ORDNC-2024-3 : Amending Chapter 6 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Melrose, Senior Citizen Property Tax Work-Off Abatement Program

Transcript (~35 min @ 9:33)

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

▶ 9:32 Speaker 3: Yes. President Elli? Yes. And Chair Williams? Yes. Motion passes. Unanim.

▶ 9:39 Ryan Williams: Alright. Next up we have an ordinance, ordinance 2024 dash three amending chapter six of the revised ordinances of the City of Melrose titled Senior Citizen Property Tax Work Off Abatement Program.

▶ 9:54 Ryan Williams: And we are still under suspension of the rules. So members of the administration, please go ahead when you're ready.

▶ 9:59 Jen Grigoraitis: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so joining me tonight is City Solicitor Shannon Phillips Assessor Sarah McClellan, and Executive Director of the Council on Aging, Erica Brown. And so we're here talking to you about our request to expand the senior tax work off program as allowed under state law. Um, and we also have the ability to provide some background on the other exemption programs currently available. So I'll turn it over to Ms. McClellan.

▶ 10:25 Speaker 5: Thank you, mayor. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Um, as the mayor mentioned, I'm gonna give an overview of the property tax exemption options that are currently available to eligible Melrose residents. The assessor's department is responsible for administering all tax exemption and abatements in the city, with the exception of the tax work off programs. A listing of the available exemptions is posted on the assessor's page of the City of Melrose's website. Under the heading labeled Real Estate exemptions for fiscal year 24, the Board of assessors granted 313 exemptions in total to eligible applicants currently the most widely utilized tax relief program in Melrose as the senior circuit breaker exemption. 120 parcels received this exemption in fiscal year 24. This legislation was passed at state and local levels in 2022 and was implemented for fiscal year 23. It allows taxpayers age 65 and over who received the circuit breaker credit on their state income tax return. To receive a real estate tax exemption equal to 150% of that circuit breaker credit amount, applicants must meet several other criteria to qualify such as owning and occupying their home in Melrose for at least 10 consecutive years. In fiscal year 24, the maximum amount for this exemption was $1,800. As a result of the state's tax relief bill signed into law in October, 2023, the maximum amount for this exemption for fiscal year 25 will be $3,885, which is more than double. This act has a sunset provision, meaning it will be repealed in Melrose three years after its implementation. So if the mayor and the city council wish to continue the program, the exemption will have to be addressed in fiscal year 25 and reenacted for fiscal year 26. It's important to note that the circuit breaker exemption is allowed in addition to any and all other exemptions allowed by Mass General Law. The remainder of the property tax exemptions in Melrose are statutory exemptions, which are those programs established by Mass General Law to provide tax relief for qualifying taxpayers. They all have ownership and domiciliary requirements for seniors. We have the 41 C senior exemption of a thousand dollars. It has income and asset limits, which vary depending on marital status. Several years ago, the city council adopted the local option, which annually increases the income and asset eligibility thresholds of this exemption by a COLA adjustment determined by the Department of Revenue. Each year for fiscal year 25, they will be increased by 3.4% For seniors, we also have the 17 D exemption. It's $175. This is for any surviving spouses or seniors, 70 years and older. This exemption has no income limit for eligibility, only an asset limit for veterans. We have exemptions with amounts from $400 through a full a hundred percent property tax exemption for veterans with service connected disability, certain surviving spouses of veterans, certain parents of veterans and veterans awarded a Purple Heart or other distinguished military awards. There's also an exemption with amount determined by the Board of Assessors for members of National Guard and Reservists on active duty. When these exemptions were granted by the Board of Assessors in fiscal year 23, the deployed reservist received a 25% exemption of their total real estate tax for the year. Deferral of real estate and excise taxes while on active duty outside of the Commonwealth have also been accepted as local options in Melrose for surviving spouse or minors of police officers or firefighters killed in a line of duty. There is a hundred percent tax exemption for legally blind taxpayers. There's clause 37 a exemption, which reduces the tax bill by 4 37 50. Mass General laws allow for the Board of assessors to grant at its discretion a clause 18 hardship exemption. A taxpayer eligible for this exemption must be aged in firm and impoverished and provide the board of assessors with documentation, which demonstrates qualification for each of these three criteria, and that they're unable to contribute fully toward the public charges. Qualified Melrose taxpayers age 60 and over with income of $60,000 or less may defer the real estate taxes on their property until the property is sold or the owner is deceased. The deferred tax accumulates as a lien on the property with simple interests, which is currently at a rate of 4.5%. As the mayor touched on in a previous meeting. This program has been active in Melrose for quite a while, since at least 2003. But five parcels in the city are currently deferring real estate taxes. While there are a number of local options available to increase exemption amounts and widen eligibility limits, the options before this evening are to increase the senior property tax work off abatement amount from a thousand to 2000 for hours worked at state minimum wage, and to allow approved representatives to perform the services for volunteers physically unable to work to perform the work themselves. Um, a single tax parcel in Melrose may receive the circuit, the senior circuit breaker tax exemption, the property tax work off abatement, and the property tax deferral together and with any other single statutory exemption. The limitation on exemptions is, is that aside from the deferral, a parcel may receive only one statutory exemption. For example, the board may not grant a disabled veteran's exemption under Clause 22 and also a 41 C senior exemption in the same fiscal year. So the applicant is encouraged to choose the statutory exemption with the greatest benefit if they're eligible for more than one. All of the statutory exemptions, the property worked, uh, tax work off program, and any property tax abatements granted by the Board of assessors are funded through the overlay account. The overlay account is budgeted by the Board of assessors and raised in the tax rate without appropriation the amounts needed to operate. These programs must be considered by assessors as the budget is developed. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you have for me about tax exemptions and the options available.

