Boston Ways and Means Hearing on Senior Tax Exemption COLA Adjustment – June 15, 2026
Boston City Council Ways and Means Committee Hearing on Senior Property Tax Exemption COLA Adjustment – June 15, 2026
The Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on Docket 0697, a proposal to adopt Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41D, which would allow the city to annually increase the income and asset limits for the senior property tax exemption (41C) based on the Consumer Price Index. The hearing took place on June 15, 2026, at 10:33 AM, chaired by Councillor Ben Weber. The committee heard from city officials, advocates, and members of the public, and discussed the modest but meaningful impact of the change, as well as broader challenges facing older Bostonians.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Lawlene Hardy (Boston resident) testified that Age Strong’s cost-saving clinics are valuable, but more targeted outreach is needed in senior centers and churches to inform seniors about exemptions like 41C and the property tax workout program. She urged automatic renewal communication for current recipients.
- Donica Chaplin (Hyde Park, homeowner for 50 years) asked why seniors must reapply annually for the exemption, noting the burden on aging residents. She questioned why the city does not consider the full household budget (utilities, medications, insurance) when setting tax relief, and criticized the 14% interest rate on tax deferrals compared to home equity loans.
- Ann (no last name given, Boston resident) raised concerns about gross Social Security being counted as income despite Medicare deductions, and asked about the rule that tax relief cannot reduce assessed value below 10%. She noted that irrevocable trusts may disqualify seniors from exemptions, and contrasted the lack of aid for seniors with tax breaks for downtown office-to-residential conversions.
- Ally Foley (Back Bay renter, virtual testimony) supported Clause 41D but highlighted that renters like herself face similar cost-of-living pressures. She called for education on programs like RAFT and SNAP, and for city support for senior renters aging in place. She urged the council to address the gap for those who may never own a home.
Discussion Items
- Proposal Overview (Councillor Louisgen) : The local option (41D) would tie income and asset limits for the 41C senior exemption to CPI. If adopted in 2003, the income limit (currently ~$25,000) would be over $40,000 due to compounding. This change is a complement to the home rule petition at the state level that seeks larger limit increases.
- Implementation (Hinlin Wong, Assessing Department) : The change is straightforward—update staff, brochures, and website. For FY27, new limits would apply: single income limit from $20,000 to $20,540; asset limit from $25,980 to $26,687. Married couple limits similarly increase. Applications must be filed annually by April 1. The department proactively sends renewal forms to current recipients.
- Outreach and Support (Emily Shea, Age Strong) : Age Strong runs cost-saving clinics (Jan–Apr 2026) and helps residents apply for exemptions. In early 2026, they assisted with 95 elderly exemption applications. She noted that many eligible seniors do not apply, and better outreach is needed. She supports pre-populated renewal forms to reduce burden.
- Advocacy (Carolyn Villers, Mass Senior Action) : 41D will not reach many new people but will prevent current recipients from losing eligibility as their Social Security increases. The home rule petition is needed for significant expansion. Two-thirds of single seniors and 43% of couples in Boston cannot afford basic needs.
- Senior Testimony (Lily Bryan, Mass Senior Action President) : Urged passage, noting that without 41D, seniors are “living on the edge.” The change is an incremental but necessary step.
- Data and Eligibility : The number of approved 41C applications declined from 507 (2025) to 446 (2026) out of 725 applicants. Councillor Louisgen estimated a 5–10% increase in participation after adoption. The Assessing Department does not track why applicants are denied or the total eligible population. Councillors Flynn, Culpepper, and others pressed for better data and automatic renewal reminders.
- Other Programs Discussed : The senior tax workout program (volunteer up to $2,000 off taxes), veterans exemption, deferral program, and the 10% assessment floor. Councillor Culpepper suggested outreach via churches and a citywide “exemption day.” Wong noted that surviving spouse exemption (17D) has a $40,000 asset limit (not adjusted by CPI) and no income limit.
- Chair’s Questions : Weber asked about expectations; Wong estimated no administrative challenges. The state reimburses $500 per applicant for the exemption, with remaining cost borne by the city. The total foregone revenue is roughly $700,000 annually based on recent approvals.
Key Outcomes
- The committee will advance Docket 0697 to the full City Council for a vote on June 24, 2026.
- If adopted, the changes will take effect for Fiscal Year 2027 (applications starting July 1, 2026).
- The chair committed to working with central staff to schedule the vote.
- Councillors expressed strong support and urged continued advocacy at the state level for the home rule petition that would more significantly raise income and asset limits.
