ORDER-2015-168 : Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 198: Solid Waste, Sec. 198-3 Ashes and rubbish; yard waste; metal goods; collection fees as set forth herein.

Transcript (~19 min @ 2:26:15)

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

▶ 2:26:17 Peter D. Mortimer: Before us is order 2015-168. Amending Melrose revised ordinances chapter 198 solid waste section 198-3. ashes and rubbish, yard waste, metal goods, collection fees as set forth herein. Is there a motion, please?

▶ 2:26:41 Speaker 8: Motion to bring forward the necessary-

▶ 2:26:42 Peter D. Mortimer: All right, we're still under suspension, so before we have a motion, Alderman McAteer-Margolis has requested that the appropriate city officials come forward to discuss this order.

▶ 2:27:08 Peter D. Mortimer: Good evening, everyone. Good evening, Mr. Shenna. This is our Director of Public Works, John Shenna, for people watching at home.

▶ 2:27:13 Speaker 4: Thank you. You're welcome, sir. order basically requests changes to ordinance 198-3 ashes rubbish yard waste metal goods and collection fees as set forth herein the packet includes the existing ordinance and the revised changes in review form the gist of the order looks to increase our minimum wages relative to two discount programs we offer with the trash free we are we offer we currently offer a senior citizen discount and a hardship discount um i'll read the proposed changes

▶ 2:28:01 Speaker 4: effective january 1st 2016 any senior citizen 65 years or older who owns and occupies a single family home or condominium with an income of sixty five thousand eight hundred and seventy dollars that's the change from thirty five thousand to sixty five eight seventy or less or a single person with an income of seventy five thousand two hundred eighty or less for married couples so single goes from thirty five thousand to sixty five eight seventy family goes from 40 000 to 75 280. those are the changes relative to the hardship any scene any citizen who owns and occupies a single family home or condominium with an income of 35 000 or less for a single person that changes from 22 and 40 000 or less for married couples that changes for 25 000 from 25 000 to 40. so those are the proposed changes these numbers were not arbitrarily chosen they come from the hud median income that the chief assessor provided us with um if you have any other questions relative to these proposed changes um get our answer

▶ 2:29:13 Peter D. Mortimer: we have first in queue alderman byrd followed by president khan thank you mr chairman you

▶ 2:29:19 Jaclyn L. Bird: And you just answered one of my questions at the end with where you got the figures. Can you talk about why this came about and why this is coming about right now? And when was the last time we made a change to the income levels on this?

▶ 2:29:33 Speaker 4: We've never made changes to the income levels. Trash fees have been in effect for quite some years and the salary incomes are rather unrealistic. and you can see by the changes that we've made that we're very far off the median income and um

▶ 2:29:56 Jaclyn L. Bird: is when did this discussion come about has this been something that's been in the works for several years or is this something that we just realized we were behind on was it caused by a number of people calling needing the discount what triggered the discussion we had a discussion

▶ 2:30:09 Speaker 4: relative to discount programs throughout the city and this was part of the discussion

▶ 2:30:23 Jaclyn L. Bird: i'm going to have more questions mr chairman but i'll um yield the floor thank you very good

▶ 2:30:31 Speaker 3: president khan please you know what what's the cost of implementation of these changes that was

▶ 2:30:36 Speaker 4: my question i could tell you what our current programs cost us okay i have that available

▶ 2:30:56 Speaker 4: currently we have 70 accounts that receive a 50 discount that's the senior discount and that costs the program six thousand five dollars and we have 158 that receive a hundred percent discount that costs the program thirty one thousand one hundred and fifty dollars and what kind of numbers do we

▶ 2:31:16 Speaker 3: anticipate we're going to see if we implement these changes we we haven't looked at that

▶ 2:31:29 Speaker 4: I prefer the CFO.

▶ 2:31:40 Speaker 6: Good evening again. Based on just preliminary to all in the conference with the chair, Donna Cardello said probably double, but we're not going to really know until we have an understanding after a year or so who actually participates in it. But she said for purposes of an estimate, use the assumed double. She said for purposes of planning until we know actually how many actually participate. But you're not going to know until after the fees are approved or implemented.

▶ 2:32:10 Speaker 3: So this may cost us another $40,000? That's what she said.

▶ 2:32:17 Speaker 3: Welch, everybody knows the change that I want to see to the trash fee, which is to go to the actual cost with no indirects and reduce it. But maybe that's a discussion for another day, I guess, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 2:32:32 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, President Kahn. Alderman Medeiros, please.

▶ 2:32:37 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. I hope that other day comes quickly, President Conn, because this is something, Mr. De La Rosa, where we're charging a fee for this service, and we've taken a number of steps over the past few years. First, with privatizing trash, and secondly, with privatizing recycling, and in order to reduce our costs. I know one of the speakers earlier today You know, mentioned, hey, our contract is 1.1 million and our estimated revenue is 1.9 million. I imagine there's some other costs associated there, but, you know, Stoneham, for instance, they went to weekly recycling.