▶ 17:15 Speaker 1: Thank you. Any questions from the committee?

▶ 17:18 Ryan Williams: Okay. I'd like to entertain a motion to suspend Rule 21 C to speak as chair. So moved. Okay. Thank you. That's a motion from Councilor Ryan. Second. Thank you. Second by, uh, councilor. I'm sorry. President Melli. And thank you for entertaining me. Um, oh, I may need to call the roll. Of course.

▶ 17:38 Speaker 3: Vice Chair Romanul? Yes. Uh, Councillor Jamine. Yes. Councillor Vandiver.

▶ 17:46 Speaker 3: Yes. President Elli? Yes. And Chair Williams? Yep.

▶ 17:51 Ryan Williams: Unanimous. Motion passes. Okay, thank you. So, um, I wanna ask about, and, and talk through a little bit the issue of income eligibility for property tax work off programs. Because if I'm looking around here, I've got North Hampton, Boston, Hingham, Amherst, Middleton, Framingham, Grafton, they all have property tax work off programs. They all have income eligibility limits. And, um, I think that we should strike the right balance in, in this for sure, because, you know, it, it sounds to me how many people are using this currently, the property tax work off

▶ 18:29 Ryan Williams: 37. 37. Yeah. So it's, it's, it's not a ton of people. That being said, the population of Melrose that's over 65 is 19%. It's a lot of people. Um, so I guess my question is, if we weren't going to do income, um, eligibility requirements, um, what's the risk to the city in terms of a bunch of people showing up and saying they all wanna do it? And, and what are the, um, like what are the gates to prevent that from happening? I mean, obviously there's only so many jobs people can do, but just talk to me a little bit about like how, what would happen if a ton of people suddenly decided they wanted to do this?

▶ 19:08 Jen Grigoraitis: So the, um, language before you to that's, um, red line to amend what's currently in the code does already say that we can limit the number of participants, obviously based on the number of jobs available. So yes, if 500 people showed up and said that they wanna volunteer for the city of Melrose, we would have a hard time, you know, coming up with work that could be done. So I think there is, um, you know, sort of a fail safe there with that regard. Um, I know internally we had talked about income thresholds and really felt that should be the will of the legislative body around that. I mean, there are communities that do it, there are communities that don't, there are communities that don't do income thresholds, but cap the number of participants and it's a lottery system. Um, so I think there are sort of different ways to do it. Our numbers have held relatively steady. Um, we also recognize that there is, you know, pot there is significant increases in costs coming to residents. Um, so that it felt like perhaps we wanna wait a year or two and see does the, you know, does the, um, usage of the program really dramatically increase, obviously the risk to the city is what Ms. McClellan referenced about the overlay that, that, you know, that money that's abated comes out of our overlay, which eventually eats into our new growth. Am I saying that correctly? No, I'm not saying that correctly.