- Several councillors requested that the Assessing Department collect better data on the eligible but unserved population and explore pre-populated renewal applications to reduce the annual burden on seniors.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning. Thank you. Thank you. So am I. Okay, for the record, my name is Ben Weber. Uh, I am the uh district six city counselor and the chair of the Ways and Means Committee. Uh today is June fifteenth, two thousand twenty six, and the exact time is 10 33 a.m. This hearing's being recorded. It's also being live streamed at Boston.gov/slash city dash council dash TV and broadcasts on Xfinity Channel Eight, RCN Channel Eighty Two, and Files Channel Nine Sixty Four. Written comments uh to uh maybe sent to the committee uh email at ccc.wm at Boston.gov and we'll be made part of the record and available to all counselors. Public testimony will be taken at the uh at the end of we'll we'll again we'll uh we're gonna hear from the panelists, then we're gonna have questions from my fellow city counselors, and then after our first round of questions, we'll get to uh public testimony. Everyone uh will have two minutes to testify. If you're here to testify publicly, there's a sign-in sheet uh over there. Please sign in. Um even if you haven't signed in, you're here, you want to testify. Just you know, we'll I'll raise your hand and we'll call on you uh to to speak. Um so if you're looking to testify virtually, please email our central staff liaison, Karish Machohan at K-A-R-I-S-H-M-A.CHOUHAN at Boston.gov for the link, and your name will be added to the list. Today's hearing is on docket number 0697, order to accept Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 41D, authorizing annual increases to senior exemption income and asset limits. Uh this proposal would essentially allow an annual increase to the income and asset eligibility limits for cities uh for the city's senior property tax exemption based on the consumer price index to be provided to the city annually by the uh Massachusetts Department of Revenue. This matter was sponsored by counselors Rucy Louis Gen, Brian Warrell, and myself, and was referred to the committee on April 1st, 2026. Today I'm joined by my colleagues on order of arrival, Counselor Flynn, Councillor Murphy, Councillor Louis Gen, and Councillor Warrell. Uh I uh I'm gonna introduce our panelists and then uh do opening, yeah. Uh well each of my colleagues will have uh a minute to give an opening statement, then we'll hear from the panel. So we're joined today uh by Hinlin Wong, uh member of the Board of Review, incoming interim, chief of assessing for the city of Boston. Uh, we're joined by Emily Shea, the commission commissioner of the Age Strong Commission. We're joined by uh Carolyn uh Villers, the Executive Director of Mass Senior Action Council, and Lily Bryan, a member of the Mass Senior Action Council. Uh so now I'm gonna uh we're gonna start with the sponsors uh first. Counselor Louijan, Councilor Aurel, and then Councillor Flynn, Counselor Murphy. Uh, we'll give you a minute to give an opening statement. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Weber and good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. Thank you to my co-sponsors, and I want to thank all of our panelists for being here. Sorry if my voice is a little hoarse. I was rooting for Team Haiti weekend and uh Team Haiti at the World Cup and recovering still. Uh, but this hearing is incredibly important. I know that we had it scheduled for last week and we had to move it. So I want to thank the Mass Senior Action Council for your flexibility in us moving this to accommodate um the schedule of the Ways and Means Committee. This hearing, as many of you know, is in order to accept uh clause 41D, which would be a local option, it would allow Boston to adjust our senior tax exemptions according to the cost of living, based on cost of living adjustments. It's a simple proposal, but it's a really important one. Um there are other cities such as Belmont, Cambridge, Concord, Milton, who have adopted uh 41D. And about a month ago, when I went to Mass Manufacturing Council over at Child Street AME in Roxbury, uh Carolyn passed out really helpful material that said if we had implemented 41D back in 2003, when we could have the senior tax exemption uh because of the compounding effects of uh of including cola every year, the exemption that is now somewhere at 25, 26,000 would have been 40,000. And that would mean that more of our seniors would qualify for the senior tax exemption. Something that I look in uh look forward to getting into with the assessing department, is what we've seen from the data when we're talking to Commissioner Aronello. We've seen over the years slight decreases in the number of people who are eligible for the 41C exemption. What look what adopting this local option would do is it would increase the exemption limits and the asset limits based on cost of living, such that more and more people would qualify. So I look forward to a robust conversation. This is something that is especially important for our legacy homeowners, for our black and brown uh homeowners who are too often house rich but cash poor. We need to do be doing everything that we can to make uh the cost of living here in the city more affordable for our seniors who have given so much to the city who um should be able to age in place with dignity. I will state that this proposal does not change the actual asset limit itself or the income limit itself.
openpublica.com