes on the motion all favor all right all right so um madam clerk do we have that we've done that

▶ 1:50:29 John N. Tramontozzi: all right so that's all that's been changed any further discussion all right seeing none do we