ORDER-2016-166 : Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228, Article IV, Section 228-20 (Elderly Discount) as set forth herein

Transcript (~21 min @ 2:25:50)

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

▶ 2:25:46 Scott M. Forbes: president khan next in queue we have alderman forbes please thank you mr chairman i appreciate the comments from all my colleagues here tonight i want to thank you for your presentation i know know there's a lot of information here to take in a lot of the questions I had were already were already mentioned by my fellow aldermen so I'm just going to concentrate on one area since I have the experts in the room in your opinion does a single tier for residential and a single tier for commercial satisfy the requirements state of the Massachusetts general laws because I think the problem here is that it's the interpretation of the law and we have all the Medeiros says she spoke to somebody from the mwra and says it does satisfy that requirement we could talk to whether you know any municipal official whether it's a city solicitor or an attorney that does where and they they may have a different interpretation of the law i think what we all want is to make this decision a hundred percent confident that what we're deciding is going to be the right decision for the ratepayers so i guess that that's why you are here you are here to guide us and kind of steer that ship so i think it's it's important for us to know before we make a decision um what that interpretation of that law does yeah whether that satisfies the requirement whether or not that option uh out of the several options we have on board is the one that we're going to decide that remains to be seen but in order for to take an equal and and fair approach I think that does have to be answered I'm not sure if you could answer that tonight or if you would have to reach out to somebody because my next question was do you represent any MWRA communities that in fact have a fixed

▶ 2:27:34 Speaker 7: rate or a single tiered system I'm trying to think of the second one if there are any Medford did until just recently they changed this year can't

▶ 2:27:48 Speaker 7: think of one now I'm in Forbes that that does but as soon as I leave here something will probably come to me as I said we do about half of them as far as the legality of it we're not lawyers we can't I think Alderman Khan would tell you we're not allowed to give legal opinions and you should really be going to the the city solicitor for that though I can say in talking to attorneys for a number of communities I don't think I've heard any ever say no you can't you can just ignore this law you have to have a tiered system the question you asked about if I have a rate of a dollar for residential a hundred cubic feet and two dollars for non-residential would that satisfy it I I think it might. I think it might. The question becomes whether you want to be the test community if somebody says, I don't think it does, and brings Melrose to court, whether you do it. And I hate to pass the buck on you on this one, but your city solicitor is the one you really should be asking the legal questions to on whether you should do that or not. um option seven sort of does that um option seven what uh it had in there is to say okay we'll break out the residential we'll have a tiered rate for those that are wasting water that are residential we can identify those fairly easily over 2 000 cubic feet and then break out the commercial separately without any tears i think that would probably satisfy it if that commercial rate were higher at least in the first tier of the residential if you had to but i you know i'm

▶ 2:29:28 Scott M. Forbes: thinking that as a non-lawyer right i know our city solicitor is in the room i know that this is going to be the first couple of meetings so i know yeah and i i think that is it say almost the elephant in the room everybody wants to know the answer or the interpretation of the law so we could either take it into consideration or just completely take it off the table because we don't want to put ourselves into non-compliance if that in case is in fact uh you know the law of the land uh you did mention something about forbes uh before you proceed if you'd like uh to be thorough at your option of course sir we do have the city solicitor would you like to hear from him at this time or mr chairman that that would be great

▶ 2:30:15 Speaker 1: thank you um one of the things i would just add tonight is we're having this discussion and sort of beginning the discussion is that the statute alderman forbes that i think you're referring to contain some and i want to read it so that the public watching at home also is familiar with the language we're talking about this is general law chapter 165 section 2b and it states all municipalities or water districts within the jurisdiction of the mwra shall institute water charges and fees that incorporate a base rate for all users provided that said base rate shall be increased at an increasing block rate to fairly reflect the resource demand and consumption of high volume users of water so i have had conversations with mr shenna i've had a phone conference with mr fox and mr woodcock the other day i had an hour-long meeting with Mr. Mraz in my office and my conclusion is that there's some mandatory language in this statute and what I mean by that is as you consider adopting rates for FY 17 those rates have got to in the words of the statute fairly reflect the resource demand and consumption of high volume users of water so if a single rate, what I refer to as a flat rate, and I haven't considered your question about a single residential rate and a single commercial rate for purposes of our discussion tonight, but if a flat rate is considered, my view would be, based upon the information I'm given by the consultants, by public works staff, is that it would not fairly reflect resource demand and consumption of high volume users, because the statute is intended to incentivize greater conservation by high-end users, high-volume users, if you will, and to impose a flat rate would not effectuate the purpose of the statute. I don't know if that answers your question, but that's my belief tonight. Okay. And I know you said you've had several conversations with people within the administration.

