Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2025-01-27
Attendance
Cal Finocchiaro ; Mark Garipay ; Ward Hamilton ; Maya Jamaleddine ; Manjula Karamcheti ; Leila Migliorelli ; John Obremski ; Devin Romanul ; Robb Stewart ; Kimberly Vandiver ; Ryan Williams
Agenda
- Call to Order
- Public Comment
- Legislative Items
- Local Options for Veterans Tax Relief under the HERO Act
- Request for the Approval of Petition to Enact Legislation Authorizing the City of Melrose to Establish a Means Tested Senior Citizen Property Tax Exemption in the New Amount of 100% of the Circuit Breaker Income Tax Credit.
- Adjournment
Minutes
CITY OF MELROSE APPROPRIATIONS & OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CALENDAR● JANUARY 27, 2025 Council Chamber, First Floor, Melrose City Hall Committee Meeting 7:30 PM 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Maya Jamaleddine Vice Chair Present Cal Finocchiaro Absent Ward Hamilton Present Manjula Karamcheti Present John Obremski Absent Devin Romanul Remote Robb Stewart Present Kimberly Vandiver Present Ryan Williams Present Leila Migliorelli President, Ex Oficio Present Mark Garipay Chair Present
(ID # 12401) Informational Local Options for Veterans Tax Relief under the HERO Act Place on File City Council
(ID # 12403) Home Rule Petition/Special Act Request for the Approval of Petition to Enact Legislation Authorizing the City of Melrose to Establish a Means Tested Senior Citizen Property Tax Exemption in the New Amount of 100% of the Circuit Breaker Income Tax Credit. Tabled City of Melrose Page 1 2/4/2025 12:08 PM
Transcript
▶ 14:08 Mark Garipay: I am Mark Gar, the chair. Also joining me tonight, uh, our vice chair, Jamal Ledine, voting members. All voting members council is, uh, Williams Hamilton Machete. Stewart Vandiver, uh, council Ram is joining us remotely. Hello and, uh, president, uh, mili Exofficio. This serves as a notice of a quorum for the record and accordance with the open meeting law. This meeting is being recorded, live and broadcasted on MMTV. Um, next up we're gonna go to public comment. I will motion by unanimous consent to open the floor for public comment. Point of order. We need to take a roll call vote because of the, Sorry. It's Okay. I'm sorry. Can you take a roll call? Vote. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to open
▶ 15:03 Mark Garipay: the floor for public comment. Second. Thank you. Can you, um, yes. Take the role please. Yep. Apologize. First time doing a remote meeting. Thank you, Devin. Okay. Councilor Romanul. I apologize. Sorry. Only Joking. It's probably warmer where you are. Councilor Jamal Ledine. Here. Councilor Occhio. Councilor Hamilton. Yes. Councilor Karen Chetty. Yes. President Midgley? Yes. Councilor B Brosky. Councillor Romano Remote. Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Vandiver. Yes. Councillor Williams? Yes. Ann Chair Garipay. Yes. N Um, and enough to pass a, a quorum, Uh, pub, uh, public comment is, uh, now open. Um, this is the portion of the meeting where members of the public may speak on any item on tonight's agenda.
▶ 16:05 Um, comments are, uh, expressed, expressing any viewpoint on matters, uh, on other matters are welcome. Um, please just state your name. Uh, Robert Driscoll. Uh, I'd like to speak tonight on behalf of the, uh, bill regarding, um, the Veterans tax, uh, property tax, uh, provision. So, um, just a little background. Um, I'm chair of the ME merose Veterans Advisory Board. I see many familiar faces around here from those of you that have attended our, our different events. Um, I've been on the board since 2005. Um, I'm a retired Melrose firefighter. Um, retired with 24 years of service. Um, next door, uh, I also just retired from the military with 38 years of, of military service and several deployments.
▶ 17:03 And I'm currently working at the Boston Military Entrance Processing station in Boston on Summer Street where all military applicants from New England come to join the military. And I'm also the, um, military liaison for the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts, uh, labor Organization. So MD Deep and, uh, fire and, uh, military, um, I issues. Um, this item, um, this little background was part of the Heroes Act, which was passed and, and signed into law last August, uh, by Governor Haley. Uh, 17 different provisions, uh, included in the act. Um, it's the most comprehensive, uh, veterans legislation in the state for the past 20 years. Um, and one part of the 17 items is the, um, uh, real estate, um, provision, uh, that is gonna be discussed,
▶ 18:00 uh, in information tonight. Um, we are on the Veterans Board are highly in favor of this. Um, we met with the administration, um, back in November, uh, to go over all our goals and objectives for the, for the year. And this was one of our, uh, legislative, uh, goals for the year. Um, I want to thank, uh, the mayor, uh, for, uh, her leadership on this. And, uh, also Councilor Oppe, uh, who, uh, is our, um, unofficial liaison to the board and sat in on those meetings, um, with us. Uh, this is a, uh, a great item for the veterans, um, as the assessor will educate you. Um, currently, I believe there's 155 veterans in the city that, um, gain this, this benefit of, uh, $400, um, off their real estate taxes.
▶ 19:01 Under the Heroes Act, it gave the local, uh, authorities, uh, two different options. One of 'em is to double that to 800. Um, the other option is to tie it to a cost of living, uh, increase. We are here to, uh, to support the, uh, doubling to the, the 800 Colas, uh, over time. Can, can, they're hard to budget for. Um, and you don't know how that, what the cola will be. Uh, two years ago it was over 8%, um, which, uh, could become unsustainable at some point. So, um, this would benefit a lot of the 155 veterans in the city. Uh, that, um, benefit with this. Um, when you do the math, it comes out to $62,000, um, which the size of the Merrill's budget, um, is a small, small portion of, uh, the vet, the city budget.
