ORDER-2015-192 : Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228-14 by adding paragraph C relative to Water Meters as set forth herein.

Transcript (~12 min @ 19:10)

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

▶ 19:15 Peter D. Mortimer: we have before us is order two zero one five dash one nine two amending Melrose revised ordinances chapter 228 dash 14 by adding paragraph C relative to water meters as set forth herein the order is before you alderman Medeiros it's your

▶ 19:36 Monica C. Medeiros: order please proceed thank you very much I appreciate this this is an order which has been around for a little over a year I hope that this order did get

▶ 19:51 Monica C. Medeiros: eventually recommended to go to the water and sewer committee for discussion there was one water and sewer committee meeting last late last fall at the time there was a new consultant that was going to be on the horizon and we expected that the consultant would look at this order sometime between say you

▶ 20:15 Monica C. Medeiros: know by April at least unfortunately that order was never heard again in the water and sewer rate committee and has come back to us there's no consultant here tonight the concerns if I hopefully I'm summarizing from that meeting back at the water and sewer rate committee in particular mr. Flavin had said he wanted to have our treasurer collector had wanted to have the consultant take a look at this order and to this is basically just to summarize would allow

▶ 20:48 Monica C. Medeiros: right now non on owner occupied units and I hear varying stories from property owners but my understanding is that they are not allowed to have a separate city-owned meter put into those buildings and therefore you know if you have say a multi-unit building that's an apartment building although they can sub meter and they can if their lease allows them to charge their tenants a portion of the water or sewer bill they can do that but they can't look at that unit individually um i you know there's some people i think this would benefit greatly there are other people this will not benefit greatly in doing so there'd be changes that would obviously make some more people fall into a lower tier possibly tier one and at the same time it would also collect a base charge from that we've never received before from

▶ 21:43 Monica C. Medeiros: additional meters so i do think it's something that is warrants looking at by the the consultant

▶ 21:52 Monica C. Medeiros: this is just saying that regardless of the the any agreements that the owner might have with the tenant that we could in fact meter this non-owner occupied unit and yet the bill and the person ultimately responsible would be the owner of that unit rather than the tenant because I think the problems were worrying about collection of the bills I think this might help I think it

▶ 22:14 Speaker 8: would help in particular especially in mixed-use properties where you have maybe commercial and

▶ 22:16 Monica C. Medeiros: residential in the same place it might help in two unit homes especially who might fall into that 5,000 CF tier which obviously this I think does does warrant

▶ 22:32 Monica C. Medeiros: looking at by the consultant to look at financially so I would recommend that we perhaps send it back to the water and sewer rate committee to have it looked at by the consultant for making a decision on that emotion that's a man

▶ 22:47 Monica C. Medeiros: and hold the balance in committee.

▶ 22:49 Speaker 8: That's a motion.

▶ 22:50 Peter D. Mortimer: Okay, Alderman Medeiros has made a motion that we hold this order for procedural purposes in the Appropriations Committee.

▶ 23:00 Speaker 8: And it's getting late.

▶ 23:01 Monica C. Medeiros: Pardon me, please? And it's getting late.

▶ 23:03 Peter D. Mortimer: Yes, so Alderman Medeiros has made a motion that we hold this order in committee for procedural purposes and that it be further studied by the Water and Sewer Commission. on discussion what what is procedure i need a second i'm sorry i'll second the motion okay alderman uh forbes has seconded the motion that we uh send this to the water and sewer committee for further study and uh keep it for procedural purposes in the appropriations committee uh first in discussion was alderman Tramontozzi followed by you alderman boyce you answered the question oh i see okay well alderman Tramontozzi you have the floor sir

▶ 23:47 John N. Tramontozzi: yeah i if i if i remember correctly i i think the um the objection to this particular um revised ordinance was was came from the treasurer of the the city mr flavin who suggested i'm not quoting him but that would be a logistical nightmare for billing purposes because you've got, I mean, I think the idea was a non-owner occupied tenant or something. And how can, you know, the bill goes to the owner, not to a non-owner. And how do you enforce a billing? It just, I think, I just remember him indicating that he had some serious issues relative to how that is going to be accomplished in billing purposes. If they want to hold it in committee, you can hold it in committee and further review it, but I don't think it was something that we wanted to get involved in. But anyways, that's just my comment.

▶ 24:49 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, Alderman Chairman Tosi.

▶ 24:53 Peter D. Mortimer: Oh, is that it, sir? Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Alderman Medeiros, please.