▶ 20:30 Speaker 5: It just has to be, um, budget. It reduces the amount that we have basically in the reserve for other, um, abatements that could come along from, you know, any kind of a TV Right. Um, exposure or that kind of thing.

▶ 20:44 Ryan Williams: Yeah. Can you say that? Can you say that again and kind of turn mic a little bit? Sure.

▶ 20:47 Speaker 5: So it just, uh, the overlay account also, um, is used for, you know, like appeals that we have. Mm-Hmm. So say we have 10 cases with, you know, large apartments that are, you know, at the A TV, if those cases come, um, in front of the A TB and they, there's a settlement against Melrose that it comes out of the same account. So it's just something that we need to be watchful of and it it's budget for and that, that kind of thing. Yeah.

▶ 21:20 Speaker 1: Okay. Um,

▶ 21:23 Ryan Williams: and the circuit breaker has to be renewed by the council annually. Um, I'm shifting gears just a little bit. The circuit breaker, we have to renew that or we have to reapprove it.

▶ 21:38 Speaker 5: Um, did I hear you say that? No, it had a, um, so it was passed by, signed by the governor, um, in 2022. Yeah. And then it has the, um, like a sunset provision that it's af three years after it's implemented. So 23, 24 and 25. Right. And then for 26, so in the fiscal year of 25, it will have to be, um, reexamined and, and, um, reenacted for fiscal year 26

▶ 22:06 Speaker 1: By the state.

▶ 22:06 Speaker 5: Um, yeah, we, we'd have to pass it locally and then Okay. Um, send it back to the state.

▶ 22:12 Speaker 1: Okay. Um, so I,

▶ 22:22 Ryan Williams: um, I'm, I'm wondering if it would be reasonable to just set a, an expectation within this that it'd be just, just revisited within the council and let's say, let's say one year, you know, not, not to be necessarily reappropriated or reapproved, whatever, but just to say, let's, let's take a look at it in a year so that it helps us remember that we have to come back and give an update and say, oh, it's happened this, and then, you know, it's 50 people did it and this is what it costs. And if it's, if it's all good and if we still feel like it's working, um, for the right people, um,

▶ 22:59 Ryan Williams: then we could, we could do that. That's a thought I had. It's not a motion yet. Um, president Melli.

▶ 23:07 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you. Um, chair Williams. Uh, so just to clarify, so senior citizen property tax work off all the red line items here are items that are updating, um, to bring us in accordance with state law. Mm-Hmm. And what is not here because the administration has decided that at this time you don't, you don't want to offer up income thresholds, but it is within the purview of the council to add income threshold. And so as it is right now, that means that any senior who is participating in this program to work for the city and receive a test tax, um, you know, discount, um, it, it's, you know, irrespective of their income. So somebody could be, you know, multimillionaire and working in city hall and receiving a tax, um, write off. Um, are there any, I mean, for your own reasons for not wanting to set an income threshold, is there, like any thought around that other than you alluded to the, you know, upcoming increases in taxes? Is there any,

▶ 24:16 Jen Grigoraitis: I think it was, you know, wanting to see what the usage is. This is a program that's been in place for quite some time and the numbers have held fairly steady. And there are actually folks who volunteer for City Hall but don't seek the abatement. You know, I do think we have a group of folks who want the benefits of being out in the community and helping their city, but are not looking for the tax work off. Um, so I think it's also, obviously the struggle is always what is the metric that you use to determine income eligibility? And recognizing that there's a certain level of paperwork we're putting folks through every time they seek some sort of abatement, and that there's, you know, private data that we are then holding on the city side when we ask people for their tax returns or their, you know, details of their bank accounts, that we always have to kind of weigh the impact of that.

▶ 25:06 Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Um,

▶ 25:09 Leila Migliorelli: and sorry if this mention is mentioned somewhere in here, I just thought is, are, do people apply every year for this or once you're in the program Every year? Okay, that's Erica.

▶ 25:18 Speaker 6: Uh, yes, they apply every year. Um, if they've been in the program for many years, they still have to reapply, um, and fill out the paperwork. Some, um, components don't have to be redone annually. Um, for example, the BenCorp um, paperwork doesn't have to be done annually because it's, they, they already exist in that system. Um, but they, we, we do take the application every year from each individual.