▶ 20:00 Um, one of our board members, Jim Keen, is gonna speak more on the inflationary aspects of it. Um, but if anybody has any questions for, for me or, or the board, I'm, I'm open to any questions anybody may have. Thank you. It's a portion of public comment. There's no back and forth. Okay. But I'm sure if any of the counselors do have questions, I mistake they'll, they'll, I apologize. They'll, they'll reach out. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am Jim Keen. I'm a resident of Melrose. I'm a Vietnam veteran. Uh, I've lived here since 1996. In examining the extension of this tax credit and looking at the history of the tax credit, going back, inflation ran about 3.5% for the 20 years
▶ 20:55 before the pandemic. The pandemic just shot it right off the pages. It went to 12%. It's back down to about 5.7%. Now, depending on the commodity you're looking at, whether it's, uh, housing, groceries, uh, gasoline, automobile expenses. So in looking at the history of the, uh, the inflationary erosion of this benefit is basically very tiny right now. And that, uh, a additional $400, I think will mean a great deal to the, uh, disabled veterans of, um, ma uh, um, Melrose. And, uh, thank you very much for your attention. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Keen. Anyone else? Um, looking to speak in the gallery. Is there anyone online looking to speak? There is not. Mr. Chairman, make a motion to close, public comment.
▶ 21:53 Mark Garipay: Second, we have a motion to close, uh, public comment by Const Stewart, seconded by Const Machete. Um, on discussion on roll call. Sorry, clerk, if you can just take a roll call. Yep. Thank you. Councilor Jamal. Dean? Yes. Councilor Ro. Council Hamilton. Counselor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Karen Chetty? Yes. Councilor uh, president Melissa? Yes. Councilor Brosky. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Vandiver. Yes. Council Williams? Yes. Chair Garipay? Yes. Um, public comment is closed. Public comment is now closed. Next up on the agenda. Um, ID 1 2, 4 0. One local option for Veterans Tax Relief under the Hero Act. Um, Ms. McConnell is here to speak on that item. If you could just come up to the, uh, table.
▶ 22:59 Mark Garipay: Um, for the, for the council, this item is an informational order that was put in as an informational order 'cause of the quirkiness of I QM two. It came over as a, as a ledger legislative item. But this is an informational order tonight. So, Ms. McClellan, the floor is us. Thank you. Thank you to the chair. Thank you to the committee for having me here this evening. I'm Sarah McClellan, the Chief Assessor, and tonight I'm presenting information on tax relief options for Melrose Veterans and later seniors. First, under this informational order, I'll outline the new provisions that became available under the HERO Act. These are options with which Widen eligibility criteria and increase exemption amounts
▶ 23:45 for veterans in Massachusetts. So Melrose will be able to adopt these new exemption options for the coming fiscal year in 2026. In order to do this, the new local option or options must be adopted by City Council anytime before July 1st, 2025. Before I discuss the options for the property tax exemptions, I wanna briefly touch on the Hero Act provision for excise tax exemption for veterans. The Hero Act changed the eligibility for a full excise tax exemption for disabled veterans. And this went into effect immediately. Previously. The Medical Advisory Board within the Registry of Motor Vehicles determined whether a veteran had a qualifying disability for excise exemption under the amendment.
▶ 24:34 Now, a veteran qualifies for a motor vehicle excise exemption if the VA determines that they have a hundred percent disability rating or deems them unemployable due to their service connected disability. So, as I mentioned, this became effective immediately. And the Melrose assessors were able to grant disabled veterans exemptions from their calendar year 2024 excise tax last year. Um, because of the way that excise works, um, they can still, um, you know, learn about and apply for those exemptions to the 24 year continually. Um, and then that would not only be the way that we had identified those, uh, people were through, um, owners in, um, Melrose, who were, who were already, uh, homeowners in Melrose, who were already getting the hun the,
▶ 25:28 um, the real estate exemption for the disability rating of a hundred percent. So we had identified them and then reached out to them to let them know that that new excise exemption, um, eligibility was available to them this year for 2025. The new commitment for excise tax is gonna be going out soon. And we will like, identify the, um, the new, the eligible people who would, who would may not have known about it, um, and reach out to them as well. Um, so the cost of the excise tax exemption, um, that had, um, come from the HERO Act, uh, is fully reimbursed by the commonwealth of mass. So that was another piece of the, um, hero Act related to, um, tax exemption that I wanted to mention before I get into the, to the local, um, options.
▶ 26:26 So as far as the property tax exemptions, the Hero Act introduces two new options, which can be adopted separately on their own or both together. So the first is Clause 22 I, this if, if accepted would increase the amount of the tax exempted granted to veterans by a cost of living adjustment, which is determined annually by the Department of Revenue. The COLA adjustment added with this pre provision has a cumulative effect. So if it's $400 plus the COLA in the first year, the next year it will be that $400 plus that first year cola, and then the second year COLA added onto it. Um, the second new option is clause 22 J if accepted, this provides an additional exemption annually of up to a hundred percent of the tax exemption granted
▶ 27:19 to veterans. So the voted percentage for this clause does not operate cumulative, but it will continue to apply in subsequent years and lessen until another percentage is voted before July 1st of that fiscal year. For these two real estate tax exemptions, there's no state reimbursement for the cost of either of these. Um, and like other statutory exemptions that we have in the city, uh, the additional cost is funded from the city's overlay account, which is raised in the tax rate without appropriation. So, as far as utilization of these exemptions in Melrose, as I detailed in my memo in fiscal 24, there were a 101 eligible veterans under Clause 22. Um, and that exemption under clause 22 is four $400 at this point.