▶ 24:58 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. On discussion, the motion is sent back. Actually, again, I was at that meeting, the only one meeting that it's actually been heard,

▶ 25:07 Speaker 9: and you know he did say he wanted to speak to the consultant have the

▶ 25:11 Monica C. Medeiros: consultant look at it but I don't recall him saying anything about logistical nightmares and in fact it when I've asked previously mr. Shiner and hopefully now that we've had a thorough review by a new consultant we didn't know how many in fact how many such units even existed in the city so

▶ 25:30 Monica C. Medeiros: hopefully the new consultant would be able to look at that that was the motion back in the fall was to send this for the water and sewer rate committee to

▶ 25:43 Peter D. Mortimer: review and they haven't reviewed it so Thank You alderman Medeiros seeing no further alderman wishing to be heard alderman Medeiros has made a motion that we refer this to the water and sewer Commission for further advice from them and keep the order in committee for procedural purposes. That motion was duly seconded by Alderman Forbes. Seeing no further discussion, all in favor.

▶ 26:07 Gail Infurna: Just a point of information. Yes, please. And I'm sorry I don't have the rules right in front of us, but this was submitted May 27, 2015. So it's a year old. Can we still act upon it at that point?

▶ 26:22 Peter D. Mortimer: This is May 27, 2015. That's correct.

▶ 26:28 Peter D. Mortimer: The original, and we're now June 13th, close to 14th. And it wasn't the end of a term on December 31st this year. That rule has changed. So yes, so that didn't go away.

▶ 26:47 Peter D. Mortimer: And I'm sorry, I just don't know if you can find me, but I have a number here, thank you. It's a great point of information, and off the top of my head, I must admit I'm struggling with it. um is there anyone who happens to know the rule off the top of the head who would like to uh advise us okay um i see our clerk of committees is taking out a copy of the rules motion for recess to allow

▶ 27:11 Peter D. Mortimer: the chairman to second thank you very much uh president connors made a motion to recess will be seconded by alderman boycelle all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none We will be in a brief recess.

▶ 27:30 Peter D. Mortimer: May we please reconvene.

▶ 27:46 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman Inferna has raised a very appropriate point of information regarding this order.

▶ 27:56 Peter D. Mortimer: And rule 37A says, any order not finally acted upon by the board or the appropriate committee within one year of said order being filed shall be considered null and void and shall be removed from the files of the clerk of committees. Any order considered null and void by operation of this rule shall not be subject to any refiling restriction of rule 37. Rule 37 is the one that says if an order fails, it can't be refiled for six months. So that order by operation of rule, I regret to inform you, is null and void but you are at liberty to refile it immediately and if I have a

▶ 28:36 Monica C. Medeiros: moment of personal privilege you may thank you you know and we're going to be seeing oh at least two or three more of these orders here to be considered null and void tonight and I have to tell you that I am tremendously disappointed as an alderman who's brought forward you know multiple proposals in order to do something to address some of the issues that we've heard via water and regarding water and sewer and despite the claims that people are willing and interested in hearing you know all points of view and having ideas be heard unfortunately what's happened with these orders that we're going to see tonight it become null and void for being here more than a year that they I submitted them in good faith on May 27th of last year 2015 they were not even with the intention that they be included in part of the discussion for last year's water and sewer rate and budget discussions and unfortunately they weren't even heard until July in which they were you know I can't even explain you know and other aldermen have been given the courtesy of being able to have you know their orders to be able to speak about them in say the legal and legislative committee which I was not a member of I was not afforded that option and the orders were just pushed along and you know sent to water and sewer rate committee because they didn't want to I think I really feel like discuss them here in last fall and with the idea that we need to have the consultant you know and like actually wasn't the consultant was the committee was going to look at it this isn't the place to discussion hash this out and you know it went on to water and sewer rate committee I took time off of work to go to that committee meeting at which time we wanted to have the new consultant take a look at it and here we are and the new consultant has come and the order still haven't even been looked at by the consultant and they're going to be null and void so I don't really think that it's a true commitment to you know hearing ideas and having discussions and welcoming you know some different thoughts and that's my

▶ 30:51 Peter D. Mortimer: opinion there so thank you very much Thank You alderman Medeiros the next order we have before us is order 2 0 1 5 1 9 3 amending Melrose revised ordinances chapter 2 28 15 by adding paragraph a 3 relative to union unit And then averaging as set forth herein. And this I think is one of the orders to which you're referring. So this order is null and void at this time.