Malden City Council 10-14-25

We must never forget that. In that effort, I want to acknowledge the strong... tremendous community organizations, our VFW... To this earth. No true.

Test.

You and I should be up here.

How are you? I'm good. Not as strong as you.

Hello, hey, we need help with the microphones. The microphone software is not microphoning.

Hi, can you hear me? Yeah, yeah, we need help with the microphones down at the council chamber.

It's none of, when you hit your microphone.

Okay, the council will come to order. All rise and salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please remain standing for a moment of silence in honor of our veterans, service members, and those who have given the ultimate sacrifice. I'll now recognize Councilor Taylor for an additional moment of silence. Councilor Taylor.

Thank you, Council President. This past week, we lost a member of the Ward 5 community, Elizabeth Thonen, otherwise known as Beth Thonen. She was a volunteer at the Warming Center, spent the last few years in Malden, and really gave back to the community and the city. And I'd like to take a moment of silence for her.

Thank you. Now, in recognition of Indigenous Peoples Day this week, I will now read our land acknowledgement. We honor and acknowledge the Massachusetts, Pennacook, and Pawtucket peoples whose ancestral lands we now call home and on which we gather today. We express gratitude to the Indigenous peoples who have cared for this land for generations, predating European colonization and continuing to the present. Moving forward, we are committed to ensuring that the histories, voices, and contributions of indigenous peoples are recognized and respected in the life of our city. Thank you. Now will the clerk please call the roll?

Councilor Colón Hayes? Here. Councilor Condon? Here. Councilor Crowe? Here. Councilor McDonald? Here. Councilor O'Malley? Here. Councilor Sica? Here. Councilor Simonelli? Here. Councilor Spadafora? Here. Councilor Taylor? Here. Councilor Winslow? Here. Councilor President Linehan?

Here. Thank you to our clerk. Now under the provisions of the open meeting law, for those of you in attendance, please be informed that UMA Urban Media Arts will be recording this evening's meeting. So just be aware there will be audio and video recordings of this meeting. First order of business.

City Assessor Nate Kramer will appear before the City Council to give a presentation on the residential exemption option of going from 30 to 35% in here. We have them already at the podium for you.

Welcome. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. So this this presentation or at least a lot of this presentation has actually been up on our website since 2021. So I'm not sure how much of how many of you have have read it or how into the nuts and bolts of it you want to get. The first few pages are just what the residential exemption is and how it's calculated. Um, and if you want, I can read it or, or we can just move right through. Um, uh, there's about 17 communities in the state that have it all for different reasons. A lot of them are on the Cape, um, uh, for second homes, um, in Malden. Uh, it was enacted to help homeownership be more affordable, uh, because we have a high number of absentee landlords. One thing a lot of people don't understand with the residential exemption that it stays in the residential class. So we're not raising, we're not discounting our levy. We're still raising the same amount of money. It's just that the values are shifted only within the residential class. So this doesn't affect commercial or industrial real estate at all or personal property. It does raise the residential rate though. And this is how it's calculated. This is on the website and if you want me to go through it, I can, but I think you'll all glaze over pretty quickly. But these next couple of slides will illustrate what these numbers mean. So this slide just shows, it's a comparison for owner occupied properties if we were to go from 30% to 35%, what it would look like. And basically, I guess the important numbers for us to be looking at are those green and red ones. So right now with the 30%, and these are using ballpark fiscal 25 numbers and also fiscal 25 tax rates, but the ballpark savings right now, so this includes, so even though People might see like the amount of the residential exemption they get is 2690, but it doesn't include the fact that it also raised the tax rate. So that number you see the 2003 is what the actual savings are for. So property one is a $500,000 house. Their actual savings is $2,000 on their tax bill. Property two being a million dollars. As the value goes up, the benefit diminishes. And then after a certain point, it just goes, people are just paying more. So property three being around the break even point, they're paying around 1600 more and properties around 1.5 million are paying around 2000 more. I believe last year for the fiscal 25 classification, there were only around eight single family homes that fell above that. So there's a very minimal number of owner occupied dwellings that fall above that threshold. Now, if we were to increase it from 30 to 35, look at the lower part of that graph, those actual savings go from 2003 to 2442. 1353 to 1667, whereas those higher value properties that are paying more, 1619 to 1837, 2040 to 2325. Then, for non-owner occupied properties, this is how it

Do you have a clarifying question on this current point? Okay, I'm going to let Councilor O'Malley ask a clarifying question.

On the last slide, I think. So the actual taxes without the exemption would be the bolded black number plus the green number? That's what the tax would be without the exemption? Because that's the savings, right?

No.

Yeah.

No, so see towards the top of the graph, it says bill with no exemption. If we didn't have the residential exemption at all, the tax bill on a $500,000 house would be $5,040. With the 30% exemption, it's $3,007 and the savings are $2,003.

Okay, so bill with no exemption. Okay, thank you.

This is similar to how if you look it up in the assessor's database now, it essentially shows you that, correct? Yep.

OK, but it just is that that that row is not included on the bottom graph, correct?

So the bottom part of the graph is what it looks like at 35 percent. So that so that bill would no exemption line would be the same on the 35 percent section. So if we didn't have the exemption, it would still be five thousand dollars, five thousand forty dollars.

He's just not really showing you what your tax bill would be without it.

Oh, because I thought you said that the tax rate would increase, wouldn't it? Yep, it would. No, it's close enough.

So without a tax, in this example, without any program at all, the residential rate would be $10.08. At 30%, it's $11.44. And I believe at 35%, it's $11.64. Okay, thank you.

So, Councilor O'Malley, I think. Are you good?

Yeah. I'm pointing out the road did help.

Okay. Thanks. I think that is an important point, though, for the public. I think just to underscore that. So I think if there's no exemption, everybody's rate is the same. Everybody's rate per thousand is the same. Is that what you're saying?

On the residential side.

On the residential. So not your literal bill. I just want to make that clear because Councillor O'Malley was asking why that row of your individual bill disappeared. But what you're saying is that without an exemption, that rate per thousand goes the same for everybody.

On the residential. On the residential.

Okay. Got it. Sorry to interrupt you. Please continue.

That also includes a shift. So that residential rate with no exemption includes the shift so if we had a single tax rate across the board residential commercial everything was one tax rate we'd be i think sub nine dollars got it um so the next slide just shows what happens to folks who don't qualify for properties that don't qualify for the exemption um and So again, the colored numbers for those same values, um, a $500,000 house that's not owner occupied or for, or for whatever reason doesn't qualify for the exemption is paying $680 more where if we were to go up to 35%, it would be 775 more. Um, and so on down the line, does everybody follow that? So this slide just shows you know where what happens to that money, so everybody's everybody's tax bills are lower Where does that where does that money go or who picks it up? Because we're still collecting the same amount of money it shifts to the higher value properties, so this is what happens to their bills So on a twenty five million dollar property their bill on the residential side would be two hundred and fifty two thousand dollars and There's not none either. We have quite a few high value apartment complexes. We have several that are over $100 million in value.

Yeah, could I ask?

Yeah, we're talking about residential.

