ORDER-2017-148 : Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228-14 Water meters by adding a new subsection C as set forth herein.

Transcript (~13 min @ 1:33:40)

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

▶ 1:33:34 Speaker 2: dash 148 amending Melrose revised ordinances chapter 228 dash 14 water meters by adding a new subsection see a set forth here in this order comes

▶ 1:33:46 Speaker 1: recommended from the committee on appropriations motion for Passed mr. president second alderman water removes Passed the motion is second by alderman Forbes is their discussion Alderman Medeiros did we see mr. mr. chairman I

▶ 1:33:59 Monica C. Medeiros: had asked for the city solicitor to weigh in I believe on this order and I'm

▶ 1:34:07 Speaker 7: not sure that I saw the response yeah I don't know whether we I don't recall

▶ 1:34:11 Speaker 1: seeing of an opinion of the city solicitor on this order not in the order

▶ 1:34:20 Speaker 1: in IQ m2 hey Alderman's work oh what's your point of order there was there

▶ 1:34:23 Michael P. Zwirko: was a correspondence from another piece of correspondence from Department of Public Works director John Schenner earlier today that referenced the city solicitors opinion on the order I have to say I excuse me I I can't that that

▶ 1:34:40 Michael P. Zwirko: is an order that's currently in committee my apologies to the chair the

▶ 1:34:48 Speaker 1: The order is before you, Alderman Medeiros.

▶ 1:34:54 Monica C. Medeiros: So then on discussion, this is the meat and potatoes of this order is to create a manual read fee of $50 per quarter for anyone who hasn't changed over to the new meters. And I said this in committee and I continue to believe that this is not actually legal. These are something that are supposed to cover the cost of a service that's provided. Certainly the new meters that have been installed in about 90% of the homes and other businesses in Melrose have been installed with the new meters, which are able to be read from the street just driving by by radio. about three to four hundred homes or customers that have not yet switched over to the new meters this would create a fee to have that meter read which means that the meter reader would have to you know go back by the house stop the car and read the meter from the outside fifty dollars to do that and provide that service for one meter read I think is an unreasonable amount and I'm gonna be not supporting this and I had asked for information of this the confirmation of legality from the city solicitor and I don't believe it's

▶ 1:36:23 Speaker 1: common thank you thank you Alderman Inferno thank you very much mr. president

▶ 1:36:25 Gail Infurna: I also had concerns about this in committee but I have since talked to a number of people and I understand all the work that's gone into reaching out to all the residents to um get these new meters in here what i would like to ask and i could make it a friendly amendment that and i will support this but um to have another letter go out which i believe we heard at the committee meeting that they would do that but i would like in bold letters that in as of effective october 1st you know a fee you know shall be done if they could really outline that in bold and i think that will maybe help the process for these people to call dpw to get the new meters installed and and as we know i mean they were in my house i think 10 minutes to do it so it really doesn't take much time or tie up anybody's day by any means they're very flexible so i am comfortable supporting it but i would like to make a friendly amendment at the time to make sure when they do the letter and i know they have the intent of putting this october first date on but i would really like it in a bold letter so that it stands out i will

▶ 1:37:40 Peter D. Mortimer: withdraw my motion um in respect for alderman inferna's intention to make a friendly amendment if the second uh of my motion will uh withdraw their second then she can go ahead and make the amendment okay is the second withdrawn as well as the second stand second i'll withdraw my second

▶ 1:38:02 Speaker 1: yes principal motion is withdrawn alderman inferna makes a motion to amend the order to make it a condition preceding to the Passed of the order that the public works send a letter to people who would be subject to this fee who are people who have not allowed their meter to be changed out uh prior to the initiation of the fee did that accurately sum up the tenor i think

▶ 1:38:30 Gail Infurna: it's important and and i know people will think it's it's not you know it's minimal but i think it's important to really put the effective date and the 50 per quarter in bold because sometimes people open up the mail they may only look at the bold piece so i i would like to see that in bold

▶ 1:38:50 Speaker 1: letters okay so in addition to what i've previously stated alderman inferno moves that the date and the fee be highlighted in bold font second second the motion to amend

▶ 1:39:03 Robert A. Boisselle: alderman mortimer moves seconds the motion to amend is there discussion on the motion to amend alderman voice out i have a question uh during that discussion that that was done that evening there was a a large number of people that responded to the changing the meters and these 300 sort of stood out and the question was how many of these 300s were absentee landlords who were just renting the property and weren't responding was that question ever answered i don't recall whether that was ever answered i think they may have indicated that they did not have the answer they didn't have that answer so basically three letters went out and a good portion of the population responded and were bending over backwards to respond to maybe 300 absentee or landlords who just don't want to respond at all just just