▶ 28:10 And as long as I've known, it's been $400. Um, and there were 26 eligible veterans under Clause 22 E, which is the, um, a hundred percent disability rating, uh, with an exemption amount of a thousand dollars. Um, in the memo that I included, I, I provided a chart with the different options applied separately and together just for, um, demonstration purposes. Um, I also just wanna note that there are other, um, veterans exemptions in, um, Melrose that don't, that this wouldn't apply to. For example, um, if a veteran, um, dyes of service connected disability, that would be a 20 2D um, that would, and that's like a VA rating, um, decision for that, that would become a hundred percent full tax exemption.
▶ 29:07 Leila Migliorelli: And we do have a number of those in the community. Um, and I am happy to answer any questions that you have about these specific local options for veterans. Any counselors have any questions? President Meili. Thank you. Um, chair Oppe. Thank you Ms. McClellan for being here. And thank you for this walking us through the chart. Um, so I just, I'm going to actually just ask you to repeat or to just make sure I'm understanding or confirm what I'm understanding here in the chart. So, FY 25, all that was available was 2222 E. And then you, the vote that city council will take, not tonight, 'cause this is informational order, but by July one, is that the Date? Yes, anytime before July one for statutory exemptions. Okay.
▶ 30:14 Leila Migliorelli: We can do, um, changes to the clause And we would be voting to accept I and or j. Those, those two? Yes. Okay. And then these, this chart shows the impact or the exemption that the veterans will receive. Um, the impact is this just, is this similar to the other thing that's on our agenda tonight? Is the, is the, um, sorry. Is the, um, impact on other tax, uh, property residents? Like is there an impact on them or this is, you said a portion of this is a hundred percent reimbursable or all of it? None of it, No. So, um, a portion of the, um, of the original, like say for the 22 E, a portion of that is reimbursed by the state every year. Mm-hmm. Um, a portion of that, but the, a portion of the additional amount, 0%
▶ 31:16 of the addition, any additional amount is reimbursable. Okay. But I also just wanna note about this chart is that, and I did note it here, but I just wanna reiterate it, that these were completely for demonstrative, like purposes that I chose a 5% cola, that may not be what the state deter. Like, it's just really arbitrary kind of. Um, and um, I also chose, you know, that it would be a 50% increase at, at the 22 J. Like, it could be a hundred percent, it could be 5%, it could, you know, it could be anything. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. That's all for now. I might come back with more. Thank you. Councilor Ver and then its Councilor Stewart and Councilor Williams. Thank you. Chair Repe. Um, Ms. Clell, my question is just around clause 22 and clause 22 E.
▶ 32:08 Kimberly Vandiver: So they're currently at levels $400 and $1,000. Mm-hmm. And if I understand correctly, 22 E, the one thou, the higher level is, is for com a rating of complete disability? And then would clause 22, would that be, um, is, could you repeat whether is that for a disabled veteran or any veteran or who apply, who qualifies for that? Um, clause? So these are only, we only have exemptions, um, in Mel. Oh, statewide, I guess for, um, veterans with a service connected disability, there are, well, there are, um, you know, uh, I believe, um, 22, it's like little a, little B, little C, little D. So I believe B or C is like a purple heart, some kind of certain, and like gold star parents, those are, those fall into, um,
▶ 33:01 Kimberly Vandiver: some of these as well. Yeah. Okay. So, but it's mostly, so the 22 A, which is like our most, um, utilized exemption for veterans, that is the, from 10% to 99% service connected disability rating from the va. Mm-hmm. But that one's the a hundred percent is the 22 E. Okay. 22 A though is not changing. We're just talking about 22 and 22 E, right? No, but 22 is A through D. Oh, okay. All of them. It's also like, includes all of those also a surviving spouse Okay. Of a veteran who was, had a service connected disability. Okay. Okay. So there, there are a variety of ways 22 A, B, CDE that lead to the current $400 level, and then the complete disability leads to the current $1,000 level. Mm-hmm. And then, um, we could, we could adjust each
▶ 33:55 Robb Stewart: of those by either a, a percentage or an inflation adjustment. Mm-hmm. Yes. Okay. Or both. Or both. Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Councilor Stewart? Thank you Mr. Chair. And thank you Ms. McClellan for this information. Um, so I'm sorry, I'm still absorbing this. Um, my question is on, you had mentioned that on the excise tax, um, the exemption is gonna be determined by the, the VA's evaluation, right? Yes. Right. And then, then you had said that that is fully reimbursed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. So that way, um, excise tax, we pay, we pay to the state, but then it's re it is reimbursed by the state. So that really is outside of the local picture here, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah, it was just another, uh, benefit that I wanted to,
▶ 35:03 Robb Stewart: because we, the assessors, you know, we abate that tax and we provide the exemption for that excise tax. So as an informational piece, I just wanted to provide that, that was part of the, um, the Hero Act provision that we, that we're working with as Well. Sure. But it really is outside of the local taxes that we are considering. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That's very helpful, thank you. Mm-hmm. And then, um, on the a hundred percent tax exemption, um, so on, on the property tax, right? Yes. Right. So if it, if there's a tax exemption on the property, is it just revenue that the city loses, or does that need to then, uh, get balanced across the other taxpayers? Yes, it's from the overlay account. So the overlay, which, um, I believe we previously discussed
▶ 36:04 for, um, the, which is for abatements and, um, exemptions. And then anything else, like the senior, uh, property tax work off program is paid for out of that account for any kind of, um, appeals, uh, that are, that go to the appellate tax board with the state that are unfavorable, not in our favor that we lose, um, those, those would, would come out of that overlay account as Well. And that overlay account is funded by local taxpayers. Mm-hmm. Okay. Just, just want to be clear with that. Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Mad. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank You, councilor Williams. Uh, thanks. A lot of what I had for questions has, has been asked, um, but I wanted to check in again on the date that it has
▶ 36:58 Ryan Williams: to be adopted by July 1st. Yes. So, theoretically for the council, it really has to be under consideration in June because we have to have three readings to get everything done, but we could accept it at any time, and it would take effect in this 2026 For fiscal 26. And that was the soonest that it could be done, even though the act, you know, the, um, the act was signed last August, the first eligibility date following that, yeah. Was July is July 1st, 2025. So that's the first time that we could put it into place. Got it. Okay. That's it. Thank you. Any other questions, councilor for the first time? Councilor Stewart, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to place ID 12 4 0 1 on file. Second. Second.