Since we are talking about residential, I wanted to make sure you did mention this point that we were talking about as we were preparing the presentation, because I think the public may not understand that the large apartment complexes are not businesses and that this if I'm understanding what you were explaining to me, Councillor Simonelli, I'll get to you in a moment, that what you were explaining to me is that shifting this is a way of pushing that tax burden to the larger apartment complexes, which currently essentially are taxed the same way as single family homeowners now.

Yep. So Granada Highlands pays the same tax rate as a single family homeowner. It's the residential rate. Um, Their bill is a lot larger, obviously. They have 919 units. I think they're over 200 million in value. But yeah, so they pay that rate. So one thing that the residential exemption does is it helps alleviate some of that cost for the lower value properties and it puts it on the higher value properties. And since they are valued at the Residential rate and not the commercial rate which is done the same statewide and that's been that way forever I guess it's the closest thing we can get to actually saying okay We're taxing these large apartment complexes more than regular owner-occupied dwellings because essentially we are so you can see you know for a 25 million dollar property At a 30% exemption they're paying 35,000 more. And at 35%, they're paying, what, 40, 50, 40-something thousand more. And all the way up to, so if it's $100 million property, their tax bill's $1 million a year with no exemption, 1.14 with 30, or 1.16 at 35. So they do, those higher value properties really do pay quite a bit more with the exemption.

Thank you.

Any other questions on that?

If counselors would indulge me, I'd actually like to give Counselor Spadafora a chance to speak because he docketed Nate coming before us, and then I'll take other questions. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Nate. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate it. The first thing is, I would say hopefully third time is a charm. We've tried to do this, I think, three years as a bit of council. I think so. The first question I have is, is how many cities right now currently have 35? Is it three? It's one. Some of them think just some of them. I thought Boston had it, too, but that's Boston might.

It's been a crazy couple of weeks. OK, so I just haven't had a chance to dig into it. But I know some of Somerville definitely does. I know Everett's at twenty five, but Everett's also Little different. 60% residential.

Yeah, I would just say to my to my colleagues, listen, at the end of the day, I know I know we all realize that we're all going to pay more. That's I think one of the challenges in the past was, you know, it does affect the renters. We all know what's coming down the pipeline. No matter what we do is going to affect the renters and certainly the homeowners. I think the way Nate explained it was this is a good balance for us right now. We don't have a commercial tax base to kind of pass on this levy. I look at this as a way to have like an artificial pass off to the commercial tax base, which are large apartment houses, which we can't change that, right? I've said it a thousand times up here. That's a state decision that they should have, you know, apartments over 25 or even 15 should be taxed at a commercial rate. We can't do that. This is the way we can do it. I think it's also important that we're really going to help the lower value of homeowners reap the benefits of this and where the houses that are assessed the most are actually going to pay more. I mean, this is literally Robin Peter to pay Paul, but it gives the people, I think, really need that additional savings in any year, but especially maybe this year, the next couple of years, the ability to at least have some savings and the one with those and the people that have those houses that are assessed at a higher value, they're going to pay more. And I just think at this time it would it would really be a misjustice, I think, to the residents, especially the homeowners, which we try to protect. And we've all talked about ways to incentivize that. And we've also talked about ways to charge more money to absentee landlords and more money to the landlords that are running bad property owners. This is the way I think we can do that. It sends a message. It's going to be more money to operate some of these properties. And if you do a good job, you'll be able to reap the benefits. If you don't sell to somebody who's going to come here and live here and get this benefit. So I am 100 percent in support of this. I appreciate the council for indulging me. As a reminder, we asked for it. Well, I asked for the beginning of this year again, hoping that we wouldn't have to do a 11th hour road race that we always do. That's why, if you remember, Nate came in early this year. We said we were a little bit too early, not knowing what was going to be before us. Nate's here. I think he has to have a vote on the tax rate by the end of this month. So I would hope that everybody would really take a serious look at supporting this and raising more than 35% and really showing us what we're trying to do here is give a little savings, not to everybody, But I think to the ones that actually could use it, need it, and I think it would be welcomed by the community. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councillor Spadafora. Councillor Simonelli.

Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I have a couple questions, but just going on with what Councillor Spadafora said. I mean, passing this on to the to the high residential properties, the apartment complexes, which entail they're going to end up raising the rents on rents that are already not affordable here in the city of Malden. So at the same time, we talk out of both sides of our necks sometimes because we'll sit up here and we'll say affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing. But at the same time, we'll take votes to increase the rents that are out there now or have the potential to increase, because they're going to pass those costs down to their renters just like a store would pass down their height increases on rent and stuff like that to the people that shop in their stores. I mean, that's how you got to make up the money. And you're absolutely right, Councilor Spadafora. We're, you know, take it from Peter to pay Paul or however you say that. So, I mean, I don't really know where I stand on this because It's just making one problem worse and the other problem a little bit more alleviated. I mean, and we're looking for a two and a half override, still talking about that, I guess, right? So we're looking at doing that with the homeowners to the homeowners. I haven't heard anybody talk about any cutting or any looking at where we can cut some fat if there is any fat. I don't know, I'm saying look into, I mean, I know that's your committee.

And we're not talking about the override right now, and we actually don't have a paper to vote on.

I just want to be clear. No, but we may be looking at that down the road. Nate just gave a presentation. Listen, listen. I know that's not on the topic, but I'm just saying my piece here. So what I'd like to say is that, you know, I was talking to somebody today at the grocery store, who has been a long-time employee, recently retired, and I don't want to say the person's name. But, you know, they brought up a good fact. It's kind of funny that you're here before us tonight. It must be like... It must be a coincidence. So we were talking about the homeowner's exemption. Now I know that was developed during the Howard administration is when we first put that thing forward. I even voted for it. So I guess I wanted to ask, come up, like how do we continue to check on that? Let's say, for instance, if it's doubled since we've been given the homeowner's exemption, right? And say that's doubled by about 500. Let's say it's increased by double, say it's increased by 500, let's say 500 homes. It's increased by getting the exemption. You know what I'm saying? So I guess my point is How, and they continue to get it. So my thing is, how do we know if those people haven't moved out of the city, because it's homeowner, you gotta be owner occupied. So how do we know, who checks to see if those people have moved out of the city, and we're still giving this exemption, and meanwhile they're renting it out. You know, is there somebody that checks on that from the assessor's office from time to time? Or is that something we could look? Because I'm looking at like, so we kind of did the figures a little bit. So say the average is $2,000. Say it increased, say it increased, you know, or doubled since we put that into effect during the Howard administration. It's been like over 20 years, right? And let's say 500 of those are no longer home owner occupied. That's potentially a million dollars. that we would get back because we wouldn't have to give it out if it's been rented out and not sold. You know what I'm saying? So do we have somebody that checks on that? How does that process work?

Yeah, the assessor's office. Huh? The assessor's office. Well, how do they do that? Yeah, so we do about 500 a year where we remove people and make them reapply. And anytime somebody puts their property into a trust, we remove it and they have to reapply so we can make sure they're still living there. Okay. It's not a perfect thing. There are people that- Right. And it's more common with multi-family homes. We don't know if they moved. Right. But also we work closely with other departments, the building department. So it would behoove us to kind of- The health department, they do inspections. Hey, the owner isn't there, and they let us know. Right. We work with a lot of different departments on that. It's absolutely not perfect, but we think we do a pretty good job.

No, and I'm sure you do. I'm just saying it would behoove us, though, to make sure that we're doing a better than average job if we're heading into some troubled waters financially down the road.