▶ 2:32:27 Scott M. Forbes: Have you talked to anybody at a state level? I have not. I don't know if Public Works staff has. don't know if mr fox and mr woodcock have i have not okay all right that's all i have for that

▶ 2:32:43 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you i appreciate that thank you city solicitor van campen welcome back mr woodcock

▶ 2:32:49 Scott M. Forbes: thank you i do have uh still have the floor alderman thank you mr chairman i do have a couple questions in regards to the reserves you said that um and let me just make sure that i'm not quoting you incorrectly um other mwra communities i think this is a question i i proposed at the committee meeting just comparing what other reserve levels were out there and i think you said there was not one community that was under 20 percent was it their goal being 20 percent or they've already achieved 20 percent they've already achieved 20 they've already achieved 20 percent that's correct are there any mwra communities that have no reserves uh that you in that study everyone had something that was over 20 which means that yes us with our goal of 10 percent we are the lowest community that's striving for that goal of reserves

▶ 2:33:34 Speaker 7: there was a small sample of uh 20 i think maybe we had information on to get quickly to get that information so it's not all of them have 20 percent it's the ones that we have information of

▶ 2:33:48 Scott M. Forbes: so out of all the ones that we see that you looked at we were at the lowest yes correct okay All right. I know I have some questions about the municipal water usage, but I know that that's something I can ask at a later time. So I'm just going to yield back to Florida, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Forbes. Alderman Inferno, please.

▶ 2:34:10 Speaker 5: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 2:34:12 Gail Infurna: It's always interesting following President Kahn because he seems to be always a good voice to get the words out to the public. and I think he was really cheating and looking at my notes because I had some of the same questions. But I do want to have two of the things, and I know the hour is getting late, so I'm going to have one question that's probably more for Mr. Schenna so he doesn't have to come up tonight, but maybe at the next meeting if you could have this. Could you explain to the public how you determine the shift that the residents pay going into the water rates? I think that's a question that kind of comes up, And I think we heard from the public also on that. So if you could really explain how you determine that shift, maybe Mr. DellaRusso too is in on that. But like I say, you don't have to get into it tonight. We'll be back, it's getting very late. Also on the senior discount, I'm a little puzzled by it. I do certainly support helping out our elderly or those who aren't elderly but on a fixed income and need some assistance with this. But I'm confused as to if you were in a condominium, 30 units in a condominium, and three of the residents fit the criteria of the elderly discount, you pay an association fee that actually pays for your water, how is that gonna be working out in those condominiums? Am I paying 300 and the person next door to me who will fit that criteria, pay 200? Is that just maybe a problem for the association? I'm not sure. I was just kind of curious by it.

▶ 2:36:12 Speaker 5: I guess John's coming up anyway.

▶ 2:36:16 Speaker 1: I can speak to that because I think it's important for everyone to understand how this portion of the proposed change and the discount is going to work. The water bill for whatever condominium association that the elderly person lives in isn't impacted by this. The discount will go to the qualified customer through their tax bill. and it's it's not consumption based it's based on the average of what the program the average of the prior years use so we take all the custom all the customers that were in the program the prior figure out the average discount of the program and then if someone in a condominium Association qualifies they get that discount on their tax rate that's how that's how the discount would end up going to elders and condo associations so it doesn't impact the the water bill of the association and I can't speak for the condo fee within the association but the discount gets to the elderly customer who lives in a condo within an association through that person to that individual customers tax bill and then the budgets would be adjusted internally between the auditor's office and the treasurer's office in that regard okay I was really

▶ 2:37:33 Gail Infurna: kind of puzzled by how that would really work out so and then like I said next time just come back and give us a nice simple layman's term of about the shift determination how you go through that and other than that most of my questions have been answered I think you've done a great presentation tonight and I do think it's really important to simplify and get the word out to the public because I think that's where the problem is there is a breakdown somewhere and it sounds like this is a nice opportunity we're having lots of dialogue and hopefully we can get the information out there so everybody has a clear understanding of how this is being done and we're just not doing it on any sort of willy-nilly and and and whatnot so thank you very much for all your

▶ 2:38:26 Peter D. Mortimer: information all set Thank You alderman Ferna alderman

▶ 2:38:30 Monica C. Medeiros: Medeiros please thank you um everybody's a chance to go through once here I yeah But I did want to follow back up on the senior day elderly discount that is being proposed. And maybe Mr. Shana and Mr. Van Kampen might be able to come back. I'd appreciate that.