▶ 25:42 Speaker 2: Thank you. That's it for now.

▶ 25:44 Ryan Williams: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Vandiver, did you have your hand up?

▶ 25:48 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, yes. Thank you. Uh, just along those lines, um, I, I, I think the income threshold could be a good thing if it was avoiding crowding out those who need this the most. But on the other hand, I, I think something else we could consider is that allowing anyone to participate could remove or prevent a stigma around participating in this program. Right. Because it's not known to be only for people who are having a financial hard time. Um, just something to consider as well.

▶ 26:16 Ryan Williams: That's great point. Thank you. Uh, councilor Jamal.

▶ 26:21 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. And I'm sorry if this ha uh, was mentioned before, but for those, um, uh, individuals who are with disabilities and are unable to do any kind of, you know, uh, service or work for the city, um,

▶ 26:41 Maya Jamaleddine: what is the requirement or what, what kind of support can we provide for them? And also if someone is, um, for like a caretaker for them, how can we reach out to them to just let them know about this kind of service that we have or resource that we have currently in the city?

▶ 27:03 Jen Grigoraitis: So the state law that allows us to have this particular exemption does not allow for it to be an exemption for disabled individuals. So that's one of the updates to the language. It's for individuals over age 60. However, if someone who was over age 60 is not able to physically perform work, one of the updates that we're requesting is to allow a proxy to perform that work on their behalf. So whether you are just physically unable to come to work, or perhaps you're in your late nineties and don't maybe wanna be around people due to, you know, vulnerability for germs or whatever, this amendment which had not previously been incorporated in our code would allow for, um, an eligible resident to, to designate a proxy to do the work on their behalf.

▶ 27:49 Speaker 5: And just as a follow up to that, um, the new, sorry, the new state law actually requires council vote to opt into that proxy piece. So we've addressed that in section E in the, in the red font we have there. That's hopefully addressing the proxy.

▶ 28:04 Maya Jamaleddine: So someone will have to perform the work on their behalf. Yes.

▶ 28:07 Speaker 5: And it would be for the benefit of the resident who's 60 or older,

▶ 28:11 Maya Jamaleddine: But they will have to quit their job to be able to perform the, the work on their behalf, or no? Um,

▶ 28:19 Jen Grigoraitis: Not necessarily. I mean, it depends on who they designate to perform their work on their behalf. But the state law requires that, I mean, under this exemption, the state law directs that it's 60 plus and that it has, the work has to be done in exchange for the abatement.

▶ 28:35 Maya Jamaleddine: There. I I get it. I'm, I'm, I just, I just feel I'm not, I, I guess I'm not debating who, who put the law and Right. I understand it's the state, but that doesn't mean that it's, it's equitable for those, uh, like for instance, if I have a family member that is unable to perform, I have work, I will have to add to my work hours, those hours to be able to perform on their behalf if I am the caretaker. So how much this is equitable and how much people are going to feel that they are able to opt in this program and benefit from it, that is the debate. Mm-Hmm. Like, we can put the resource, but how, how many can use that resource? Um,

▶ 29:20 Jen Grigoraitis: Yeah. I mean, we don't know because we haven't allowed it at all. So I think the first que I mean, it may not move the needle at all. You're absolutely correct. We are confined by the state law around what it is we can and cannot do. Yeah.

▶ 29:36 Devin Romanul: Thank you. Councilor. I thank you so much. Everything. Super informative. Um, do, do any of these updates, uh, impact any of the other, uh, work offs or, uh, deductions you might get for income for something like trash fees or any other, uh, I don't know the full breadth and depth of all the potential, uh, discounts you might get, but is, is there a bright line between the assessing, um, you know, the real estate, uh, deductions, or are they totally separate?

▶ 30:05 Jen Grigoraitis: Sorry if I didn't ask That properly? Do you mean like, can you only be eligible for

▶ 30:09 Devin Romanul: Certain months? Yeah, yeah. Like does the, does the changes that you're proposing impact other, other things like trash fee deductions or anything like that? No. Okay. Gotcha. Alright. Cool, cool, cool. Thank you so much,

▶ 30:22 Speaker 1: President Melli. Uh,

▶ 30:23 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you. I just a quick point of clarification. The, um, an approved representative, um, so if someone is unable to do, if the senior is unable to do the test themselves, an approved Represe representative doesn't necessarily have to be their caretaker, right? Correct. It could be any. They can select whomever they want to that is able bodied and willing to Mm-Hmm. Okay. Thank you.

