ORDNC-2024-4 : Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances Chapter 198: Section 198-2 Dumping, obstructing sidewalks; placement of refuse containers, and Section 198-3 Ashes and rubbish; yard waste; metal goods, collection fees as set forth herein.

Transcript (~35 min @ 1:10)

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

▶ 1:01 Ryan Williams: So we have, uh, two, we have an ordinance in an order before us tonight. Um, they are about amending the, uh, trash ordinance and the, uh, drain ordinance. The first is ordinance 2024 dash four, amending melrose's Revised ordinances, chapter 1 98, section 1 98 dash two, dumping obstructing sidewalks, placement of refuse containers, and section 1 98 dash three ashes and rubbish yard waste metal goods and collection fees. Uh, a motion by unanimous consent to suspend Rule 37 B so we can hear from city representatives no objections. Rule 37 B is suspended, so please go ahead.

▶ 1:50 Speaker 1: Good, good evening. Thank you very much for having us here tonight. We're happy to present this proposal to the amend, the Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance, chapter 1 98. Uh, the memo in your packet is fairly self-explanatory and fairly straightforward for the most part. This is housekeeping, so that we will be compliant with the new trash contract, which requires the automated toters, which the city is providing to the residents, one of each 64 gallon, as well as, uh, the service that we are, uh, proposing as part of the new contract. This is, again, a housekeeping, uh, amendment to this ordinance so that we are compliant with the services that we are delivering. Um, and also fear consideration is an alternative to the barrels and the waste. Currently, the ordinance only allows for litted receptacles. Uh, most of the feedback that we have gotten from residents has a, has been for a wish for them to have a alternative other than an additional barrel of trash and or recycling. Uh, so in front of you is a proposal for overflow bags, and here I have an example of the, an overflow bag. How this program would work is these bags would be available at designated retailers throughout the city, for the most part, whole Foods, CVS, Walgreens, some of the other, uh, small mom and pop stores throughout the city. They'd be available to the residents and rolls typically of five, and they would probably come for approximate cost of about $10. The goal of this alternative is to provide, uh, far more economic opportunity, uh, for the residents to handle overflow trash for the most part. Uh, residents will see that they'll, uh, be sufficient room in their barrels for 64 gallon trash each week, and to avoid the additional cost for the barrels, which is $70 for the barrel, $150 a year for the service. This allows them to handle those one-offs, parties, holidays, things like that throughout the year that they may only need these a couple times a year. It's a far more economic option, and one that we will work to make sure that we're compliant not only with health regulations, but also compliant with the contract and the services that Cosella will be delivering. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for your time tonight.

▶ 4:13 Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. Questions from voting members?

▶ 4:19 Speaker 2: Uh, Councillor Vandiver.

▶ 4:21 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. Uh, so at this section of the discussion is just about the proposed,

▶ 4:26 Ryan Williams: We can, we can take the discussion in any direction that we want to. If you want to talk about the litted bag issue at the moment, we can start there.

▶ 4:36 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay. So, um, just around the, the extra bag issue, um, I guess two questions. Um, one, what's the proposed volume of those bags compared to the volume of a barrel? Sure.

▶ 4:48 Speaker 1: So, uh, on this will be something like the city seal, and there'll be instructions not to exceed 25 pounds for the bag. So there really is no volume. Uh, basically the cost of the bag is going to be one which covers our disposal. Coello will be stopping, and that cost is a fixed cost to stop at the residence. This is gonna help cover the cost of the disposing, the additional tonnage, uh, outside of that 64 gallon receptacle on a week to week basis.

▶ 5:19 Kimberly Vandiver: That makes sense. So the fixed cost of, of the stop, so I just did the math, um, and a tip, if we divide the trash fee out for the year, it's $8 per week to have the barrel. Um, but a approximately, but, um, but this would be $2 for one of these extra bags, but, but that's because we're already, this truck is already stopping and the additional, all we're paying for is the additional disposal as opposed to, um Right.