▶ 37:51 Mark Garipay: We have a motion to place on file by Councilor Stewart, seconded by, uh, councilor McNaught. Can we take a roll call? Vote? Mm-hmm. Hold on one second. Mm-hmm. Stewart, who just seconded that. I'm sorry. Uh, council Machete? Yep. Okay. Councilor Jamine. Yes. Councilor Pinocchio. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Chetty. Yes. President Meley? Yes. Councilor Reky. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Stewart? Yes. Councilor Vandiver? Yes. Councilor Williams? Yes. Chair Gar Pay? Yes. Motion passes And that will be placed on file. Recommended a plead placed on file. Um, next up is, uh, ID 1 2 4 0 3. The request for the approval of Petition to Enact legislation authorizing the City of Melrose to establish a means tested senior citizen
▶ 38:56 property tax exemption in the amount of a hundred percent of the circuit breaker income tax credit. Ms. McClellan, the floor is your still. Okay. Thank you. So this evening we're also looking at, um, options for reestablishing the senior means tested property tax exemption, also known here as the Senior Circuit Breaker tax exemption, which we have had in place in Melrose for the past three fiscal years. The current act is automatically repealed three years after its implementation, which is at the end of this fiscal year 2025. So without action by the city council and or the legislature, the program will not be able to, um, available to Melrose residents in fiscal year 2026. So in the handout, um,
▶ 39:48 that you should have received this evening, um, I have included some notes about the program, which I will, uh, walk through quickly here. So the senior means tested exemption. It allows the board of assessors to qualify senior applicants for tax relief by a state income tax credit, referred to as the circuit breaker credit. Under the current legislation, qualified applicants receive a property tax exemption equal to 150% of their state circuit breaker income tax credit, the total amount of exempted value is to be allocated within the tax levy or shifted to non-eligible residential only taxpayers. So how it works is, um, the seniors qualify for and receive the senior circuit breaker credit on their state
▶ 40:43 personal income tax return. It's their CB form, they file CB one form. Um, and I, I added the qualifications for the, um, circuit breaker at the state for the state, um, income tax there, like for you. Um, there's just income qualifications, uh, for that. Um, and, uh, the Melrose Board of Assessors then uses that mass circuit breaker state tax credit, along with several other qualifications, um, of domicile and ownership to qualify the Melrose Seniors for real estate tax exemption, then equal to one and a half times the amount of that credit. And then I provided the summary of that program here for the past three years. The number of exemptions, um, granted the amount in dollars granted, and then the tax rate impact for each year.
▶ 41:45 So the history, um, is that in March of 2021, the Melrose City Council voted to adopt the measure here at local level. In July of 22, the governor signed the bill, our bill, H 3 70 66, into law. So fiscal year 2023 was the first year of implementation of our, um, circuit breaker exemption. Uh, in October of 2023, we had Massachusetts State tax re relief legislation passed. It doubled the circuit breaker tax credit with added cola, and so it brought the maximum credit to 25 90 from 1200 the previous year. So there's a ty one, this next line here, but, um, Melrose, the real estate exemption for fiscal year 25 at the 150% was $3,885 for the circuit breaker, um, exemption in Melrose. So they received it on their income tax,
▶ 42:54 then they got the 38 85 on their, uh, real estate exemption. And then the, the next line is basically, like I had said before, it's automatically repealed as part of the legislation. And that's everywhere. Every community in the state that has it has that three year repeal. It's recommended by, um, it's just a recommendation that everybody has it. Um, uh, so the considerations here are that, um, in addition to that, the senior circuit breaker real estate tax exemption that we're speaking of, um, eligible seniors are able to also receive the 41 c, the senior real estate tax exemption, which is a statutory exemption, and that's a thousand dollars. And now they can also, they can participate in the senior property tax work off
▶ 43:52 program, and that now has an exemption amount of up to $2,000. Um, what's important to note here is, um, what I call the Seesaw effect with this circuit breaker credit. So, for eligibility for the circuit breaker tax credit on the income tax at the state level for Massachusetts, so for your property tax payments together with half of water and sewer expense, they have to exceed 10% of the taxpayer's total mass income for the tax year. So because the circuit breaker tax credit eligibility is based on the real estate tax payments, when the exemption amount becomes too high, it causes ineligibility for both programs, um, for some applicants in succeeding years. So some years they'll, they'll get it,
▶ 44:47 and then they will not pay enough in real estate tax, which causes them to not be eligible for it at state. And then they can't get it at Melrose in Melrose for that year, but then the next year they'll get it. This is, this happens for some applicants, and we've had numerous complaints about that because, and it's just the way that it works with eligibility. Um, but some applicants because of their income are just eligible every year no matter what. Um, and then I just added a note here that, um, the Municipal Empowerment Act, which is still, um, moving through the legisl, the state's legislative process, um, does contain a provision, um, for this kind of senior means tested exemption to be included
▶ 45:36 as a local option for all cities and towns in Massachusetts, instead of having to each city and town go to the legislature on their own to get this, this, um, information or to get this passed. I'm sorry. Um, so basically, um, excuse Me, Ms. McClean, I think we need to recess into legal and ledge. Mm-hmm. Um, and then, then come back. Okay. Um, I didn't want to cut you off, but, um, no, I understand. So I'll, I'll, I'll let Mr. Chair, I I'll make a motion to recess. Second. Motion to recess by Council Stewart, seconded by, uh, president Elli. Uh, can we take a roll call vote on that. I just, I, discussion Councilor Jamine? Yes. Councilor Pinocchio. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Karen Chetty? Yes. President Moore? Yes.