There definitely aren't 500.

All right, I'm just using for examples, just numbers. But I'm just saying if we could come up with something to see what that average is so we know, so we get an idea of- Well, we wouldn't know. That's why it's not perfect. No, but I mean, well, so again, so maybe we need to try and get together on it to try and make it somewhat perfect. What do you think?

Maybe. Well, we don't know if somebody is living in a two family house and they buy a house in a different town.

Say France, because this lady says she's got four on a street.

Oh, no, we don't know because their deed doesn't change. There's nothing.

I know. I know. You can't check it that way. What can we check it like cross reference with the census? Can we cross reference it with inspectional services to see if, you know, Because there's supposed to be an inspection done, too, if people rent out their apartments, correct? By the health department. That's why they inform us. Yes. So I'm just saying, with those entities, maybe we can find 100 people that are getting the tax exemption of $2,000 a year that shouldn't be.

Councilor Simonelli, I'm going to recognize our clerk to add some context to answer your question.

Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to offer a point of information that Assessor Kramer's office does check in with the city clerk's office anytime somebody comes newly on board with this exemption. Okay. They come over and we run their application through the census to make sure that they are listed as a resident at that address.

So you do do that, okay. We do that, yeah. All right, okay, that's fine. That's fine. But I'm just saying, I think that, you know, since we had that conversation early today and you're here tonight, you know, it's just... Unfortunately, we're trying to save money.

Yeah, no, I got it. Doing what you're doing, it would require another body.

So you don't have anybody in the office that does that now?

No, we all work on it. We do exactly what I explained.

Yeah. So why would you need to hire somebody else?

Start driving around and actually... short of knocking on doors and asking if they're the owner.

No, but I said, I suggest that. Did I say that? No, but that's not what I said. But that's not what I said.

Councilor Simonelli, he has answered your question.

He has answered my question with another question. So I'm just asking if there's a way that we can look at that with the current staff that you have now and try and make it a little bit better to see maybe people that shouldn't be getting it again. Sure. That's all I'm asking. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Colón Hayes.

Thank you very much. Thank you. I know we spoke earlier and I said I was going to ask the same questions out here so everybody else could hear them. I'm struggling with this because a few things. Obviously, I love to give breaks, tax breaks to homeowners and people who owner occupied. But Malden is such a huge city of renters. And I'm really concerned about if we do shift Right, and this goes to leaning on more businesses. One concern is we already have a lot of vacant businesses here already. And these are just questions. It could be yes or no.

I'm sorry, can you back up?

Yep, yep. The shift to apartments, let me stick with apartments first, and then we'll go to the businesses. So the shift from the tax exemption from homeowners, and then it goes to larger apartments. This is a question, because you just had talked about the apartments. Would that affect like big landlords with big apartment buildings here increase? And do you think that they would pass down that increase to the renters here who are already struggling?

I think they could try, but it's a market-based business. They're not going to be able to just raise the rent dollar for dollar to try to recoup that loss. They're going to end up losing tenants. I don't think that would be realized.

Okay. So you're thinking that I get that. And we talked about this earlier, that I know that there are properties in here who have gone and raised rents extremely high in our city and people have gone out and marched and protested against it. So I'm not completely sold on that, but I do understand what you're saying. So anyone listening, I just wanted to be clear that that and that's a good answer. Like, it's a possibility. We don't know what people are going to do. But based on what you just said, we're hoping they're not going to do that. And then the other is businesses, so if we're gonna shift our taxes from us and then businesses will be taxed more do you think that that will People might question coming to Malden because you know, they're taxing businesses more again Putting it out there doesn't have anything to do with commercial Okay, it's just residential. Thank you so much. That actually is a very quick answer. Thank you Hmm

Just to repeat the question, can you clarify the shift, the residential commercial shift? Yeah, it is, yes.

So what we're talking about tonight is the residential exemption. The other term that you're hearing, shift, that's where we shift the burden from residential to commercial. And we do that historically to the maximum allowable amount that we can. Right now, we're currently, I think for we are at 1.74 and the max is 1.75. So going back to one of the earlier slides, what that does is it's a split tax rate. So it lowers the residential rate, raises the commercial rate. If we were to have a single tax rate all across the board for I don't think I'm going to need it much longer anyway. So I think our our our tax rate would be sub nine dollars. Okay.

But what does that mean? Sub nine?

Sorry. I mean, below nine dollars.

Oh, geez. Okay. Okay. Got it. That just sounded so slow.

So right now it's 1753 commercial 1132 residential. It's a little bit tighter for us because we also have the residential exemption, which raises the residential tax rate. So you'll see a lot of communities that don't have the residential tax rate. It's a more consistent difference among their residential and commercial rate. But even if we had a single tax rate with the residential exemption, the residential rate would still be higher than the commercial rate.

Okay. That was extremely helpful because yes, we've been hearing all sorts of questions from residents and making that very clear actually helps me for tonight too, so thank you so much. No problem.

Thank you, Councilor Colón Hayes. Councilor Condon.

Thank you, Madam President. Nate, first of all, thank you for the job you do because I know that you do pay attention to and going on to other cities and people, we have to pay attention as ward counselors. If you know a person on the Two Family House and you know, you do know who in your ward sold it and moved over up in Tewksbury, All right, they're obviously not eligible anymore, and we can give those names to Nate. I'm excited about this going from 30 to 35, just like 20 years ago when Richard Howard did bring it in at, I think we started at 20.

Oh, wait. Oh, yeah, I think it started, it was, from what I could see, I obviously wasn't here then, but it started at five and just went up incrementally to 20, and then.

This is an opportunity that, to help the people that their properties are not worth as much as the properties. Some of the two families are worth over a million. Some of the two families are worth only $700,000. And you're going to help those people that are low. We just have to keep an eye on who's the people that are acting as not occupied by the owner. So I know all of us that run a WOD, you know that most of your problems are being caused by absentee landlords taking care of the property. We have to utilize people that... you know, go out and check those properties because they just don't keep it up like the people that are invested in the city. Those are the people that make the city go. So I'm very excited about this and I intend on supporting it and try to get it up to 40.

But looking around, I know I remember at least four of you who have called at least once to report like that person doesn't live there. Yeah.

Okay. That's all I have to say. I'm excited about supporting this.

Thank you, Councillor Condon. Yeah. Just for clarity, this is just fact finding tonight. It's kind enough to come in and give a presentation at Councillor Spadafora and I's request. If we wanted to formally take this up, we would need a paper to do so. And remind me, Nate, what week are you coming back to talk about the revaluation?

I'll be back. So just before we got onto that, I wanted to add that the mayor's office is in full support of increasing it to 35% as well.

Thank you for that.

I met with them earlier. I'm back here October 28th.

Okay, fantastic.

For the classification hearing, which is when we set the tax rate for fiscal 26. Thank you. And decide on. whether or not to increase it from 30 to 35%.

Okay, very helpful. Thank you. Next, I'm going to go to Councilor Winslow.

Yeah, I mean, I'm just trying to remember, I often think of this as a teeter totter that like we lower here, but goes up. But I think it's interesting. I know we've had some reluctance about going about from 30 to 35% because the concern that fewer people would be eligible. But it looks like the numbers you have are showing 8400 Eligible for thirty percent eighty four hundred for thirty five percent. Is that that's correct?