▶ 5:44 Speaker 3: The, the cost to dispose of the tonnage of that specific bag. Right.

▶ 5:51 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay. And, um, and then the second thing I just wanted to, to clarify that I, I read was in the proposal is that these bags due to issues with rodents or, or anything like that, the proposal, the language that you've given us is that, um, residents would need to wait until 5:00 AM the morning of trash pickup to put those bags out so that they wouldn't be Yeah,

▶ 6:11 Speaker 1: I, I think it's fair to say that we are looking for the counsel to guide us on amending to allow for these bags, and any language that would help with those type of issues is also will be well received and considered.

▶ 6:23 Speaker 3: Great. The draft language that we did put in the packet though, does include that 5:00 AM provision that you have to wait until that morning at five or after.

▶ 6:31 Kimberly Vandiver: Yeah, I, I'm glad to see that concern being addressed because there's certainly, you know, people do have, um, issues with rodents. Um, at the same time, you know, I'm not sure what the earliest time the truck would arrive is, but people would need to hit that window then between 5:00 AM and seven. Seven. Yeah. Um, so that might be a little bit tricky for people. Um, but um, as long as it's something they're doing a few times a year, maybe it wouldn't be a huge burden.

▶ 6:59 Speaker 4: So I see why you, um, structured that part that way. Yeah,

▶ 7:01 Speaker 3: And they also have the option of purchasing a second barrel. So if it's somebody who thinks this is gonna be a routine problem, then they would be more probably geared toward the extra barrel. Whereas these are great for, you know, you're having a party or you have, you know, a short period of time when you have two kids in diapers and then your trash is maybe a little more than it was before, but that's only gonna be for a period of months or so. And then you don't wanna assume the whole fee and the extra barrel. Um, that's more the case that these come in handy.

▶ 7:32 Speaker 4: That makes sense. Thank you.

▶ 7:35 Ryan Williams: Okay. Um, and I have Councillor PREMs cube, but I remembered that I neglected to mention the non-voting counselors that are joining us tonight, which are Councilor Mark Repe, councilor Man, Carrum Chetty, councilor Kario, and Councilor Rob Stewart for the record. Thank you. Um, and now voting member counselor, John Kremsky. How mu how much of the bags gonna be a piece

▶ 7:55 Speaker 1: So that, that exact number will work out? Alright. It would probably be a roll of five available at the designated retailers Right. For about $10. Alright.

▶ 8:03 Speaker 2: And then, uh, how much is an additional barrel? Do, do we have that figured out yet? So

▶ 8:07 Speaker 1: The additional barrel will be a onetime cost to, uh, we, we are on, we're paying for the initial barrels. The additional barrels will be $70 and then that's a onetime charge. And then to cover the additional tonnage will be $150. That cost will show up on the, uh, on the bills when they come to the

▶ 8:26 Speaker 2: Residence. 150 each year, right? Correct. Alright, thank you.

▶ 8:30 Devin Romanul: Voting member Devin Ryan, council Ryan. Um, thanks so much for the proposal. And forgive me if this is a stupid question, but would it be possible, um, I'm just trying to see if we can circle the square of like leaving out a bag of trash when we have rodent problems. Could people theoretically use, purchase those bags but place them in already existing barrels that they have? Or would that just be confusing and create, you know, um, Honestly, it's already got one that would

▶ 8:55 Speaker 1: cause probably a little bit of confusion. Sure. 'cause it would go against our contractors picking up the city issued barrels. Right. So if these are gonna be placed inside one that's not necessarily compliant with the contract, they're not gonna be able to see them. The intent here is to have clearly identifiable mark identifiable markings on the bag. So the contractor knows that these are city of Melrose, they're authorized to been purchased Yeah. And should be picked up at per the terms of their contract,

▶ 9:21 Devin Romanul: Rather than popping it open and seeing surprise not a bag.

▶ 9:24 Speaker 3: Yeah. With the automated pickup, the idea is that the driver most of the time is not getting out of the truck. Right. And so if the driver has to get out every time there's a barrel to check what's in the barrel, see if it's one of these bags, I think that would add a lot of extra time and, and inconvenience.