▶ 30:47 Ryan Williams: Um, I had, since we're still under suspension of 21 CI had one other, um, or two other questions for the trash and recycling abatement, people qualify for that based on income. Right. And we, the city, we, um, qualify them. We do that,

▶ 31:05 Jen Grigoraitis: Yes. There's guidelines that are set by the, the water and Sewer committee makes recommendations to the council regarding what those, um, income thresholds are.

▶ 31:14 Ryan Williams: Yeah. And then we collect the paperwork and we get all the information and we keep it in the city. So we do, we do do it for other programs. Um, and I, I do, I I think this is a really good robust argument given that we're in a situation where we need more property taxes, so we have to be careful about fewer collecting fewer property taxes. Um, so I wanted to ask one more time, and just to help my mind clarify. Um, do you feel that there are, um, what do you feel the balance is of available work versus people looking to do the work? Is, is there a lot of work available for people to do? Is there a big waiting list of people that are trying to get in on this? You know, that's my, my question.

▶ 31:54 Speaker 6: Uh, this year there are maybe five or six openings that have not been filled. Okay. Um, so we do have some vacancies, um, in, in previous years. Generally it gets filled in, in the beginning. We, we, uh, take applications in January and generally most positions are filled in that first wave of applications. Um, we do see some, um, applications come in throughout the calendar year. Um, so, and, and departments might have a need, um, depending on the time of year, for example, elections. Mm-Hmm. Um, we'll sometimes need a, a volunteer only for a few months or even, um, uh, you know, the DPW with the new trash, um, program has been looking for, um, you know, a volunteer to help field phone calls, um, things along those nature. So, uh, you know, uh, positions can come and go as the year goes, but, uh, generally, um, we've had a few vacancies, uh, that have not been filled.

▶ 32:59 Ryan Williams: Okay. Alright. Um, and I, I just thought of one more thing, and I know we're, we're trying to get to a lot of meetings, so I'm gonna keep it tight for people who, um, call you Ms. McClellan as I know people do and say, I can't pay this or whatever. Um, and you direct them to resources. Um, when you are, when you're, when you're, how many folks are, are coming to you that you are able to then, let, let me rephrase this question. I'm very sorry. Um, are you able to kind of proactively identify the people that might need this and reach out to them, people who are in arrears or who, um, have contacted you and said that they can't, you know, pay. Um, is there any method of like proactive outreach where you might reach people who are like lower income and maybe a little isolated, don't know that the program exists? Is there any method?

▶ 33:48 Speaker 5: So each, um, year, it's, it's kind of cyclical. So what happens is, for example, for the senior circuit breaker exemption, the first year we, we, you know, advertised it as best we could. And then we, um, rolled it out. We, we had fewer applicants and fewer, um, uh, you know, exemptions that were granted. And then the next year it, um, increased. But we have like, keep a mailing list and we, um, kind of as a courtesy to, to, um, our taxpayers, we, um, keep mailing out each year for every exemption. The ones that were granted and even the ones that were, that applied and, you know, if they weren't granted it, they, they just get it every year at the same time. Like when we're, we're sending 'em out, we do big mailings. So that's one of the things. Um, we also do, um, you know, the mayor's, um, senior fair usually in the, in the fall. Um, we try to get it out that way. We post it on our website, um, that kind of thing. But in terms of collections, I don't have like, direct visibility of that 'cause that's in the treasure collector. So, um, but usually people are directed to, to us for any kind of exemption that they might need.

▶ 35:14 Speaker 5: Yeah. The, the, I guess the, the biggest, um, challenge is, um, uh, people under 60 or 65 with disabilities, because we don't currently have the, the law doesn't allow for tax relief from the assessor's office for, for that except for disabled veterans and, um, the blind, the blind exemption.

▶ 35:43 Speaker 1: Okay. Um, Okay.