And yeah, it's strange math you would you would think that but but yeah the my computer died, but the the way you Determine the break-even point where the benefit of it diminishes is by the total residential value divided by the number of people that are eligible Yeah, so the break-even point doesn't change unless the levy changes or the number of eligible people change

So let's say you are the 8,399th valued house. So you would get the 35% exemption for that. Is that how it works? Yes. Okay, yeah. Would it be less than 35% because you're so close to the break even?

Okay, so when we say 30 or 35%, what we're doing is taking the average residential value, not just average single family, but including families. single two three all the way up to Granada Highlands which is not called Granada Highlands anymore but that's what I call it all of those properties divided by the number of parcels it's the average residential value that's where that 30 percent comes from so it's not it's not 30 percent discount um so right now the average uh the the that 30% number is around $237,000. So if you have a million dollar home and you're eligible and you get the residential exemption, you're not taxed on a million dollars, you're taxed at a million dollars minus 237,000 whatever it is.

So that's you figure out what the minus is and then if your house is a lot more. So that's how the heater daughter works. I was trying to understand it isn't like you just take that 35 so it's if your house is worth 600 000 you get 273 000 if it's 500 000 you get 200 so that's why you know so at some point all right so that's the teeter-totter that's what the 30 percent means it's the average value of all the residential right so someone who has a higher value at home is paying more taxes than someone lower right and that's where some of these large apartment complexes really

really filled up that break-even point because there's such high values and we have such a broad array of values all around. If we didn't have those big complexes, we wouldn't have that high of a break-even point. So we wouldn't have just eight houses that don't qualify.

That number would be a lot lower. So then in terms of sometimes we're talking about maybe going forward with the override or something like that. You know, there are senior exemptions, there can low low income exemptions, veterans exemptions. So this it's really just based on property value. We don't really know offhand how many seniors are benefited, because if you are 25 years old and have a very inexpensive home, you happen to purchase it that you just get the exemption is not really age based, right? So there's no age.

Not for this. No.

And there's no no income qualifications, just really the the assessed value and then it's that deduction of assessed value. So is there in terms of an override, it does it does how does that affect I mean, just that over I would just increase the amount of taxes and the deduction would still be the same.

Then I haven't calculated those numbers, but I would say that for especially those lower value properties that override at the amount they're currently asking for would probably be a wash or more. So at the low values- I think increasing it to 35 would probably wipe out that extra cost of the override.

So by increasing the exemption by 35%, the lower valued homes, they would not be impacted.

I'm not sure. We were running quick numbers this morning. Okay. And I know we're not talking about the override right now, but I figured the question would come up.

You think it would be a wash, is that what you're saying?

Initially, and I don't know.

But it is pertinent because there is a point at which it will.

Yeah, and I want to say that in that, you'll see that colored spreadsheet you have. Yeah.

So I guess it's something that we should, you know, as we have the finance discussions and talk about revenues and that type of thing.

There is going to be a number up to a certain value, which I don't know yet. And everybody below that, if it goes to the 5%, the cost of the override will be a wash.

They won't even see it.

But that helps people with low value properties who are owner occupied, but that may or may not be seniors. It may not be anybody that's under that value. That's a 22 year old that just bought a condo. We may be able to figure out. but we may be able to get some sense from some other way of looking at that we're not sending this anywhere so this is just a presentation so no there's nothing to vote on we're not voting on anything tonight so but i think that's just something that we will need but so yeah yeah so i i just thought the floor counselor simonelli um so i just i just want to say that I think what's held me back before was I think we had calculations where we at 30 percent, we had more people who could take advantage of it. If if at 35 percent, we're still having the same amount. I'm supportive of that. So so if that's what the numbers come back in a couple of weeks, I mean, it's sensible to try to do that.

And I'll show to when I'm back on the 28th, I'll be able to show you exactly what it is on the 28th, because our values at that point will be approved. Okay. So then I can, I still can't talk about the override at that point, but maybe I can build a little spreadsheet and show you guys before I come. Yeah. That would be helpful. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That's all.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor Winslow. No, no, you cannot. Councillor Simonelli, I have a long queue of folks who haven't who haven't spoken one time yet. I want to get through everybody who's spoken once. No, don't yell over everybody. Councillor McDonald has been waiting patiently. I'm going to take him next. I'm not kidding around with you.

So, yeah, I thank you so much for this, Nate. And I think this does very clearly interact with two of the things we're talking about. And one is the override. which we've been talking about roughly, you know, the average tax bill, but we haven't been looking at this kind of like different level and how that would match, you know, whether it's kind of on the same plane at these different property value levels. But at the average level, it does look like to just about net out what's been proposed by the mayor. I wanted to ask two questions. One is, we had also asked you for a list of all of the possible state level exemptions that, residents can apply for or qualify for. And those include tax deferments, which I think we can change the eligibility, the income eligibility there to a certain degree. And so if part of our goal were to mitigate the impact of a tax override, should it pass, we're talking a couple of hypotheticals at this point, do you think that there are,

like is is this the most direct uh or focused way to do that or some of these other programs would they allow us to be more focused in how we would try to go about doing that i think the residential exemption is the absolute best and biggest thing we have going right now um there are other things we could be doing um so like for instance the a lot of the statutory exemptions especially seniors and deferments uh deferments are one thing but uh like our senior exemption at 175 the hoops that people have to jump to to get that is to in my mind ridiculous they have to show bank information we have to see all their assets their income and it's just the amount of work they have to go through for 175 off a lot of times we show them what the residential exemption is that they're already getting and they're like oh forget it we're not doing all this paperwork which not to discourage them, but just trying to save them a couple hours of work. I think the second biggest one, that one, the residential exemption, I think is the single biggest one that anybody in the state can offer. And I think Malden is a perfect place for it. Second to that would be the senior circuit breaker, which only one community has both the residential exemption and the senior circuit breaker, it's in Concord. And I think that was a one and done thing. I think they voted it in last year and they got rid of it right away because it's just too much, too much work. Too complicated. But yeah, there's tons. I sent you the spreadsheet with all of the statutory exemptions that are available. It's unclear to me on some of them. As far as I know, we offer everything on there, but we don't know me coming from starting here in 2020. There's a lot of history that I don't know when these things were voted on. I think we found the 17 D was voted on in 86 and the 41 was voted on in 91. So we know we have that deferment. And then we have other ones that don't need to be voted on. So fire and police, widows, they get full indemnity. I think we have about five of those. Right now, I think the number was around 263 people that are getting some sort of statutory exemption on top of the residential exemption. Okay. And that doesn't include excise, so there's a lot of, with the HEROES Act, there's a lot more people eligible for excise exemptions, too.

Oh, so like their car. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. I do remember that from that conversation. And then I, you know, I know that we're concerned about these large properties, but am I reading this correctly? That like the impact of the total tax bill for the $100 million property in Malden is not even $20,000 between what the 30% and 35% tax would bill would be just because proportionally it's so little.

Yeah. That is not a big from going from zero to 30 would be huge, obviously, from 30 to 35 is not they're not crazy numbers, right?