▶ 2:33:26 Monica C. Medeiros: They saved so much money that they eliminated their trash tree completely for everybody.

▶ 2:33:32 Monica C. Medeiros: If we are maybe now at a point between weekly recycling,

▶ 2:33:41 Monica C. Medeiros: which I'm hoping is actually increased, and decreased our cost of trash. Aren't we legally obligated to make sure that we're not collecting too much? And are we at the point where we should really be giving everyone a discount?

▶ 2:33:58 Speaker 6: Through the Chair, on June 13th of 2012, I sent a pretty detailed report to the Board

▶ 2:34:05 Speaker 6: of Aldermen.

▶ 2:34:12 Speaker 6: At that point, we were subsidizing the general fund, we're subsidizing the trash operation by $191,066. I had Bridget Guillen perform the same analysis, and she did this one, for the current year. And based on the current year, which is right here, we are currently subsidizing the trash

▶ 2:34:33 Speaker 6: 33,817. So there's been a substantial reduction in how much we're subsidizing, which is great. Now that's the side of the table that is good, but the side of the table that's not good. It's what people who look at it from a different looking glass that do not have all the information with them or available to them, is the fact that in fiscal 17 and in fiscal 18, that costs will go up by $75,000 each year as part of the contract. Within two years, you'll see a $150,000 increase in the cost of the contract. That again brings us to the point where we are not over collecting and in fact we are still subsidizing the operation.

▶ 2:35:27 Monica C. Medeiros: I know Melrose has been above average in terms of the recycling that we do as a community.

▶ 2:35:39 Monica C. Medeiros: I kind of don't understand how Stoneham, which isn't that much different than us, could be

▶ 2:35:51 Monica C. Medeiros: so different you know that that we're not seeing those kinds of savings i mean we were we just doing that good of a job to begin with or i think we're seeing substantial savings

▶ 2:35:57 Speaker 4: and as the auditor pointed the general subsidy three years ago was 191 thousand 191 thousand

▶ 2:36:09 Speaker 4: we've closed the gap significantly a lot maybe the years to come we'll see that flip the other way that's the goal but we're not there yet so not only are we avoiding increases we're bringing that cost differential doubt and the programming changes that we've implemented the last three years have shown that and his result and his studies have shown how that gap is closed could

▶ 2:36:26 Monica C. Medeiros: you please share that uh analysis that bridget completed absolutely with us so i don't know if i need to make a motion but like to move that we include the analysis when we receive it from mr

▶ 2:36:40 Peter D. Mortimer: del russo uh with this order um should we wait till we receive the memo first does that motion

▶ 2:36:50 Peter D. Mortimer: seem premature uh let's well see if you get a second on it uh alderman medeiros has proposed he has she has asked for a memorandum from bridget guillen and asked that when that memorandum is received that it become part of the record is there a second on the motion second now all right then it is the will of the board so far that the motion be seconded by alderman forbes all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none when we receive that memorandum that will be added to

▶ 2:37:17 Monica C. Medeiros: the record thank you continue i think that that's all i have for now thank you thank you any other

▶ 2:37:22 Peter D. Mortimer: for alderman wishing to be heard for the first time alderman voice out please john in this

▶ 2:37:28 Robert A. Boisselle: issuing of the exemption and so forth they have to come to the city hall or to the city yard to

▶ 2:37:36 Speaker 4: make the application on that program from tremont street now but if people come to this building we accept them here and then process them at our administrative buildings now do you ask for

▶ 2:37:46 Speaker 4: documentation when they come in there's a certain process and there is a backup that they have to that they have to provide which is why we like to do it in person for you know identity theft and personal tax information and that that other type of information which is why we have the people come down we i have we have donna cadillo working on perhaps changing that process when we

▶ 2:38:11 Speaker 4: start accepting new applications because we're hoping this change will bring out some additional people and perhaps we can do something online that's protected we're working on some options

▶ 2:38:20 Robert A. Boisselle: can do they have to do renew it every year or one shot is that it no so you have to renew it every

▶ 2:38:24 Speaker 4: Every year, based on wages from the prior year.

▶ 2:38:31 Robert A. Boisselle: Okay, good. Welch, I mean, if you put it online, the explanation of what you bring to the office, like a tax form from that year and so forth, and whatever other information. And they have all the documentation there, so nothing goes online and worry about identity theft and so forth.