▶ 52:29 Maya Jamaleddine: and assessment of the program for the past three years. Um, and then together with the administration, we put forth a recommendation to adjust the exemption amount to a hundred percent of the Massachusetts Senior Circuit Breaker tax credit. Um, and then, yeah, that I can answer any questions that you have on the program. Thank you. Um, counselor Aldine was first in queue. Thank you. Um, chair gpe, thank you so much for all this information. It's very, uh, important and I truly appreciate it. However, I found it, um, I found, you know, it's hard to navigate the system and understand, um, the qualification, the consideration, all these different terms and stuff. It's, it's difficult to understand it. Yeah.
▶ 53:23 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, so I'm always mindful of, um, our seniors or older adults population that English is not their first language. Um, they probably not very, um, exposed to, um, the informations that, and the resources that, uh, available for them. What are we doing as a city to outreach? And, uh, I know that this is a question that I always ask, but it's really important to understand if we have any system in place or if there is anything that we can implement, uh, to actually target this kind of, this population specifically. Yeah. So we have, um, in the past, so we, what we do is for, for this, for the circuit breaker, we have a list because there's, there's a certain amount of, of eligible circuit breakers in the first place.
▶ 54:23 So Massachusetts identifies them, but they're always like a few years behind. So not identifies them specifically, but how many we have. So we know that there's only like several hundred, you know, because there are, they give us circuit breakers. Um, credit, uh, you, um, you can receive a circuit breaker credit on your, in personal income tax if you're a renter or if you're an owner. So Massachusetts at the state level will only, they only have data for everyone who qualifies in Melrose, but they'll say, oh, you have in the five hundreds. So really we know that it will be less than 500 people because it would have to be people who own a property in order to get the, this specific for 10 years,
▶ 55:11 10 consecutive years is, is the, um, is for this program. Um, so basically it's, it's a limited, already a limited number of, of people. So we already know that it's that many. But we have, you know, in the beginning when we first, um, when we had first, uh, introduced this to Melrose, you know, we did, um, press releases and we did, you know, we were on MMTV and we did programs like that. Um, so each, each year we, we do that when, when we start the program, we do like, um, kind of information through the email and through that kind of thing we release it, but we also have that group whether they get it, remember how I said the Seesaw effect, whether they get it or not. We just send them application.
▶ 56:01 We just send it right out to them. So it's, it's a limited number in the first place. And we have them kind of basically identified for this specific exemption that we're, that we're talking about tonight. Um, uh, we, we have them identified and we, we mail to them. Yeah, that's great. But that resolve only one part of, uh, the problem. And it only serves those that do speak English very well. What about those that English is not their, uh, first language? How are we communicating with them? So I, um, I mean we, we just have basically our, our, the communication channels that we've been using in terms of like that the city has been using, um, in terms of like the press releases and things like that, that can be translated.
▶ 56:54 Maya Jamaleddine: If, if there's like a request for it, we can translate it, um, have it translated, uh, that kind of thing. Everything's available like on our website as well, which I know is, um, I believe can be translated, is offered to be translated, um, that kind of thing. But Yeah, I'm, um, I hear your, um, answer. I mean, to appreciate, you know, um, all the offerings that you have and all the resources. I do feel, um, and I'm hearing that it's really not the ideal, uh, system, uh, that can serve everyone that is equitable for everyone and inclusive. So hopefully we'll be able to get, um, uh, to be able to get to the point where we are. We do have a system that do serve everyone in Melrose and not only one specific population.
▶ 57:54 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you so much for your work. Yeah. We also work with, um, the senior, um, the Council on Aging to, you know, help identify, um, more applicants. And I also work with the, you know, the veteran service officer to see, you know, if, if there's anyone who they've come across that can benefit from any of our programs really like. Okay. Thank you. Any other councilors with questions? Council of vanderberg? Um, thank you. Um, chair gpe. Um, thank you for the presentation. I have I think two questions. Um, so one, I believe your recommendation is to adjust to 100% and, and the maximum is 200%. Is that accurate? Yes. Um, and is that, um, would that adjustment, um, remove this Seesaw effect or would that still end up applying to some folks?