Yeah. For and so for even a kind of $1.5 million property, we're talking about not even $300 difference over here. Right. Okay. My other question was about so we've been working on a rental registry, which just got out of committee, expected to be on the floor soon. That's kind of the counterpoint to this. And in fact, because we don't require landlords to tell us who they are, the proxy we've been using is the residential exemption. And so I think between these two things, folks were asking about whether we're being aggressive enough at making sure people are not abusing the residential exemption. And I know because you've told us before that you've really tightened that up. And we've gotten hundreds of people to not get the exemption. I do just want to note, from my perspective, that's not the only measure of success. That is good. That helps us balance our books. But I have talked to multiple people in our city who didn't know about the residential exemption, didn't apply on time. And it's a $2,000 problem if you miss that deadline.

Yeah. I don't know how. I mean, every year, we'll get a couple of people that have lived here since 2000, and they never knew about it.

Yeah. So this is heartbreaking to me. And what I want to say is, especially if we're moving in this direction, actually make it more consequential. I really think we need to find a way to more systematically help people who might be eligible, like look for other proxies, find some way to get, you know, better connection through real estate deals. I don't know what the answers are, but I do think we really need this. And between a rental registry and a home and a residential exemption, that should cover every residential property. in the city. You either live there because you own it or someone else lives there who doesn't own it. So that should be everybody. And I'm hopeful that actually these two things could work together so that we can make sure that we've got everybody properly categorized so that folks who do deserve to take advantage of this can say, because they're just the most heartbreaking stories. And people are breaking their budgets trying to pay this when we actually have a solution for them and they're not qualifying. So I guess my question is, Would you be able to help us do that if we end up in that situation?

Yeah, so I've already been working with Steve Fama and GIS and Alex Pratt, who was here. We've been building some maps, and that's something that we could easily do. It's way easier than the stuff we're working on. So we can absolutely do that.

Okay, great. Thank you so much. I look forward to considering this. I just want to say the timing is complicated, but I'm sure we will talk about that when there's an actual paper. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor McDonald. Councillor O'Malley.

I do want to mention to my colleagues' concern about the auditing of the exemption. I know that was something that I think Councillor DeMaria, Deputy DeMaria, took up a couple of years ago, and I know that your office kind of went on a full-on audit, and I think that's one of the reasons why we are so tight now, is that we have developed this process to make sure, and so I do appreciate that. And so obviously enforcement is important, but I also want to make sure people who qualify don't lose their exemption. So you had mentioned when people transfer things into trusts, even though it would still be owner occupied, they can lose their exemption. Is there a way that they can avoid that?

So when that happens, we automatically, we remove them and we simultaneously mail them an application. We get so many calls where people say, oh, we saw that thing from the city. We just ignored it. And that's not, we send that application as a courtesy. It's pretty clear that if you have a change on your deed, it's a change of ownership. So you're, it's going to trigger your residential exemption being removed. So like I said, we do, when that happens, we do send an application out. Anytime we remove somebody, we send them an application. And it happens, people ignore it or maybe, It's an elderly person still living there, but one of the children who's taking care of the finances lives in southern New Hampshire and is only maybe down here once a month and sees the mail and missed the deadline.

Stuff like that happens, but... So after a change of ownership, how long does someone have to re-qualify? Or is the rest of the year lost?

Nope. So they have... So within the fiscal year... So for instance, right now we're in fiscal 26. So anybody whose property changed in calendar 24 got removed. So this year there's 391 people who got removed when we sent them applications. It's something that we're working on right now. I think we have, I think there were about 116 that didn't get back to us. So we're resending them. Which is not, well again, we do it as a courtesy. Cost the city money too. So it's one of those, it's one of those double-edged swords. We're like, we don't, we don't wanna see people lose this, but we have a feeling we're, they're still there. Let's try it again.

So people don't have the time when they're making these decisions. They just need to reapply immediately.

Yeah. And I think that's something that just a lot of people don't know about because it's so rare having only 17 communities. So if they're having an attorney to the trust, they might not even know the residential they, that Malden has the residential exemption. So they don't know. Explain to them that they need to reapply so it's really on on us or you know We get it out there in social media every once in a while, too Just reminding people to apply there do people can apply from July 1st to April 1st of the following year we like to get them in earlier earlier the better Before setting the tax rate is best because anything after that comes that money comes right out of our overlay okay, but But yeah, I mean, if anybody has any ideas on how to better get that out there, I'm all for it.

And then in the same vein, you had a brief conversation with Councillor McDonald. The other deductions or benefits you said, you said there's a senior circuit breaker that we don't participate. But you said something about elderly with a lot of paperwork. You said something about the paperwork.

Yes, so there's senior exemptions. There's, I believe, the senior exemption that has asset, agent asset limitations.

And that's set by the state or by the city, the agent, the assets?

State with local options to adjust both the amount of the exemption and the amount of the assets by local option. Which, as far as I can see, I haven't found anything where the city elected to do that.

So we can change the benefit for the senior exemption.

You can increase it based on the CPI. So the DOR puts out the CPI numbers every year, and you can change both the exemption amount and the asset limits by that number.

But we can't change the onerous paperwork requirement. They would still have to go through all the onerous paperwork.

Every year. It's a pain.

Even if we got rid of the asset requirement?

I don't think you can get rid of it. You can only increase it by the CPI. Okay. Consumer Price Index put out by the DOR.

I'm just trying to figure out it doesn't really resolve the problem of the paperwork.

I was trying to figure out how to resolve the paperwork problem. It's a pain. Okay. Just so you know, blind people have to reapply every year. It makes no sense.

Understood. In case there was a miracle worker. Yeah. Okay. So can you talk about the biggest benefit and what kind of asset class it goes to? I know in the past, you have it here and broken down in the value, but oftentimes what I've learned is doesn't it go to a particular type of residential property? So for instance, the lower valued properties get the biggest benefit. So if your property was worth less than $262,000, would you pay no taxes?

No, you have to pay at least 10% of your bill. six condo units or last year there were six condo units where the bill actually had to be adjusted because their bill fell below that 10% threshold.

Because I know that some of the so and I think you kind of hit the nail on the head. So the biggest benefit does go to condos because they have the lowest value.

Yeah, percentage percentage. I would say percentage wise here. Yeah, the lowest, the largest amount of low value properties would probably be condos. Yeah.

And all you have to and all you have to do is look at like if you go on to the 30 verse 35 page, there's this, you know, if you compare the tax bill with 30% exemption to the savings, you know, that that's that's a significant amount. It's two thirds. You know, you're or not two-thirds, but it's a significant. It's two-fifths. That's too low. Yeah, it's a significant. It's late. Okay, and I think the challenge is that the benefit, you have a lot of seniors who are living in singles, owner-occupied singles, twos, et cetera, and they don't get as significant of a benefit from a percentage basis. And the reason why I mention it is it's interesting what you said about large apartment buildings, and I don't think I ever fully made that that grasp because oftentimes, you know, we have seen, you know, vilification of large apartment buildings, but what I heard tonight, and I mean, this is probably the 10th time I've heard this. So it's, it's, it's stuck or maybe the first time that I've made this realization that the large value apartment buildings increase the average residential value, which increases the, the, the, the benefit here. So this is an example of, having large residential properties actually has a financial benefit for owner occupied occupied properties I I never made that realization tonight obviously there's going to be you know impact on our services when it comes to schools Etc but this is this is a benefit that I wasn't aware of um and I'll just give it an example across the street 14 Summer Street the the large tower that just sold I think last month for 97 million dollars it's assessed at 72. Can you talk a little bit about the timeline? Because that's not going to happen this year, but there's a certain lag.