▶ 9:41 Speaker 2: That's a fair point. Alright.

▶ 9:42 Speaker 1: Well, and, and just one other thing. I think it's fair to assume we'll see these bags, these bags will be seen out there, but they obviously will also be identifiable and allow for the hauler to get out of the truck and pick them up.

▶ 9:56 Ryan Williams: Great. Okay. Uh, in queue. I have non-voting member counselor Occhio.

▶ 10:01 Cal Finocchiaro: Thank you. You're welcome. Um, thank you for putting this together. Um, I think the bags are important because I just, from hearing residents speaking, they're just concerned they don't wanna buy an extra barrel because they don't need it all the time. So I think this is a great way to go. I'm a little concerned that people aren't gonna pay attention to the 5:00 AM rule. Um, and I know you guys have a, like a violation, like a fee. Is that something that the DPW will monitor? Like how is that gonna

▶ 10:28 Speaker 1: So, I mean, I don't, can't pick it up in terms in terms of, uh, violations. Um, we'd have to pretty much target the enforcement there. The DPW does not have the tools to write Right. Code enforcement tickets. So what we would have to do is we would've to identify locations, pass that on to, uh, health Mm-Hmm. Who would then, uh, write, write the

▶ 10:48 Speaker 5: Yeah. Would be the hell to run. Okay. Great.

▶ 10:51 Speaker 6: Well, like I said, I think this is a great idea and something, an option that we have to give, um, for people. Like, I know myself, parties, Christmas, stuff like that, you'll even, even if you have two barrels, you know, so anyways. Well, thank you.

▶ 11:05 Ryan Williams: Okay. Uh, non-voting member Councilor Repe.

▶ 11:10 Mark Garipay: Thank you. Um, I think I answered my question. All right. As I was thinking through this, if we, we now have an opt out, right? That's gonna be in there. So if, if someone doesn't want to take advantage of our trash, um, they can opt out,

▶ 11:22 Speaker 1: but they can't just go buy bags. Correct. And how are we gonna enforce that?

▶ 11:28 Speaker 3: The bags would have to be with one of our barrels with, you know, with the Melrose emblem on them, one of our compliant barrels, meaning that they're somebody who's paying a fee. I fully recognize that someone could put a barrel out by their, a bag out by their neighbor's barrel. But I think, you know, if, I don't think we'd see a lot of that, and if we were concerned with that, we could always, you know, contact the homeowner and, and follow up and say that we have to start charging them a trash fee.

▶ 11:58 Mark Garipay: Not looking to complicate this, but we've had a number of calls, uh, or I, I have, we've had, that's kind of the opt out, um, language that we, we, we, we did some research on, but if I worry about seniors, they have one bag of trash, they tough to navigate the whole barrel. So as this evolves, maybe down the road, maybe there's a solution that we can come up for seniors,

▶ 12:21 Speaker 1: um, that only produce one bag or half a bag, you know, Every week. Yeah.

▶ 12:26 Speaker 3: We're, we're also gonna look into, we, we've told people that if they have a real hardship, um, you know, test out the 64 gallon toters, a lot of people end up finding them fairly manageable, more so than expected. But if they have a real hardship, once we really get going with the program, we will look into, can we provide a smaller barrel in a hardship case. Um, you know, we, we don't want anyone to not be able to get their trash out to the curb. So we're open to to that.