▶ 1:39:57 Robert A. Boisselle: highlighting another letter for will probably cost another 20 bucks to send

▶ 1:40:05 Speaker 1: out anyway okay thank you anything else on the motion to amend all those in favor of the motion to amend please indicate by saying aye opposed opposed one opposed a motion to amend passes the orders before you motion for Passed of the order as amended mr. president Alderman Mortimer moves for Passed of the order as amended second it's seconded by Alderman Inferno is there

▶ 1:40:33 Scott M. Forbes: any discussion Alderman Forbes Thank You mr. president just like to remind everybody that these 400 accounts there have been over the course of over a year there have been six attempts to try to communicate with these residents to get into their home and exchange the meter at no cost I just want to repeat that again at no cost to the resident so if we think that a $25 fee or a $50 fee is too excessive to residents who have not responded in the course of over 14 to 16 months six pieces of communication by the city of Melrose with another one that's going to come saying what the effective date of the change is this is of no cost to the resident so if it entices that person and if it's an absentee landlord if it's a resident that just is not acknowledging to the city whatever that case may be that person has to be the ability to stop that and just allow the meter to be installed at no cost I just want to remind that to everybody who's watching here at home all right we've made several attempts to do the right thing you do have a small portion of people in the city of Meadows that happen unresponsive maybe that $25 or $50 will be the enticement or the motivation necessary in order to read the meters a lot of these meters are old we don't know if they're reading accurately we We don't know if any of them have been tampered with. Whatever the case may be, we need to be able to figure out a way to solve the problem. I think this order is an appropriate measure to solve the problem.

▶ 1:42:13 Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. I have Alderman Medeiros for the second time.

▶ 1:42:16 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. Just to clarify, this is not $25 or $50. This is $50 fee per quarter, so this is $200 per year to those people who have received we were told four letters that that by the time all said and done it's supposed to be six letters they've had no phone calls as we've heard from the Department of Public Works there's been no telephone calls to these these remaining folks but most importantly the they've been asked to change over their meter but there's been no consequences for not changing over the meter we all got the letters but there's no consequence if we didn't change over the meters and there's no laws are on the books that allow us to this is really a fine not a fee but to feed them no you know there's been no ordinances on the book so there's been there should not have been any letters warning residents of a potential fine or fee to come up so residents may have gotten four letters six letters no phone calls with no indication that they were going to get a higher bill if they didn't act so you know this is I don't know I don't think you know I don't necessarily think we've done this the right way I think this is if we're going to provide a fee for a service of manually reading it it should be accurate for the for what we're actually providing to cover the cost and and not punitive and not something to be a cash moneymaker if if we have if we

▶ 1:43:47 Monica C. Medeiros: have 400 residents that all get charged $40 per quarter for a year that's another hundred thousand dollars worth of fees that we'll be taking in if it's 300 it's about sixty thousand so there's there's certainly things like it's being

▶ 1:44:06 Speaker 7: used as a moneymaker rather than thank you

▶ 1:44:11 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Alderman McAteer-Margolis thank you I have heard anecdotally of some people who have not changed their meters because they've been hearing that the new meters are in fact more accurate and they don't want their water bills to go up. So I think if there is in fact an assessment of a fine slash fee, and I think we need to just call it a fee, people have ample opportunity from June till October to have this addressed. And if the city recoups some loss that is perhaps occurring because of those meters that have been either, you know, that are old and not accurate or have been tampered with, then so be it. I mean, it may be that we're losing over $100,000 a year because those meters are outdated or not working or just, you know, I mean, not connected properly or something. So I do support Alderman Inferna's amendment, and I think if the people in the water and sewage department I know have been doing copious amounts of public outreach on this, I don't really think there's too many people out there who don't know that they should have done this by now and I think just in the effort to encourage people to be good citizens and also to cover the cost of perhaps the people who aren't being good citizens and the cover cover the cost and the expense of having a meter reader go back out and do these that we are within our grounds of assessing this

▶ 1:46:03 Speaker 1: fee. Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. O'Shea, could you please call the roll on the order as amended? Alderman Boisselle? No. Alderman Forbes? Yes. Alderman Inferna? Yes.

▶ 1:46:13 Speaker 2: Alderman Emmerman? Yes. Alderman McAteer-Margolis? Yes. Alderman

▶ 1:46:22 Speaker 1: dearest no no Alderman Mortimer yes yes Alderman Tramontozzi yes yes Alderman Zwirko yes yes president khan yes yes