So that was 10 to 20 summer, I believe is what it is. That's what it is in our database. Yeah, 10 to 20 would be 14, agreed. I'm so happy I declined their abatement application last year because they were saying what a crappy building it is. It's not worth anywhere near the 70 million we have it at. What are you talking about? Then it sells for $90 million plus. We had a few big sales. So our 2026 values are based primarily on sales that occurred in calendar 24. So any sale that happened in 25, we will be analyzing and adjusting values for fiscal 27. So the assessed values can be 12 to 18 months behind what the actual market is doing.

And just to tie the knot in full circle, and I apologize for the length, our commercial real estate values are maybe not doing great. I'm not 100% sure about Malden. But generally, commercial is in a tough time right now. So our residential values are carrying us these next years through what we're dealing with. So something to think about. There's always a time and a place, but we really should be building everything. So because it's going to carry us, residential is carrying us through this lull, commercial is going to carry us through the other one. Well, as Councillor Spadafora has stated, a well-balanced tax base is key. Thank you.

Can I ask a follow-up question to Councillor O'Malley's point on that building? So that has businesses and parking that charges in it. So that's still taxed as a residential, even though it has other uses that it makes money on?

It's considered a mixed-use building. Okay. I almost said much like across the street, but that's a condo. Okay. But yeah, it's a mixed use building. So that's called it's considered a it's an 013 class, which means it's it's mixed use, primarily residential with some commercial. That's what. So the one being residential three commercial.

Okay. I just I feel like that's the kind of thing. It's a great example, but I've just I'm hearing like maybe follow up questions if folks are watching and I want to understand like that seems like if we're talking about taxes and why isn't that why isn't something like that bringing us in a lot more revenue is a question I could see us getting after a very otherwise apt example like that there is some commercial money coming okay okay thank you um Councilor O'Malley you're all set okay Councilor Crowe thank you I'll be brief um I know next we have a finance committee meeting and we're not talking about um the override but when you said that you have some um do you have some numbers that you can send to the finance committee just about

if we go to 35 and how it washes it out because I do concern myself about the renters because if it goes bigger and more does get shipped to the apartment buildings, I understand mock and rate, but it's still if they get this, there's the 5% plus an override, sort of what that impact might be.

So we just finished our public disclosure to finalize our fiscal 26 values. Um, right now we're working on a new growth and I would think next week I'm going to be plugging those numbers into the gateway system to DOR. And at that point I'll really be able to tell, all right, here's what, here's what the new average value is. Here's what the new breakeven, here's what the new tax rates are going to be and what the new residential tax exemption amount is going to be. Uh, and from hopefully I'll have time to throw together a spread. When's that meeting Tuesday?

Yeah. Can we just, It's kind of rough, but at least it makes some sense.

I can't get you actual numbers, but I can. I mean, that spreadsheet that you have might be helpful. But I can see also if I can maybe add in what it would look like with the proposed override.

Again, hypotheticals, but just to kind of have a better sense of where things are. Thank you. I'm going to write that down.

You're all set, Councillor Crowe? Okay, yes, Councillor Simonelli.

Thank you, Madam President. For the second time. Yes, I know. Listen, that's all I was trying to say before Councillor Spadafora made his wisecrack, that I think if we're talking about doing 30 to 35, like Councillor Crowe has said, and we're also talking about the two and a half that we don't want to talk about tonight. We should probably have all that in committee so we can see what these numbers look like. It's almost like putting the cart before the horse. That will give us all a general senses of what we're going to be looking at for our constituency down the road if, in fact, this override does happen, what happens to this 35 to 30 to 35%, which you kind of said tonight a little bit was like a wash. So that's all I was trying to say. Not that there was a vote on this tonight, but saying that maybe we should take something. I don't know if we have to have a paper on it or if we can just do it. Maybe this is a question for the, um, Clerk, do we need a paper on it or can we send this to committee to go along with Councilor McDonald's finance committee that he's working on so diligently on the 2.5%? That's all I'm asking.

Councilor Simonelli, I believe there's going to be a hearing on setting the tax rate and whether or not we're going to increase this from 30 to 35% on the night of the 28th. Am I correct? Yep. So in two weeks from tonight, this will be coming back to us again in the form of a paper. Yes.

It's when we set our tax rate. It's when we set our tax rate.

It's important enough for us to send it in so we can start taking action on it right away with Councilor McDonald's committee.

Well, as of right now, there's no paper to send anywhere.

So we do need a paper to send that into committee. Right. We can't do it on the floor tonight.

But between Councilor Crowe's request of what she just asked, Assessor Kramer, I think that what you're asking for will find its way into finance.

Okay, okay, fair enough.

And then we won't be voting until two weeks.

Fair enough. So that's what I was trying to say there, Councilor Spadafora.

Okay, I'm gonna let Councilor McDonald respond as well. Yeah, just very quickly, I am sure we will need to meet on the 28th in finance regardless. I encourage you to join us, Councilor Simonelli. We had a great conversation about potential areas to cut just before this meeting. I'd love to come in, I'll just try to give you- Yeah, so I think, Nate, if we can't get it by next Tuesday, then I'm sure we will meet on the 28th and be able to review that and its interaction with a potential override consideration. prior to the council then voting on that in the full council meeting. Okay. All right. Yeah, I'll do my best. If that works for you. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor McDonald. Councillor Spadafora.

Yeah, I will be quick. So I will be, I think we have to put, so this is the first thing. I think I will put a formal paper in for finance to increase the tax rate, to look at possibility of increasing the tax rate to 35. No, and then it's going to come back, right? There's no paper that we can talk on the floor in two weeks. There's no paper.

Isn't that the paper that you're bringing forward?

The classification hearing is October 28th. But that's going to happen anyways. That's not a paper. We have to do that regardless. That's when we decide though on whether or not to increase the residential exemption.

This question is usually always a part of that same paper that sets the tax rate. The paper says that we will set the tax rate at x and if we will increase the residential to 35. That's part of the same paper, is it not? So that's what we're doing now.

That's we're here.

All right. If we don't have to. If no, I don't want to send it to me. I just want to formally make sure that we can vote on that at that tax rate, because that's our last that's our last chance. That's the first thing to say. The second thing I would just say is to my counselors, I understand we we always concerned about rent this. We should also be concerned about all property owners residential. You can't have it both ways, everybody. We can't say we're going to we're going to do an override. and not worry about the renters, but now you wanna give the homeowner something and you worry about the renters. This is what I would just say. It is supply and demand, right? I own some investment property. You can't charge $3,300 in Malden. You can do it in Cambridge. You can do it in Somerville. You can do it in Medford. That's why Malden's always been this place that we have these rents because the other cities are much more expensive than us and we've been able to capture that. It's more. That's my point. But my other my other issue here is using that economics is if you pay off your house and you have a two family, do you not charge that that tenant market rate? Of course you do. I think this is this this is this is a small savings for those homeowners that need it. At the end of the day, we all know our property taxes are going up. Our water bills are going up. Our insurance is going up and our food's going up. This is a way I think that in some cases we can offset, which is good to hear. Right. Those people paying this. Now, again, not everybody gets to not everybody gets to participate. But I think this council would appreciate we're participating with the lower homeowners and then and then the more highly valued houses are paying more. I mean, that is literally that's that's that's how it's going to work. Right. I but I think it's important to send that message. We are we have we are we want to join the ranks here. I'm happy the mayor's office came out in support of this. I'm glad to see that Mayor Christian did. But I would find it really disheartening as a council the third time we've asked to go up to 5%, understanding economics and understanding, yes, not every participates, and then go on to say we're probably going to have to do an override. That would just be unfair. It would be unfair. And if we can give a little bit of savings, we should. And then all the other stuff about increasing the commercial tax base, that's for another day. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you, Councillor Spadafora. So, Nate, I guess my question would be, and maybe Madam Clerk, this is an additional question for you as well. So we do have standard language that we talk at this item. Does it have to state the existing exemption only? And can we amend that if we want to? Or can we invite Nate to put this proposal to the standard language? Can we put 35%? instead of 30, or do we have to state what the existing?