▶ 12:53 Speaker 1: If I could counselor, uh, I, I probably failed to, I probably glossed over it in terms of the ordinance language, but you brought up a great point that there is opt out language in here. So if the resident, uh, would like to opt out of the trash program, as long as they meet certain requirements and prove that they are getting an alternative in terms of their trash pickup, they have the ability to opt out of this program. And that's in this ordinance, again, a matter of housekeeping, but one that we've not, uh, explored or proposed before. And just for clarification on the opt out, 'cause we've, I've had an, uh, quite a few residents that have called on that. Is it an annual thing, uh, once they opt out? Do they have to opt out every year? Or is it they're out for till they decide they want to come? It, it could go either way with that. Uh, I think we would want to verify, uh, every year, uh, to make sure that they certify that they continue to wanna opt out of this program. But a lot of that onus is gonna be on the homeowner, uh, to let us know that they would no longer like to opt out of there, that they'd like to resubscribe to, to this service. So a lot of the onus of that would fall on the homeowner, but it's something that we have the capacity to look up, similar to we do, uh, some of the water and sewer discounts that are available to people every year.

▶ 14:10 Speaker 2: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Non-voting member councilor Kim Chaney.

▶ 14:13 Manjula Karamcheti: Hi. How's it going? Um, very simple clarifying question. If I'm understanding correctly, the bags are in addition to if a resident wanted to buy another barrel. So really what you are proposing are a variety of options to meet the needs of the diversity of our residents, correct?

▶ 14:31 Speaker 6: Correct. Okay. Correct. Great. Thank you.

▶ 14:33 Robb Stewart: Non-voting member Councilor Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Mr. Chair. I think, um, there's been some good points brought up here. The, the, the one question that was brought to me was, uh, if a multifamily that has very few residents in it, uh, by default gets a barrel for each of the units in that multifamily and it's, uh, recognized that they really don't need that capacity, um, that that opt out program will be sufficient enough for them to return, uh, one set of the barrels. Um, so in, uh, Mr. Troupe's comment on whether we want to have that annually or, uh, continually, like once you opt out, I think it might make sense that if there's a change in red in ownership, that by default they'll get barrels. And I'm sure there's a way to recognize that. But then if somebody opts out, they're opted out until they determine that they come back. That would be my suggestion, Mr. Chair. Hmm. Uh, the other comment that I wanted to bring to the floor and uh, is the question of the, the refuse bags. Um, I do have concern about the 5:00 AM um, for two reasons. One is I think for certain individuals it will be difficult 'cause, you know, people that, kids, they have work early, blah, blah, blah. Um, and the other is, uh, to, I believe it was cons, um, RA's point in that people will ignore it and they'll put out all their trash the night before like they always had done, and they always will. So, uh, I think that's an area that we need to have flexibility on. Uh, and not maybe a hard and fast, uh, we can state this, but I think there needs to be an understanding that these situations are gonna

▶ 16:37 Speaker 2: occur. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sure. And I'd like to, um, anybody

▶ 16:41 Ryan Williams: for the second time voting members, I'd like to ask for a motion by unanimous consent to suspend Rule 21 C so that I can ask some questions of my own. So moved. No, well you don't have to move it 'cause I asked by unanimous consent. Oh, apologies. Thank you for your apologies. Support. Apologies. I was still moved by your motion. Yeah, I appreciate, I appreciate it. I really appreciate it. So, so I think that passes.

▶ 17:03 Speaker 2: Um, so I have a couple

▶ 17:05 Ryan Williams: of points that I wanna run through. Um, first I just wanna acknowledge that this city council kind of really ran itself through the ringer about trash bags in the street a couple of years ago because everybody was talking about rats. Um, and, and you know, we put a big change on the residence for everybody to go pick up a trash barrel. Um, and now of course, we're asking them to get rid of their trash barrels, myself included. Um, and I understand that that's because the, the program's changed. Um, but, you know, to then go fully back to, okay, now buy a bag of trash and leave it on the ground, it's, it's, it's tricky for me. However, I also understand the, the problem that we're trying to solve for the break point that I see with this is if you have basically more than two of these orange bags a week, it's more cost effective for you to buy a new trash barrel and have that, um, have that rolled out. And I hope that people see that not everybody will, some people will just go to the store and buy a bag of a pack of bags and dump 10 bags of trash on their sidewalk every, um, every week. But, you know, um, but I, but I can see it. But I just wanted to kinda give voice, voice to this because it feels in a weird way, like a step backwards. And I hope that the department and, and Sela will help us monitor this. You know, if the driver is seeing a household that's got 5, 6, 7 orange bags every single week, like somebody needs to have a conversation with that resident about the cost they're incurring, um, to help them make a, make a good financial decision. Um, um,

