ORDER-2017-82 : Amend Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228, Sec. 228-15 (B) Water Rate Review Committee as set forth herein. (Amended in Legal & Legislative Committee-Feb. 27, 2017)

Transcript (~15 min @ 16:30)

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

▶ 16:25 John N. Tramontozzi: what we're talking about here. So we have one order on the agenda. It's order number 2017-82. It's an order to amend Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228, Section 228-15b, Water Rate Review Committee, as set forth herein. This order was sponsored by President of the Board of Aldermen, Donald L. Kahn, Jr. The proposed amendment would read as follows. Be it ordained by the Melrose Board of Aldermen that section 228 15 B be amended to provide there is hereby created a water rate review committee to consist of the director of Public Works the city auditor and alderman Appointment by the president of the Board of Aldermen and two citizens Appointment by the president of the Board of Aldermen the committee shall meet at least quarterly to review the water rates established pursuant to this section the cost of operating the water system in any capital improvements to the system it shall report its findings in any recommendation to the Board of Aldermen no later than the 13th day of April each year what is the will

▶ 17:40 John N. Tramontozzi: of the committee will hear from the sponsor of this order president Kahn yeah

▶ 17:44 Speaker 5: one thing I wanted to do is set the context of the history of this wood section of ordinance and how we got to where we are today prior to i think six years ago

▶ 18:00 Speaker 5: the way water and sewer rates would be set would be that the administration the cfo the director of public works would send down proposed orders to the board of aldermen relative to the rates they'd usually be sent down at budget time and we would consider them at the full board of aldermen and in committee and we would vote to set rates we didn't have well there was no there were no public hearings relative to the rate setting and the board really didn't formally have any place at the table even though we were the people who would set the rates and determine the budgets But at the end of the day, because under our ordinances, that's our charge, we have to set the rates. I believe six, maybe seven years ago, the administration sent down an order to codify the process of setting the rates. And this committee, well, I'll get to that in a minute. So they sent down an order to establish this committee. At that time, the order as sent down to us didn't contain a provision to allow an Aldermanic member to participate. When the order came down, I moved to amend the order to include an Aldermanic representative, which seemed to me to make sense since this is really a process that at the end of the day the information is being generated for us. The other thing that people who are watching at home should understand is what this committee does is it meets five six seven times a year it develops information and it makes recommendations to the board of alderman again relative to the water and sewer rates under the new ordinance which came in in the six or seven year time frame uh the administration supported my amendment and the board of alderman also supported my amendment so we uh had an aldermanic representative on the on the rate setting committee from that time, I think I was the representative for more than two years. I was followed by Alderman Tramontozzi for approximately two years, and Alderman Forbes is in his second year. So when this new committee was established, the Alderman got significantly more input. The other significant step forward when we adopted this process was that this became a process where the meetings were held in public and eventually there was a rule adopted so that there is some public participation at these meetings. Not as much as many people would like, but the new ordinance significantly changed and opened up the process. Over the last few years, I've felt that it would be appropriate for us to have citizen participation on this committee. And the reason I felt that is not because I want to shirk our responsibilities in any way. Because at the end of the day, we still have to sit here and we have to vote on the rates and we have to have public hearings and things of that nature, not the rate setting committee. But it seemed to me that if we had some citizen participation in a formal way on this committee, if we had a citizen representative, A, that may allow us to have a different perspective in terms of these discussions. Frequently, people who are involved in government tend to think in the same ways and don't always see different ways to solve problems. The other thing that a citizen representative on this committee do would be to help us tap into some expertise we may have some member of the public who has great knowledge and insight relative to water and so who would be willing to serve on this committee and maybe that will give us some access to some free expertise and it might give us some access to different solutions or different ideas about how to deal with rates and the the water and sewer system, so I filed this order because I would like to see at least one member of the public be an appointee. To this committee, I think it would be appropriate, and I think it would be a good step forward. And the other thing is, I think it would help to bolster public confidence in the rate setting process. And it would be a good step forward. It's not a criticism of the current committee or the current process, but I think this is an evolving process, and I think this would be a good step forward. After I drafted the order, one other thing is, the treasurer is currently on the committee, as the committee is constituted, as well as the chief financial officer, as a person who served on the committee, I didn't really see the need to have both of those two individuals on the committee. And as a result, in my proposal, if you adopt it, I didn't include the treasurer as a member. And I did when I filed this order not include the city engineer. It has been pointed out to me by a number of people that this was not an appropriate, the deletion and I really don't have a problem and I would support keeping the city engineer as a member of this committee. I think that city engineer brings the expertise that we need. I think we do need a citizen representation. I would urge the committee to adopt this ordinance change. I think I think it's a good step forward I don't see any real downside to it that's kind of a rambling explanation as to how I got to filing this order motion I recommend for passage yeah

▶ 24:24 John N. Tramontozzi: before one there's some further discussion but I'll take the motion I'll take that motion thank you the president client for that's a very helpful for the committee I see Alderman Forbes would like