You could change it to zero. I don't think you need to change the language. You can say we don't want it anymore and get rid of it completely if you want. I don't think that changes any paper.

It doesn't change the language. You just plug the number into it. It's like literally a one-sentence paper. Yeah.

Okay, so we have a solution. We don't need a paper.

Isn't that a public hearing? It is a public hearing, and we will have a paper on the night of the 28th.

No, you don't. Okay, I just want to make sure- You can go from 0 to 35 if you want, or the other way around.

Okay, I appreciate all the time you've put into this. I know it's a lot to come twice in a row, and then I know there's a ton of work behind the scenes that we're asking of you to get ready for all the other implications of what we're considering. So thank you so much. It's what I'm here for. Thank you. Nate, would you mind passing that piece of paper up to us for our next order of business, which is public comment? Much appreciated. Thank you so much. Nobody signed up. Nobody signed up. Okay, so our next order of business is public comment. Public comment is allowed under council rules. Each speaker is limited to subject matter relevant to the evening's agenda. And commenters must keep their comments to two minutes or less. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up for public comment?

We do not.

Neither in person nor by email?

That is correct.

Okay, next order of business.

Consent agenda.

Okay, this evening's consent agenda consists of meeting minutes to be approved, one appointment to be referred to personnel and appointments, and four petitions to be referred to the license committee. Does any councillor have a desire to remove any of these items from the consent agenda for the purpose of further discussion? Motion to approve. Councillor O'Malley, let me put your light on.

I'd like to remove the minutes.

You'd like to remove the minutes. Do I have a second?

You don't need a second.

It can be done on request. It doesn't require a vote.

Understood. Okay. So we'll remove the minutes from the consent agenda. Any further motions related to the consent agenda? Okay. Okay. On Councillor Sica's motion to approve the consent agenda, seconded by Councillor Taylor. All in favor? Aye. Okay. The agenda is approved. Next order of business.

Paper 368-25, minutes from the meeting of September 30th, 2025.

Okay, do we have a motion related to those minutes? Councilor O'Malley? Sorry, go ahead.

I just had a question for the clerk. I was wondering, and I don't have any, I'm not opposed to this, but was AI used to generate the summary for these minutes?

I don't believe so. Let me just run through them and double check. I usually go back and hand type them after listening to the meeting again. Is there a specific?

The only question I had was on the discussion for the, it was paper 363.25. There was a lot of robust discussion about that. That was related to the override, And it kind of summarizes as various councillors spoke on the topic, but it doesn't really get into like, what did Councillor Spadafora say? What did Councillor McDonald say? What did I say? And I do feel like that's valuable context for the public to have. And so I just had a chance to review it tonight and I wasn't sure if that was a decision that was made by the clerk or if that was something that AI did.

No, those weren't done by AI. Those were typed by me. It's not appropriate to type meeting minutes that look like transcripts. They're not meant to be transcripts. They're meant to be summaries of what happened, not necessarily what was said, word for word. But that's why we do have the replay on UMA, YouTube, and via the Teams meeting. Okay. That people can go back and watch again if they want to see the word for word transcripts of how the discussion unfolded.

I would just, if possible, I'd like an amendment that Councillor Spadafora and really made a strong, and I think even Councilor Winslow, made a strong appeal to the public and to the state delegation, particularly Senator Lewis, to fix the Chapter 70 formula. I think it's important that that be documented in the record. Even though they could go and watch it on the video, the video is actually not the legal record, it's the meeting minutes. So I appreciate that you could get the context if you wanted to sit through all of the video, but oftentimes people don't. They just look at the minutes. But that would be my motion.

So just to make it a motion that it is noted in the record that the three members made an appeal to the public to speak to their delegation.

I don't want to speak to others, but I remember specifically the three of us talking about that, but maybe Councillor Winslow.

Okay, so we have a motion by Councillor O'Malley, seconded by Councillor Colón Hayes. I'm seeing nods from the named councillors that were in agreement. Okay, all in favor of that amendment? Aye. Aye, that carries.

And with that, I move to approve the minutes as amended.

Okay. Yes, one second, let me get your light on. Sorry, my mouse is really sticky tonight. Councillor Spadafora.

I would just say maybe as a future reference, if we want something to be put in the record, Please let the record reflect exactly what I'm saying.

Councilor McDonald is excellent for doing that, and I do appreciate that. Yeah, well, I know, that's what I'm saying, but maybe- When you say that, that's true.

No, that's what I think we should do. Maybe as a collective whole, if we want something to be quoted, please let the record reflect this.

And then that way it helps you and get rid of some of the noise. Yep, that's a great point. Okay, so we had a motion on the minutes by Councilor O'Malley, seconded by- Winslow. Councilor Winslow, all in favor? Aye. Okay, that motion carries. Okay, next order of business.

Next order of business. Paper 374-25.

Before we do that, I know we have a counselor that had made a motion to take a paper off the table. Okay, Councilor Winslow.

Yeah, I want to make a motion to take paper 29425 about weights and measures fees off the table. And then I can, so I make that motion.

Okay, do we have a second to that? I'll second. Okay, Councilor O'Malley, all in favor?

Aye. So, okay, go ahead.

Yeah, sure. Be it ordained by the Malden City Council that the code of the City of Malden, 16.12.0602, sale of goods by weight, measure, or volume, is hereby amended by striking the table in its entirety and inserting instead the following.

All right. Okay.

Councillor Winslow for the paper.

So, I think a few weeks back, this paper was referred out of the committee rules and orders favorably. Um, I think there was some discussion about, um, whether we should enroll it. Um, and just, there was some questions about, um, the, I think councilor O'Malley in particular asked about, um, the documentation related to the, um, you know, the, the, the new rates that are proposed in this measure. So I did check with Nelson Miller and, um, you know, He did share some things about comparing the rates to other communities, but he has now he does have man hour cost per inspection rates that exceed the proposed fees. So I think that was a question that came up. So I think that we should go ahead and enroll it tonight and then plan to ordain it in the next full council meeting. And if people have questions, they can follow up with Inspector Miller. But I think that question that came up when we were going to enroll it. We decided to pause enrolling it so that we could just have the building inspector check that. But I think we can go ahead and enroll it. And then I think he has confidence that we have the documentation necessary to go ahead with the fees. And then if people want to look at something before we ordain it, we can do that. But I think that he's confident that the documentation exists and the fees have a valid basis. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Winslow. Councillor O'Malley.