▶ 2:38:54 Monica C. Medeiros: So, Mr. Shana, you said that this is not going to be based on consumption? because it looks like there's a consumption component in this it's for single family two

▶ 2:39:15 Speaker 1: family doesn't 2500 changed so section 228-20 which we drafted together with attorney van kampen um is for is the program throughout the entire city number five is what addresses

▶ 2:39:29 Speaker 1: an elderly customer in a condo association the rest is all existing language that exists in the program today okay and I guess so then my my

▶ 2:39:44 Monica C. Medeiros: questions really for mr. van camp and we had spoken on the phone about something like this a couple of years back and I had asked if you know if in order to kind of alleviate some of this if we could you know offer a discount to senior citizens living you know just a senior citizens and at the time you had said you know that wouldn't be an option because we wouldn't be able to determine how much that individual used for usage and that that wouldn't be legally allowable so I'm wondering if something has changed since that time to make

▶ 2:40:29 Speaker 1: this allowable now sure well first of all I again I'm not suggesting you're misrepresenting a conversation I just don't remember it so I want to just say that out front as far as what's in front of you by way of a senior discount the view here is that this is a reasonable exercise of the city's power to afford essentially a benefit if you will a discount to a class of citizens they have to meet certain criteria they have to be a certain age obviously they have to be owners of property they have to receive a property tax bill so in that respect it's similar to the trash fee discount I can't think of other programs off the top of my head but property work off probably not a good good analogy but in that respect it's a reasonable exercise of the city's power to afford this now I understand your question to be that you're treating the senior in the condo differently than the non-senior yeah I mean that was that was

▶ 2:41:25 Monica C. Medeiros: the when when we had had the discussion for that it would be would be treating people differently who lived in condominiums than we were who lived in

▶ 2:41:37 Speaker 1: say to sure I and again I I remember conversations with folks about water and sewer ad infinitum and I would only say that we would be viewing seniors who own condos in the same way we would be viewing seniors who own single and two-family homes in the community so in that respect we're treating the same class of citizen the same I can't comment on our prior conversations all because I don't recall them but that's what I can offer you tonight so you feel

▶ 2:42:11 Monica C. Medeiros: that this is you know legally defendable I mean that's one of you know one of the

▶ 2:42:20 Speaker 1: things yeah and the reason I say that is it's designed to be as objective as possible there's no wiggle room in the discount in terms of the number there's no wiggle room in the discount in terms of who is actually entitled to apply for it so in that respect my view is as long as we're staying as objective as we can

▶ 2:42:45 Monica C. Medeiros: we should be on sound on solid ground and so is everyone getting the is the

▶ 2:42:53 Monica C. Medeiros: 20% the 20% discount in a single-family or two-unit home would be 20% of their

▶ 2:43:07 Speaker 1: actual bill consumption consumption 20% of the bottom line of their bill okay

▶ 2:43:13 Monica C. Medeiros: and in the economy it would be the average use will be a lump sum based on

▶ 2:43:15 Speaker 1: the average of the program the prior year one lump sum issued on either the third or fourth quarter tax bill property tax bill okay and are these

▶ 2:43:28 Monica C. Medeiros: would would the if you lived in a single or a two-unit home would would this be on the real estate tax bill or on the water button you on your water but just

▶ 2:43:49 Monica C. Medeiros: like the program is right now I think that's all my questions right now on

▶ 2:43:54 Scott M. Forbes: that Thank You alderman Medeiros very quickly Alderman Forbes Thank You mr. chairman I did change my mind I see mr. de la russa I was in the room I just have a comment or maybe a request for him regarding at the one of our previous water and sewer committee meetings we had a letter from powers and Sullivan that was actually pretty dated dated back like I believe is 2009 and we used that letter as the justification for recovering water and sewer costs through its respective enterprise funds as appropriate and considered good practice I know in our agenda we had an updated letter that was dated at the end of April of this year in a similar from Powers and Sullivan that basically was a similar decision saying that it did describe this method as appropriate in good practice so I know you had some dialogue with with Powers and Sullivan I did look on their website because I was just interested in some things I want to do a little research it says that they one of the leading professional firms providing accounting auditing and management consulting for over 80 government entities in Massachusetts they're actually hired by the Department of Revenue when they were transitioning accounting systems and they were hired to implement a conversion model and they did presentations and seminars for the Department of Revenue helping all municipalities get in line with the conversion so the question that I have or maybe the request that I have is this Department of Revenue frequently asked questions number 17 where it says that it is not appropriate for a town department to charge another town department or for an enterprise fund to charge another fund for goods and services because the department operating the enterprise fund is not a separate and distinct legal entity however it is appropriate for those services to be taken in account into the budget process given their good standing and their experience in over 80 municipalities or 80 government entities and in the fact that they do provide services for us is it possible to bring that question before powers and Sullivan and get a response on how they interpret that for us through the chair I'd be

▶ 2:46:14 Speaker 3: more than happy to win that I believe is number 17 on page 37 37 yes I'd be happy

▶ 2:46:24 Scott M. Forbes: to do that all right I just think in in order to cover all our bases dot our eyes and cross our T's I think we need to have you know questions questions So I would appreciate that response at our next meeting or any future meeting before we bring this to a vote, I appreciate that.

▶ 2:46:39 Speaker 3: I'd be pleased to.

▶ 2:46:40 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Alderman Forbes. Next in queue, we have President Kahn, please.

▶ 2:46:47 Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, at my advanced age here, I tend to make less sense as the night goes on.