▶ 24:37 Scott M. Forbes: to have a input yes Thank You mr. chairman I I agree I I do think the city engineer has a has a rightful place on this board she by far has has she has the most information at our meetings she also is part of the MW IRA advisory board so a lot of the meetings drive with the information that she collects so I think that she is a vital member of the board so I would approve this order if the city engineer was part of that that body or that that committee uh but that being said do you have uh did how how is this board going to be constituted then because i don't think that was in

▶ 25:18 Speaker 5: the original order well if you if you made a motion to amend yeah um my order you could indicate that the city engineer continue to be included in the amended order and then the only thing you'd have have to determine is how many how many members of the public that the board thinks are appropriate to serve I if we have one member of the public on this committee I'm fine with that I just I want public input and participation on on this committee I think it's important yeah so we could we could adopt an

▶ 25:50 John N. Tramontozzi: amendment to add the city engineer as a member if we did that then you'd have as As it would stand, then, there'd be six people on that committee with the two citizens.

▶ 26:02 Speaker 6: So moved with the amendment, so moved.

▶ 26:04 John N. Tramontozzi: Alderman Medeiros, although you're not a voting member, you're welcome to input into the hearing.

▶ 26:11 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you, I'm not sure if Alderman Forbes was finished with his comments.

▶ 26:17 Speaker 2: That's fine, I'll yield the fair.

▶ 26:19 Monica C. Medeiros: I just wanted to say, I do support, certainly support adding some citizens to this. I think two is a great number at least to start with to this committee I think that would be beneficial in order to to have a more broad perspective brought to the committee I do think it makes sense to keep the city engineer has been discussed and I do think there's a little bit of something there's some benefit to having the treasurer collector there and at least in the meetings that I have attended where there's been discussions about rates and discussions about billing and and things of those nature which I've been told in terms of orders that I've brought forth to this board that this board wasn't the appropriate you know place to to bring them in that they really needed the input of the treasurer collector from the the water rate committee so it seemed as if the treasurer collector paid you know played some kind of important role in that committee based on on those discussions so that adding the treasurer collector back in would in fact bring the committee to seven members and if there were a tie it was assuming if you brought the the city engineer back you'd have somebody to break the tie and perhaps you know I'm not a voting member of this committee so I can't make amendments or adjustments but perhaps you know it does occur to me that you know either this the city auditor or in some of these cases you might be able to say or you know his or her designee for the auditor or for the treasurer collector if perhaps they don't need to be it doesn't need to be that particular person there all the

▶ 28:10 Speaker 3: President Kahn.

▶ 28:14 Speaker 5: Yeah, one other thing, I think this is a fairly significant order. And we have four people who aren't here this evening. And this is an order that would be an ordinance change, so whatever we would finally vote out to the full board would have to have the support of at least eight members of the full board. And what I would suggest is respectfully, I'd like to hear from the people who aren't here before we push this forward to the full board. So I would suggest that the committee might want to hold this in committee so that we can have at least one other session discussing this and getting some feedback from the four members of the full board who aren't here this evening.

▶ 29:01 Peter D. Mortimer: So moved, according to the wishes of the maker of the order.

▶ 29:04 John N. Tramontozzi: right so we have a motion to hold in the committee yes sir any further discussion

▶ 29:09 Scott M. Forbes: I think yeah I just said and I'm gonna second that as well but I I I feel like it needs to be an odd member board I mean I don't think we're gonna have an even member board so we're you looking at a five member board with one citizen or a seven member board with the potential of three citizens like that's something that we need to discuss or if we're gonna be adding members on so I agree I think we need a full participation for a conversation to

▶ 29:33 Speaker 5: Yeah, and just one other thing, and I don't mean to speak too many times. But I didn't envision this to be a board that was going to be primarily or a majority of citizens. But I think it would be important for us to have at least a citizen that we need that perspective. Agreed. Setting these rates is still our job at the end of the day. But I'd like to tap into some input from citizens and I'd also like to, the ideal world would be if we got somebody who wanted to serve on this board, who had great expertise in this area, who could help us. So that was my intention. And in terms of not including the treasurer, and obviously anybody from the administration or city government can attend any of these meetings. This is just the committee or the people who vote to make the recommendations. So the thinking behind not having the treasurer and the CFO as voting members was I didn't really think it was necessary. Obviously, if the rate setting committee has questions that they think they need Mr. Flavin's input on, he's going to be there to answer questions if he's needed.

▶ 30:49 John N. Tramontozzi: I think that's an excellent point. Not to interrupt, but if I may. Many times when I was there at the meetings, I agree that the treasurer really didn't have that much to say about the only when he answered a few questions about how in terms of billing, how it was going to be billed and so forth. Yeah, he can be called at one of the hearings to just answer those questions. He didn't need to be there during the course. And I agree. I think having a citizen or two or three, if that's the wish of the committee, would be appropriate. So we have a motion to keep it in committee, which has been duly seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? So we'll hold this in committee and discuss further.