▶ 35:45 Ryan Williams: Um, I'm just trying to balance, you know, the, the importance of like, and I think Counselor Jamal and really triggered this in my mind, the importance of not just offering a program but trying to connect people with needs to that program so that, as we've said, you don't just have people who are, you know, who know the system and who, who, who are potentially wealthy or of, of good means flooding in and taking up all the available abatements while you have people who just don't know about it. Um, 'cause I wanna see it well subscribed as long as 6,000 people don't subscribe for it. Um, but I also understand the need to, to balance and to, to see what happens with a little bit less restrictive, um, guidelines in, in the first year. So, um, I would like to entertain a motion to review the, um, income eligibility to review the program, just to review the program, um, prior to the conclusion of the budget season next year, uh, let's say, um, three months prior to the close of the fiscal year. Is that

▶ 36:56 Speaker 2: Point of order? Yes. I think we would have to motion to

▶ 36:59 Leila Migliorelli: accept the edits to this ordinance change Okay. As outlined. Okay. Um, and then if a counselor wanted to additional make an additional edit, they could make that secondary motion after.

▶ 37:14 Ryan Williams: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Right. Um, well, I will motion, Go ahead.

▶ 37:21 Maya Jamaleddine: I'll motion to accept, um, the amended language to this amended.

▶ 37:25 Speaker 2: Uh, Second. Okay.

▶ 37:30 Ryan Williams: Somebody's asking, it's like we have a, we have a motion on the floor from Counselor Aldine to accept the amendments to ordinance 2024 dash three as presented. It is seconded by Counselor Elli and on discussion counselor Occhio Occhio has a question.

▶ 37:48 Cal Finocchiaro: So just to clarify, because I, I'm not on this committee and I didn't really look at these, um, numbers in detail, but basically you're just raising the abatement amount to $2,000 from $1,000, which is gonna benefit the, the 60 and above Mm-Hmm. Community. Yep. Right. And they can take, they can get that along with the, uh, circuit breaker.

▶ 38:12 Speaker 2: Yes. And then what was the final one? If

▶ 38:13 Jen Grigoraitis: They qualify for the circuit breaker? 'cause that does have income eligibility.

▶ 38:16 Cal Finocchiaro: Okay. So you're looking at almost $4,000 that they could qualify for total 38, 35, 38, 85.

▶ 38:22 Speaker 5: And also they can also qualify at the same time for a 41 C. Okay. That's as long as they, the law, um, says that, um, taxpayers have to pay, um, 10% of their tax bill Law. Yeah. And

▶ 38:36 Speaker 2: all three have an income threshold or minimum or maximum.

▶ 38:40 Jen Grigoraitis: No, not the, not the tax work off at this time. And just by clarification, at one point the counsel did have an income threshold for This. Yes. Some I don't even remember.

▶ 38:51 Speaker 5: Uh, when I looked today, it looked like it was in 2015. I don't know when it was

▶ 38:54 Speaker 6: Taken and then it was rescinded. Um,

▶ 38:56 Speaker 5: A lot of communities had that and they took it away during covid and it hasn't come back in a lot of communities, but, um, okay. But that's, yeah.

▶ 39:03 Cal Finocchiaro: So at the very least, if there's an income issue, they could, uh, apply for the abatement. Yep, absolutely. And I agree with the counselors that it would be nice to maybe figure out a way to get it out a little bit more in the community. Um, but overall I think it's great.

▶ 39:20 Ryan Williams: Okay. And also, while still on discussion, councilor Vandiver has her hand raised,

▶ 39:25 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, thank you. Uh, I just realized as we were discussing this, um, I guess if we're raising the, um, the available abatement that any one person can earn and doubling that, does that mean that we will have, have half as many positions to offer? For example, if we had two people each earning a thousand dollars credit as, you know, any one position within the city, um, is that now only spot for one person working twice as many hours?

▶ 39:56 Jen Grigoraitis: No, I don't think that will happen. 'cause what typically occurs now is people are done with their hours, maybe a quarter of the way through the year if they're really diligent about getting them through. So I, we often, the program tends to cycle. And if you've ever called the mayor's office in like November, there's no one answering the phone because there's typically all of the tax work off participants have completed their hours. So I I'm actually hoping it will be something we'll have to work with Erica on, but that we can try to maintain more of a level amount of folks, um, if people are willing to kind of, you know, join throughout the year versus the mad rush right. In January.