▶ 58:55 Do you know? So in my, from what I can tell, um, the way that I've analyzed it, it seems that, and, and it's hard to get it exactly to a T, but, um, it, it seems as though, um, it will alleviate the Seesaw effect because the people who, who come in to complain to us, I wasn't able to qualify for the circuit breaker. It was because their, their payment of real estate tax was too low. And so that there, it just didn't offset their income, um, in, in order to qualify for it. Um, So, so it may address many, but not necessarily all of those cases, but, but essentially by making it a little bit less generous, it, it takes them out of that scenario where they paid too little one year mm-hmm. To qualify the next year.
▶ 59:50 Yes. And some, some people do not get the full circuit breaker credit. Like it could be anything from, you know, $10 to, you know, the full 25 90, which it was last year. Mm-hmm. So, well at the state here. And then here it would be like anything from $20 doubling that to, or sorry, um, you know, 150 to like percent of it to, you know, um, the 3, 8, 8, 5, that was the maximum that we, but most people do get, if they get it, they get the maximum mm-hmm. The, the overwhelming majority. Mm-hmm. Okay. And the, and I believe from the memo, the other reasons, the reasons kind of cited for the adjustment down to 100% were, um, balancing a couple of different factors. Could you repeat what the, the kind of reason
▶ 1:00:45 to decrease it would be? Um, so just from what we hear, so we, um, just hear a lot of the comments from people because we, so we work directly with this, um, population a lot. So we, and we just hear the comments from it. And part of it is we do get a lot of complaints, um, you know, anecdotally that people are just not happy. Other people are just not happy having to offset it, like having to pay something that they don't feel like having to pay for their neighbor for it if they don't, if it's not for them. Mm-hmm. They just don't feel like it's, you know, um, and that it, um, be because it basically doubled and, and, and then there's no control at, at local level on that when it doubled at the state level,
▶ 1:01:39 Kimberly Vandiver: there wasn't any local control in our tax rate mm-hmm. To make it not double Right. For what the Melrose residents would have to pay. Right. That, that's a little bit surprising to me. Just, um, I guess usually I would think that the people that are receiving it would be very aware of it, but that their neighbors wouldn't necessarily be so aware of it. Especially since I, I assume that this one is similar to some of the others where the impact that each neighbors tax bill is, you know, is it, is it on the order of $30 or something like that, or Oh, I, I think I'm just more, I'm not generally talking about the, um, recipients of it, Uhhuh and just generally like the, the, maybe the senior population in general are just, you know,
▶ 1:02:21 Kimberly Vandiver: people who come to our office mm-hmm. Are more likely to be the senior population. Yeah. Okay. Um, and then, um, could you, do you have that number, and I'm sorry if it's in here. Um, what the average impact at the current level, the current 200% level, what the average impact currently is to the average, the average home in Melrose that is kind of paying to support this program this year? Currently? So What it was this year, 4 cents, or it was about $33 and the average single family tax bill. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Um, and then the, the last thing I guess just to, um, through the chair to add on to, um, my colleagues' comment about making things clear, I think, you know, this is a really complex set of programs
▶ 1:03:17 Kimberly Vandiver: and they're complex for a reason, um, to kind of target specific adjustments that, that are trying to be made. But I wonder if there, you know, if it's something we could think about how to visually summarize things, kind of flow charts, tables. I, I feel like there may be a way to kind of condense a lot of the key info, um, into something visual might, might be a step in that direction of making it clear to people what all the, I know, I know there is a table on the website, but, but if, if there, if the office could potentially think about ways to make it really visually easy to see, you know, if I qualify for this, I should check these three things. Or here's the set of thing, you know, set
▶ 1:03:58 of programs out there, I think mm-hmm. That might be, um, might be valuable for, for people to understand these programs more. Mm-hmm. Okay. Um, those are all my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, counselor. Um, I wasn't sure Cons, uh, president mre, did you have, um, a question? I wasn't sure if you raised your hand for Yeah, Thank you. Uh, chair Gar, but, um, Don't mean to put you on the spot, but I thought I wasn't sure if you did because I got a couple other people in the queue. Other People in the queue. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Sorry. That's okay. Um, councilor Hamilton and then Councilor Williams. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I make a motion to approve the Petition to enact legislation authorizing the city of Melrose
▶ 1:04:45 Ryan Williams: to establish a means tested senior citizen property tax exemption in the new amount of 100, 100% of the circuit breaker income tax credit. Thank you. I'll second that. Mr. Chair. We have a motion on the floor to enact ID 24 0 3, um, by Consul Hammond second, seconded by, um, cons Stewart on discussion Consul Williams. Yeah, I, um, I suppose I just wanted to get to that point about the clarity of the information a little bit by reminding myself what the problem is that we're solving for and, um, understand we have a motion on the floor. So just to help me confirm my understanding of this, um, we have a program, the program, um, allows for senior citizens to get a tax exemption on the property taxes based on
▶ 1:05:45 Ryan Williams: what they're getting from the state as an exemption for their income taxes. And that amount went way up and because it went way up, some of our folks weren't able to qualify for the program. And so we're seeking to lower this amount, um, as a way to allow more people to get into the program or to maintain their participation. Or are we just doing this? 'cause some people came in and complained what's the problem that we're solving for? So I, um, So, um, basically in, in the memo, I, I basically, um, noted some, some concerns that, that people had, um, noted. And then we, the administration and myself made this re this recommendation. So it's really, um, a policy decision on, you know, on what you guys wanna do here.
