Fall River committee discusses HERO Act options; finance committee tables proposed increases for veterans and seniors

The Fall River City Council debated proposed increases in local property-tax exemptions for veterans and senior citizens under the state HERO Act and related provisions before the finance committee moved to table both resolutions for further consideration.

The HERO Act allows municipalities either to index veteran exemptions to inflation (clause I) or to adopt a local policy that doubles the existing exemption amounts (clause J). City staff described two paths: a CPI-based adjustment or an immediate percentage increase up to 100 percent under clause J.

City officials and the board of assessors presented baseline numbers. The transcript shows the existing local veteran exemption levels are $400 per year for (non-% disabled) veterans and $1,000 per year for % disabled veterans; those two categories together represented roughly $160,000 and $100,000 in exemptions last year, respectively, according to the assessors’ summary. The administration proposed a modest first-step increase for this cycle (the package discussed in committee proposed raising the non-% disabled exemption to $600 and the % disabled exemption to $1,500), citing budget constraints.

“About a year and a half ago I came to the council to ask that we look at increases for the elderly,” said Richard Gonzales, chairman of the board of assessors, describing the long history of unchanged exemption thresholds. Gonzales said the city has not updated key exemption thresholds in about 45 years and argued for a phased increase.

City administrator Seth Aiken and interim director of finance Emily Arpke told the committee the administration felt the proposed incremental increases were affordable in the current budget; they said the city could consider further increases in future fiscal years but recommended stepping up gradually to avoid mid-year budget shortfalls.

Several councilors pushed for a faster timetable. “It’s been 45 years — we should plan a path to meaningful increases,” one councilor said. Another urged the administration to bring back a short timeline (one year) for a follow-up increase so veterans and seniors have a clear commitment rather than a multiyear promise.

Committee members also discussed the fiscal mechanics. The assessors’ office explained the overlay account (which covers abatements and similar adjustments) carried a modest year-end balance last fiscal year and is budgeted further in the coming year; reimbursements from state aid cover a portion of total exemptions, but not the full incremental cost if the council adopts larger local increases.

After extended discussion the finance committee moved to table resolutions for the veterans and seniors exemptions to give the administration time to return with refined numbers and a timeline. A roll-call vote on the motion to table (taken during the finance meeting) recorded five yes votes and two no votes; the motion carried.

What’s next: the administration will meet with finance staff to produce a clearer fiscal projection and a recommended timetable for phased increases, including the estimated impact on overlay and reimbursement amounts. Councilors asked for a historical list of exemption counts and a clearer projection of fiscal impact before voting on any permanent changes.