▶ 40:31 Ryan Williams: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And now we're ready to take our vote on the motion to, um, accept the amendments to the ordinance.

▶ 40:41 Speaker 3: Vice chair Romanul? Yes. Councillor Jamal? Yes. Yes.

▶ 40:45 Speaker 3: Councillor Vandiver.

▶ 40:50 Speaker 3: Councillor Vandiver. I think you're mute.

▶ 40:52 Speaker 6: Oh, sorry. I thought I said yes. Yes. Okay.

▶ 40:55 Speaker 3: Uh, president Elli. Yes. And Chair Williams? Yes. That's unanimous. Motion passes.

▶ 41:00 Ryan Williams: Okay. I'd like to entertain a motion to, uh, request a review of the program 30 days prior to the beginning of the next fiscal year.

▶ 41:11 Speaker 1: So moved. Okay.

▶ 41:14 Ryan Williams: Second. Okay. Councilor Romanul, um, Motion

▶ 41:21 Robb Stewart: Point Of order? Yes, sir. I, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we have to put it as an edit to the document. Yeah. As opposed to just saying that we're gonna do it.

▶ 41:32 Speaker 1: Oh, okay. Well, alright.

▶ 41:33 Speaker 5: I would, I would agree with that. I think, uh, possibly it should be another section at the end of the ordinance. Okay. And the ordinance language, um, to include the motion. Otherwise, I think you'd have to put in a, a new order.

▶ 41:45 Speaker 1: Understood. Councilor m uh,

▶ 41:48 Ryan Williams: president Elli, just a

▶ 41:51 Leila Migliorelli: Quick question. What, I wrote a note down that the state sunset so the council can continue in FY 25. Would we have to look at this again in FY 25?

▶ 41:59 Jen Grigoraitis: That's the circuit breaker Circuit. Got it. Yeah. Got it. So different related but different. Thank

▶ 42:04 Ryan Williams: You. Okay. Yes. Counselor Jammal. Hi.

▶ 42:06 Maya Jamaleddine: So since we, we voted to approve, to accept,

▶ 42:12 Maya Jamaleddine: can we after, can we a add to it after we accepted it

▶ 42:18 Speaker 6: To Amen. Have

▶ 42:19 Speaker 5: to, Or I believe we have to do a motion to amend. Yeah. Further amend.

▶ 42:23 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. So we can still do amend. Yes. And rather than doing a totally different order.

▶ 42:31 Jen Grigoraitis: Right. Okay. Sorry. And just as a point of clarification, this would take effect starting in January of 2025. That's when, 'cause it runs on the calendar here. Just, okay. You have more time than I think you're thinking. You have.

▶ 42:42 Ryan Williams: Yes. Thank you. Okay. So I will entertain a motion to edit.

▶ 42:48 Speaker 1: Yes. The chapter six

▶ 42:51 Ryan Williams: of the revised ordinances of Melrose Senior Citizen Property Tax Work Off abatement program to add Section H, which will say, uh, this program shall be reviewed by the city council annually on January 21st starting January 20. I'm sorry, annually starting on January. Well, not annually by January 31st. Starting on January 31st. 2026.

▶ 43:27 Ryan Williams: Six Because it's not gonna start until 2025. So you wanna give it a year to work and then check in on it after it's been up for one year. Okay. Program shall be renewed. Reviewed. So they're gonna start in 25

▶ 43:40 Speaker 5: Or you could, that's the amend or you could say beginning on or after January. Sure. The program should be remo, uh, renewed, reviewed on an annual basis. Is that

▶ 43:47 Ryan Williams: Reviewed on an annual basis after January 1st, 2026? Yeah. Sure.

▶ 43:59 Speaker 1: So move, I just wanna, I just wanna do it again.

▶ 44:02 Speaker 5: Yeah. I had to see it written, but yes.

▶ 44:04 Ryan Williams: Alright. Alright. Yes. So Move. Okay. Councilor Rahul Motion to amend the ordinance to include an annual review beginning after January 1st, 2026.

▶ 44:18 Speaker 1: 31st Second Councilor Aldine seconds, please call the roll

▶ 44:26 Speaker 3: Vice chair Romanul. Yes. Councillor Aldine. Yes. Councillor Vandiver. Yes. President Elli? Yes. And Chair Williams? Yes. Uh, motion passes. Thank you.