▶ 1:06:40 But, um, so basically that it doubled that the, that the credit at state level had doubled. So, um, it caused the control at state, uh, sorry, at local level to not be, so it's like shifting more, it could have been almost double the amount without having that control at local level, like fiscally. Do you understand? Yes. Okay. I understand that. So that was one thing. And then the, the funding equity concerns that people raise, just a, just a note, you know, that I've heard from here and there and, um, and then, um, just that there's these, there's these, um, increases in tax rate that it, that it causes, um, when there's other increases in tax rates that are upcoming that we know about. That's all that are, um,
▶ 1:07:38 Ryan Williams: the public safety building project coming online. The other things that are coming online that are going to increase the tax rate. So as a policy decision with other priorities, I think that's why the administration said, okay, let's just, okay. Can I ask you, in the program assessment 0.2, you say it maintains $616,191 of the city's overall tax revenue while distributing the tax burden equitably, um, maintained 616 blah blah thousand of the city's overall tax revenue. Mm-hmm. So is this statement based on the assumption that these people are remaining in the city and paying some portion of their property taxes? Or what's the, how, how is this happening? That means we shifted it to the non-eligible.
▶ 1:08:23 Ryan Williams: Right. Other folks are paying for it, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. But they're able to stay in their home. They're able to stay in their home, right? Yeah. Okay. Alright. Um, well, you know, for the record, I, I would've liked to have had some discussion about the amount because we're allowed to flex this amount between 50 and 200. We could have said one 50 or 100. Um, there's a motion on the table. So I, I would, I support the motion, but I would really like for us to think to, to just keep track of the responses to this. Are we getting more people into the program? Are we seeing, you know, negative impacts to reducing the amount? Like those kind of questions, I think we need to mm-hmm. Keep track of. Thank you.
▶ 1:09:03 Robb Stewart: All set. Council Williams? I'm set. Thank you. Sorry. Council Stewart. Thank you Mr. Chair. Yep. Thank you. Um, Ms. McClean. Thank you. Um, so on that $616,000, um, that gets shifted into non-exempt, uh, if that is, that six 16 was based on the one 50 150%, yes. And so if it goes to a hundred percent, um, do we know how much that 1616 will drop in the shift? Um, we could only estimate it roughly. We could only estimate it. And, um, basically, so like if you say there'd be the same amount of exemptions granted, and then, um, you know, what, what the amount would be for 2024, uh, the state sets that. Um, and then we could just like estimate that it would be, um, what the amount would be, um, per,
▶ 1:10:11 Robb Stewart: and then possibly if you see here from number of exemptions, granted that it reduced, maybe it's not that many, but it reduced from 2024 to 2025, making the assumption. 'cause it's the same pool of people who receive it every year. Um, making the assumption that those that were not granted were, because they didn't get the circuit breaker because their real estate tax wasn't high enough. Um, you know, like they didn't pay enough in real estate tax to be become eligible. They kept the money, which pushed 'em over the, over the Yeah. The ceiling. Yeah. And so then they were ineligible. Mm-hmm. So then if, if I can characterize this, it sounds as though that, uh, there's a benefit for the local tax payers
▶ 1:10:57 Robb Stewart: that aren't eligible because the tax rate, that overall tax rate that gets shifted in is gonna drop. We dunno how much, but there's gonna be a drop. And there's also a benefit for stabilizing the folks a little bit more in your, um, your opinion to be, uh, more consistently, uh, benefiting from this program. And, uh, because the, the, uh, exemption doubled at the state level. They're, they're actually, they're receiving some, um, compared to when this started, there's, they, they're receiving I think a, um, a better benefit and this helps to stabilize. Is that, is that a good characterization? Mm-hmm. Of, of, yeah. Okay. Great. Then, then I'll support this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Council Stuart, uh,
▶ 1:11:56 Maya Jamaleddine: council Jamal Ledine for the second time. Thank you. Um, I just wanna follow up on my first comment. And, um, I was wondering if we can extend, uh, you know, the collaboration and partnership that, um, of your department with, um, the immigrant support, uh, Alliance that is in Melrose that supports, uh, immigrants directly and, um, houses of worship like the Temple, va, Shalom, and all the churches. If there is any way that we can send them those updates or these kind of information so that they can provide it to the people that seek supports from them and find Mm-hmm. Probably some information and resources from them. Absolutely. I truly appreciate your, uh, willingness and all the efforts that you've put into this.
▶ 1:12:46 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you. Mm-hmm. Any other councilors looking to speak? Council, uh, president Melli for the first time? Thank You. Chair Repe. Um, so just reading the memo, the program assessment, and then combined with, um, counselor Jam Dean's points about outreach people have to, seniors have to apply. And we've had last year, it's been over the last three years, like roughly the same 209 people, and I know I vaguely remember this from when the first time we accepted this legislation. Was there a number, and sorry if it's, it's in here, but, um, of how many people could apply, like, would apply? You don't know that? Or do you run that kind of data? Um, or that are eligible, sorry, versus apply? Um, well, we put the app, the number of applicants. Okay.
▶ 1:13:50 Leila Migliorelli: So we encourage everybody to apply whether or not they think they're, we just say apply, just, you know, just so that Yeah. Through the channels that you mentioned though, like press release, website, whatnot. Okay. So there could be a, you know, depending on how it's marketed or if you increase the reach, more seniors could take advantage of it. Yes, correct. But still it is like a limited number. Limited. It's not limited. Yeah. It's not more than like 600. Okay. And then the, the recommendation, the, just reading this, the bullet points of the challenges, The like final or the two, two bullets are really just based on sort of the comments you received and also anticipated property tax increases.
