Requesting the City of Melrose withdraw from its current Veterans’ Services District, comprised of Saugus, Wakefield, and Melrose, at the end of Fiscal Year 25.

Transcript (~6 min @ 1:42:25)

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

▶ 1:42:24 Speaker 5: All will be recommended. Thank you. Thank You. Okay, I think the last stop is order

▶ 1:42:31 Mark Garipay: 1, 2, 5 7 9. Requesting the city of Melrose to withdraw from its current Veteran Service District Services district comprised of SGAs Wakefield in Melrose at the end of fiscal 2025.

▶ 1:42:48 Speaker 6: Good evening. So, uh, tonight this order before you, uh, as just mentioned, is a request, uh, for council to vote to withdraw from the current Veteran Services District. Um, this is a district that city council, then the board of Alderman voted to, um, create in, I believe it was around 2012, um, under state law Chapter one 15. Section 10, two towns in a city are authorized to form a district to share these services. Um, so for the past, you know, since 2012, we've had one, um, director that has gone to each community. Uh, each one has had their own VSOI believe. Um, and then each community has had their own admin. Um, Wakefield's unbeknownst to us, decided to withdraw from this district in March of this year, March 24th, 2025, which I believe the mayor addressed in her memo to council attached to this order. Uh, given that, um, the mayor's, um, uh, looked at the department and would like to restructure it by state law, we're only required to have one full-time VSO. Um, so the restructuring would be combining the three positions, uh, that currently exist into one full-time veteran services agent that only serves the city of Melrose. So that I, I expect would be coming before you with the budget. Um, but for tonight, because of state law, um, because council created it by vote, we had, we're asking council to, um, uh, allow us to, uh, remove ourselves from the district, um, as I mentioned. And it has, the final vote has to be taken 60 days before the close of the fiscal year, which is why it's coming at this time.

▶ 1:44:16 Mark Garipay: Amen. Any questions from the council?

▶ 1:44:21 Speaker 5: Council? Uh,

▶ 1:44:23 Jen Grigoraitis: Um, thank you so much. I was wondering if, if we had any reasoning from the town of Wakefield as to the withdrawal and if there's any lessons learned for us in terms of how we address things just within the city of Melrose. Um, so I would encourage you to watch the recording of the town council meeting where they discussed and voted on their decision to withdraw from the district. So I would certainly, I don't wanna speak for Wakefield. Um, I think, you know, the agreement which has been in place for obviously over 10 years, um, you know, that involved the sharing of staff. Those, um, salary and benefits of the director were split amongst the three communities. Um, and then each had a part-time VSO and a part-time admin. Um, I think there can be real benefits to cost savings. There can also be real challenges in managing staff across three different communities, especially one with the city structure and two with the town structure of government where there's different reporting, um, and different hierarchies. So I think, you know, sometimes things work and they worked for a while and then sometimes they don't. But I can't speak to why Wakefield chose to withdraw. Of course.

▶ 1:45:22 Robb Stewart: Council Stewart, Thank you Mr. Chair. Mad mayor. It sort of leads to the question of, um, is it easier to manage with two communities? Uh, and did we talk to Stoneham about s potentially doing, uh, sharing across the two communities versus the three?

▶ 1:45:40 Speaker 1: So we did reach out. It s SGA is the third community, SGAs, sorry.

▶ 1:45:43 Jen Grigoraitis: Um, and I did reach out to them to let them know obviously there's a financial impact where a third of the co the benefit costs were being carried by Wakefield. So both in order to be in a two person community and maintain the same staffing level, both Melrose and um, SGAs would need to increase the amount of money that's going toward the district, which for us is really not feasible at this time. I have not heard back from SGAs regarding their interest in continuing in the district or anything else. They have not responded. Understood. And, uh, if we withdraw, um, what is going to be the increase or decrease on our side? So there will be a budgetary decrease. So right now we have the equivalent of two FTEs one full-time, but that salary is shared across the district and then two part-time staff. And we will go down to one benefited FTE position to be in compliance with state law.

▶ 1:46:31 Robb Stewart: And what's the difference, like funding wise? Funding

▶ 1:46:35 Jen Grigoraitis: Wise? Um, I don't have the exact dollar amount and maybe I do, if I can figure out Carrie's spreadsheet, um, I think it will save us about $58,000. But please don't directly quote me on that. Okay. But there is a veary space. It's fairly significant though. Okay. Yep. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank

▶ 1:46:54 Speaker 5: You. Um, any other questions? Council Vandiver

▶ 1:46:59 Kimberly Vandiver: Make a motion to Recommend second

▶ 1:47:03 Mark Garipay: Motion to recommend. Second recommend by Council Vandiver, second by Council o Williams. Um, on, on discussion, um, I just had one, one question. Um, I, I watched, I watched the meeting. It was kind of eye-opening. Um, if we, if we did just do another community, um, not saying that it's right, do we still have to keep three positions based on the way, the way, way the, um, believe we would, the district is comprised. Do we still have to keep the three positions?

▶ 1:47:33 Speaker 6: I believe we would, yes. Okay. Yeah.

▶ 1:47:36 Mark Garipay: Um, and will the full-time position now, we had a third and then two part-time. Um, yeah. Can we handle, can one person handle all the claims and everything? Because some of the stuff's time sensitive and with, you know, unfortunately deaths and, um, so we feel confident that we'll be able to handle the, the needs of the veterans?

▶ 1:47:57 Jen Grigoraitis: I think so. I mean, 'cause right now the full-time director, the intention is that that person was splitting their time. One third, one third, one third. So we typically only had, and then the other two positions were part-time. So most days we had one person in the office. Occasionally there was two depending on schedules, but I think we'll be able to handle it in our claims. Um, as you'll see, when the budget comes down, have been trending downward. As our veteran population gets older. Um, we are seeing, you know, smaller amount of monetary claims under Chapter one 15.

▶ 1:48:25 Speaker 5: Thank you. Uh, anyone else on discussion?

▶ 1:48:29 Mark Garipay: Madam Clerk, can you please call the role?

▶ 1:48:31 Speaker 1: Yes. Councilor Ro? Yes. Council Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Chetty? Yes. Cremsky? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Council Vanderberg? Yes. Council Williams? Yes. President Ley? Yes. Mayor?

▶ 1:48:45 Mark Garipay: Yes. Motion passes That will be recommended for passage. That concludes our agenda Tonight.

▶ 1:48:52 Speaker 5: Make a motion or I'll accept a motion to adjourn.