I was just wondering, could that be shared with us? Like you were saying, could it be just sent to the entire council?

I can have them do that so before, yeah, so yeah. But yeah, whatever that is, but if people want that done, but yeah. But I think I'd still like to make a motion to enroll it, and then we can have that, but yeah.

Okay, would you be comfortable with receiving it?

I'm not opposed as long as there's a commitment that that documentation gets sent to us. All right. Thank you.

Okay. Councilor McDonald. Thanks for Councilman Winslow for that follow up. And my question is then if the staff hours per inspection exceed the proposed fees, should the proposed fees be higher to capture the cost of the staff hours? Did you discuss that with?

I did not discuss that. I just don't know how much the differences are. I mean, we could look at that again, but I think it is some of these fees have not been set for almost decades, so it might be good to go forward, get them increased, and then we can reevaluate that in future months. But I think it would be good to get these out there, get this ordained as quickly as possible, and then start collecting that revenue right away. And then we can evaluate that more if you want.

So I would be happy to second the motion to enroll if we can also add amend that or or let the record reflect that in I would like to revisit these in a year and see have they actually captured the staff time that we've put into um that we put into these inspections uh that we're charging the fees for yep sounds good okay let's let's let the record reflect rather than make an amendment I that's my personal opinion um okay so on a motion by counselor Winslow seconded by counselor

McDonald to enroll. Do we need a roll call? No. Okay. All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

That carries. Next order of business. Do we want to do personal privilege before taking up? Does anybody have personal privilege?

We do. Counselor Crowe. Thank you. I just want to let, since we won't be on camera next week, remind people that the annual Trunk or Treat will take place on Saturday, October 25th. 3 to 5 p.m. on the bike path on Canal Street, closest to Medford Street. I have a number of councils that I'm putting in trunks as well. So I welcome everybody to if you want. It's a great event. We have a lot of trunks this year, and so I hope to see everybody there. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Crowe.

Councillor Taylor. Thank you. So this coming Saturday, the 18th at 530, we will be doing the Haunted Forest at Pine Banks, so I hope everyone will join us. It is geared towards older kids and adults or young kids that can handle- Is that a disclaimer? No, but people sometimes bring younger kids and younger kids are welcome if they like to be scared, but we do kind of gear this a little bit more towards the older kids. Are you showing tax bills? We're talking about the override.

It'll horrify you.

There also will be an option snacks for sale from the coffee truck that we all adore and the cannoli truck will be back for this. And then the following weekend on Sunday the 26th, we'll be doing a younger event at Forest Hill School. that we generally do every year from three to five. And that is also the Maplewood Association will be at Salem Wood that day as well from 12 to three. So there's so many fun Halloween things to take advantage of in the next couple of weekends. But hopefully we'll see you Saturday at Pine Banks.

Thank you, Councilor Taylor. Councilor Winslow.

Yes. So thank you for talking about the Salem Wood Halloween. event put on by the Maplewood Association it is 12 to 3 is the time I think I mentioned 11 o'clock before but it is 12 to 3 on Sunday the 26th so that's a fun time uh a lot of games for the kids that they uh they play some games win some candy um entertainment and stuff like that so it's a fun fun time um there and then I also wanted to mention um and congratulate um and I thank all my counselors for signing the um the accommodations for uh three Eagle Scouts Scott and James Gage and Stephen Lawrence, who are going to be commended at the Eagle Ceremony this coming Saturday at the Moose Lodge. So just congratulations to all you. And I will pass these commendations on on your behalf. Thank you. Great.

Thank you, Councillor Winslow. Councillor McDonald.

Thank you. I just wanted to let folks know who did not turn in tune into the Finance Committee meeting just before this meeting that we are continuing discussion of not only a potential override to put on the ballot, but also our overall financial situation and different ways to close our budget gap. And we talked we talked today about ways we've already the city has already, excuse me, saved money and reduced our budget obligations by switching our health insurance or seeking to do so by restructuring our pension payments and by reducing our debt service over time. And now we're just moving to raise some fees as well as appropriately done and were justified by documentation. And so we're going to be continuing that discussion next week. Next week, we're going to have staff from our building department and strategic planning and community development talk about economic development strategies and what might be possible for building up our tax base in the future. So that's on the docket for next week. And I just encourage folks to continue to tune into that. If you are interested in that, we'll keep trying to make information available, ask all the questions we need to ask. leave no stone unturned and push out that information. I do just wanna note earlier today, I think this is okay to say, I went to Urban Media Arts who was reaching out to candidates to invite us to record statements that they can then use and they're still waiting on all the counselors who wanna do that to be able to record your statement or you don't have to, it's optional, you can just let them know you don't wanna do it. But I just said I would remind folks to do that if you would like to do that in their TV studios so we can get that information to to our voters and then.

Go for it. Okay.

There's also a second candidate forum this Thursday. If you want to hear more from the candidates, again, sponsored by Urban Media Arts, that is a youth run forum and that's at 7 p.m. and it will be live streamed on UMA. So if you want to hear more from the candidates, you can also tune into that. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor McDonald. Councilor O'Malley.

I was just checking on what time that forum was. Is it 7 o'clock? Oh, that's why. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. You all set? Oh, okay. Councillor Spadafora.

Yeah, I just want to thank the Baldwin Public Safety, the Fire Department, the Police Department, the DPW that came out, a lot of organizations. For the public safety day, I know Councilor Sica was not able to make it, but her impact was felt. She loves to throw a party, so a lot of that stuff was already set up before she went away. She asked me how it went. I told her I think it was the largest public safety day we've ever had. So I don't know if it was a combination of, they cut down the number of hours and it was perfect weather, but a big shout out. It was a great event. I don't want to guess number of people, but it was clearly a well-attended meeting. It's good to get the kids and the families involved in that and get to touch a lot of the equipment, see a lot of things, have food, get pumpkins. So great shout out to that. Certainly want to recognize Council Sica and looking forward to next year. Thank you.

Great. Thank you, Councillor Spadafora. Next order of business.

Paper 374-25, order that the City Council will vote whether to go into executive session with legal counsel for the city. For the purpose of Exemption 3, Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21A3, for the purpose of discussing strategy as to possible future litigation related to grants. With such discussion, an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigation position of the city, if so declared by the chair. And if so allowed by the body to admit Marie Louise, Special Assistant to the Mayor, and Alex Pratt, Director of the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development. Roll call is required.

Okay, so citing exemption three of Mass General Law section 30A, section 21A, wherein discussing paper 374-25 in open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the city's litigating position. I'd be looking for a motion to enter executive session. Okay, on a motion by Councilor Spadafora, seconded by Councilor McDonald. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilor Colón Hayes. Councilor Condon? Yes. Councilor Crowe? Yes. Councilor McDonald? Yes. Councilor O'Malley?

No.

Councilor O'Malley said no. Councilor Siga? Yes. Councilor Simonelli? No. Councilor Spadafora? Yes. Councilor Taylor? Yes. Councilor Winslow? Yes. Council President Linehan? Yes. So that order has been adopted. We will be entering into executive session.

Okay, so the council will now enter executive session and the body will not reconvene for any further business this evening and we will adjourn directly from the executive session.