▶ 1:14:50 Leila Migliorelli: I'm just trying to, it's, I think what I'm hearing from my counselors, and I don't mean to speak on behalf of anyone else, I am finding this a little bit like difficult to sort of weed through in terms of, you know, you have like, there's bullet points here. Some are sort of, you know, direct, like this is difficult because the Seesaw effect, and thank you for explaining that, that was helpful. Um, and I just, it's, it is a complex piece with the state, um, impact doubling and that, and it, and I just, I feel like it's a, it's a little bit difficult to wade through all this information. Um, I do think that the motion on the table, I'm, you know, supportive of that. Um, but it is a little bit, it's a little bit hard
▶ 1:15:36 to kind of weigh through all of this. And then also thinking about the fact that this is an opt-in program, making sure that it is easy for others to understand, um, to, uh, just my, my feedback. So thank you. Okay. Sure. So, sorry, did you, is No, not a question. Just, just, okay. Just feedback. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Uh, before we go to, uh, council ver, i, I keep on forgetting to look over to my left, uh, councilor Romanul, do you, did you have any questions for the first time? Sorry. No, everyone has covered my question. Sorry about that. Council Vandiver, Um, Thank you Chair Repe. Um, so I guess, um, Listening to this, I, I, I have a few comments. The summary of them is that I think we may need more time to think about this.
▶ 1:16:31 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, so I, I understand that the state, at the state level, the benefit increased and that is outside of local control and a little bit concerning. Um, at the same time, I think if the state increased that benefit, it seems like it was done for a reason. Um, and I don't, I guess I don't understand right now why we would walk that back by decreasing our percentage from 200% to 100%. Um, because I, what I'm hearing, it sounds like this is more driven by non-eligible residents feeling this is unfair, even though this is, you know, something that's done to support seniors so that they can stay in their homes. Um, and I don't if the average tax bill impact is only $30, I don't see that that's really justified, um, that,
▶ 1:17:13 Kimberly Vandiver: that's really causing much of a burden to the other taxpayers. Um, so, you know, I, I understand the Seesaw piece could be helped here, but it doesn't seem like that's the main piece of this. So, so I guess at this point, unless I'm missing something, I don't see why I would support that. Um, and I would want to either bring that back to the, at the 200% level where it currently is, um, or have the discussion another day. Um, and my understanding if I'm under, as far since recent discussions is that, that with Rule 49, we could make either of those motions to amend or to postpone. So, um, with all that said, that's kind of where I stand on it at this point. Um, and so I would make the motion to postpone
▶ 1:17:59 Kimberly Vandiver: to the next meeting so that we have more time to consider those, those points. Um, we second, We already have a motion When point of order, Mr. Chair, we have a motion on the table, and yes, we, there's no motion to amend. So this, we Can't, we got a ruling, um, from the city solicitor. It is in our rules that you can, can do a motion to another motion that's on the table For amending though. For, to, To hold. Right. Motion to hold, to hold the, the, the motion is to hold. Right. So there are the eight listed options under Rule 49 that I believe my understanding is can be made while a motion is on the table. And so I i motion to amend in this case, or sorry, I motion to postpone in this case
▶ 1:18:42 Mark Garipay: Postponed, Postponed to the next meeting. Okay. Um, point Of order, just, I think it has to be postponed to a Specific date. Yes. So that would be, I believe, two weeks from today. I, so I would motion to postpone to January 10th. February, sorry, February 10th. But we're deep now. I would second. Second. Okay. Um, if I could just ask a question through to the, um, to Ms. McClellan, uh, any indication, is there any time constraints where this is a home rule petition and has to go to the legislature in order to get this completed in time for budget and everything that needs to be done? Do you, do you know if there's, are we under any time constraints? Yeah. So if, if it's not, um, put into place
▶ 1:19:32 through the legislature, um, before we set the tax rate next year, um, well, in order for them to apply, like the, the first year we did it, they got, they signed it in July, and we were able to do August and September for applications. And then I put it in the tax rate. But it's tight still. So in order for them to get it into the tax rate, really, 'cause we have to shift the tax rate. Um, so it's, it's, um, if they don't get it through the legislature, we, we won't have the, um, the exemption this year at all. So, so, I'm sorry. Um, so is it, do you, is it the administration's recommendation? It has to be done as soon as possible? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Um, Through the chair, by when is there a date?
▶ 1:20:20 Mark Garipay: Is it like today it would be, uh, recommended or do we have like 10 days or, I'm sorry, I'm not, I don't have that information. I can get, I can have someone from the administration get back to you on that. I, I just think in past hor petitions that we've had, have gone months, like for, um, we just had one recently that one, four or five months, I think before it got, I think it all depends on the legislature. Right. I'm assuming they would move this along quicker, but you never know. So, um, but with that said, we have a motion on the table to postpone this until February. Was it February 10th? February 10th. We have a second. So we can take a vote on that. Councilor Jamal Ledine? Yes. Councilor Hamilton?
▶ 1:21:18 No. Councilor Karen Chetty? Yes. President Melissa? Yes. Councilor Romanul? Yes. Councilor Stewart? No. Councilor Vandiver. Yes. Council Williams? Yes. Chair Garipay. No. Motion passes. Okay. So that will be postponed until February 10th. 10th. Um, that concludes our business for tonight with a and OI think We have to withdraw the, uh, second motion on table. Right. Did we, Um, I, I think we postponed that motion, so, okay. We do a vote on it anyway. We never did a vote on that. No, no. Would make a motion to adjourn. Second, Um, we have a motion to adjourn by Council Jamal second and by Council Hamilton on discussion. I'll take a roll call. Okay. Councilor Jamine? Yes. Councilor Hamilton? Yes. Councilor Karen Jetty? Yes. President Melissa? Yes.