▶ 2:38:51 Speaker 4: No, I agree it's a very antiquated system the way we do it. similar to the income levels that was so low we have to change how we process these applications on a yearly basis all right thank you thank you mr. chairman

▶ 2:39:05 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank You alderman boy self alderman Lehman please Thank You mr. chairman

▶ 2:39:07 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Thank You mr. Shannon mr. del Russo in this document here in addition to the changes you just outlined in the income levels there's a lot of other red and this is all changes that are happening that we're voting on tonight is that

▶ 2:39:20 Speaker 4: right yeah there is then I guess the other the others the other changes more

▶ 2:39:28 Speaker 4: of a housekeeping thing for instance we don't have an engineering superintendent anymore we have a director of Public Works we do bi-weekly or monthly collection of yard waste it's just again this ordinance hasn't been looked at in so long we decided to take the opportunity to update updated to make it more um more in line with what we are today sure but the significant changes in the whites being

▶ 2:39:58 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: why it's being proposed were those income levels okay yeah it does seem it's a you know a lot of titles and things like that to make it more up to date uh there is a change here in the the curbside fee for metal goods it looks like from 15 to 20. that changed again that changed last year and this

▶ 2:40:11 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: just was not updated in the audience so we're not voting tonight to increase the fee no okay thank Thank you very much. I want to make that clear. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 2:40:18 Speaker 5: Thank you, Alderman Lehman. Alderman Byrd, are you in queue?

▶ 2:40:21 Speaker 2: I think so.

▶ 2:40:22 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Alderman Byrd, please.

▶ 2:40:25 Jaclyn L. Bird: To go back for a second to the cost of the current program or the current accounts that benefit from the discount program, did you say 70 accounts right now currently get a 50% discount, which costs the city $6,005, is that right?

▶ 2:40:40 Speaker 2: You just got right. And then I was just, I missed the second figure, I think.

▶ 2:40:48 Speaker 4: hundred and fifty eight accounts 70 accounts result in a six thousand five dollar credit to the program a hundred and fifty eight accounts received the full hundred percent discount that results in a thirty one thousand one hundred and fifty dollar credit to the program so and you said to account for

▶ 2:41:10 Speaker 6: basically doubling it she said she felt comfortable using double that until we

▶ 2:41:16 Jaclyn L. Bird: actually find out how many people apply okay I think it's you know it's certainly a nice thing to do what what my concern is just the timing of it and the sort of is it premature we putting the cart before the horse here it feels like you know we just finished an order where we're talking about how we don't have enough revenue to cover certain costs we've got to be you know talking about that very carefully and what concerns me is that we're we're going into this with a kind of just very vague projection of how much it's going to to cost us, I know comparatively it's not a huge amount of money but it just seems to me like something you would do maybe after the fact if the costs increase for the taxpayers should the override, if it goes forward and it's on the ballot, should it pass, that then you look at something like this, it feels a little bit premature to me. Especially if we don't have kind of an exact way of figuring out what the costs are going to be. So this is something that you feel like we can fund even if we don't have additional revenue coming in in the fall, if that did not pass, that we've got some extra 40,000 or so to be able to put towards the offset of the program?

▶ 2:42:24 Speaker 6: I believe if this does go through, we can support it, absolutely.

▶ 2:42:30 Jaclyn L. Bird: Okay. And was the timing around the same conversation or no? I mean, that's why I'm just surprised of the timing that it's on our agenda for tonight. Is it linked to the two? Are we looking to reduce fees because we know that there's the possibility of increasing fees? That's the part that seems like the order of things is reversed.

▶ 2:42:49 Speaker 6: Quite frankly, I think it was just part of the overall discussion. We started talking about what has or has not been looked at, and we looked at next year's program, and we said this has been a long time. These numbers are really, perhaps, unrealistic for income thresholds and et cetera. And maybe this was the time to bring them up to date, literally. And if the board wants to do that, then obviously we support that.

▶ 2:43:19 Speaker 4: If not, obviously we understand that too. It's a very unrealistic income level. And there are seniors and people that have hardship today that don't qualify. override aside if you're going to run program discount programs they should be realistic at least in my opinion and currently we have we have income levels that are really nodding i mean as you can tell they're really not realistic at all because we've set them and then we left them home

▶ 2:43:45 Jaclyn L. Bird: for 10 years probably and what do we tell people that come in that miss it by you know the income level by five thousand dollars right now is there anything that we can offer them at this point or

▶ 2:43:56 Speaker 4: do we just say we're sorry you missed it we look at that we look at a case-by-case basis and we try to make we try to make accommodations if if it's close but obviously there are limits and we have to abide by them as close as possible and how many people would you say have brought

▶ 2:44:13 Jaclyn L. Bird: this up in the past year as far as being a hardship that they want help with that didn't

▶ 2:44:22 Speaker 4: qualify for the program it's almost been a revolving of it's been a revolving door with same people you know we really don't get many new ones that come in because the people that was said no two years ago just don't come back but hopefully this change will spark and reinvigorate the program and try to provide some relief to people that deserve it thank you that's all for

▶ 2:44:49 Peter D. Mortimer: now mr chairman thank you alderman byrd seeing no further alderman wishing to be heard we do need a We need a motion on this order, please. Motion to recommend. Second. Second. We have a motion to recommend for passage from Alderman Forbes, duly seconded by Alderman McAteer-Margolis. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, order 2015-168 will be recommended to the full board for passage. The next order we have before us is order 2015-175. clause 41C, senior real estate exemption local options.