▶ 18:35 Ryan Williams: and, um, I also wanted to ask a question about the memo. Excuse me. The memo says the EBW has reached out to was Zero to discuss their ability to provide the bags waste Zero. Is this contractor that's also doing the cart assembly and rollout? No,

▶ 18:50 Speaker 1: That's a different company. Okay. This is a company that specializes in, uh, alternatives. Okay. And one of the alternatives is they have a list of customers throughout Massachusetts, throughout the comp country where they provide, uh, city specific town specific bags. So they're a vendor that provides the bags to the city.

▶ 19:07 Ryan Williams: Okay. Alright. So we buy the bags from them and then they go into like Shaw's or wherever city hall.

▶ 19:12 Speaker 1: Yeah. It's actually a zero cost for the city. Yeah. Because the, uh, designated retailer would pay for the bags and, uh, yeah. We, we would not be writing purchase orders for that.

▶ 19:24 Speaker 2: Okay. Um, now

▶ 19:29 Ryan Williams: I also wanted to, uh, have a discussion about two other areas of the ordinance, uh, with, with my fellow counselors here. Um, the first is that I would seek to make a really simple line item amendment of this language where, uh, there are frequent references to placing trash on the sidewalk. Uh, the ordinance is very clear in section 1 98 dash two that in section A it says, no person shall put or place or cost to be put or placed in street lane alley or any other place, public or private. Ashes dirt refuse. Uh, it goes on to say no person shall place on any sidewalk, foot walk or crosswalk any object that interferes with a convenient use by people traveling there. On this basically says, don't put your trash barrels on the sidewalk if you don't have to, if you can help it. Right. That's fair. Um, the proposed amendment in ordinance, uh, 2024 dash four in one B of the agenda, um, makes

▶ 20:32 Ryan Williams: a couple of, uh, makes a couple of statements in the language about the, uh, about placing these things on the sidewalk.

▶ 20:43 Ryan Williams: And if you excuse me, I just gotta grab my email here. Um,

▶ 20:53 Ryan Williams: And so I would entertain a motion by a counselor to revise section E of 1 98 dash two

▶ 21:07 Speaker 2: to say, refuse

▶ 21:11 Ryan Williams: receptacles placed on the sidewalk shall be placed in a way that does not obstruct or interfere with use by pedestrians, if applicable, otherwise shall be placed on the edge of the public way in front of the household's property. This is language that I've, uh, passed through the city solicitor, and we feel that it strikes a good compromise with not overburdening the ordinance language. Uh, to be potentially red is allowing for garbage barrels to be placed on the sidewalk. It basically says that you should put it, if you do have to put it on the sidewalk, you should put it in a place that doesn't interfere with the use by pedestrians.

▶ 21:56 Speaker 2: Would you mind just repeating that Sure. Amendment one more time? Yep.

▶ 22:00 Ryan Williams: So it is in section 1 98 dash two, section

▶ 22:09 Ryan Williams: revised section E, which is in the, um, it's one of the revisions that's being suggested here. Um, to amend that to say,

▶ 22:23 Ryan Williams: refuse receptacles placed on the sidewalk shall be placed in a way that does not obstruct or interfere with use by pedestrians, if applicable, otherwise shall be placed if applicable, meaning if you have a sidewalk, otherwise shall be placed on the edge of the public way in front of the household's property.

▶ 22:46 Ryan Williams: So it says, if you have to put it on the sidewalk, put it somewhere where it's not in the way of pedestrians. If you don't have a sidewalk, put it in the street as close to the edge of your property as possible. So it's not to be in the road.

▶ 22:56 Kimberly Vandiver: Can you clarify, um, compared to what I see in e now, in, uh, in our meeting agenda, I see the original text. I see the red line text is what you are proposing. Is this a replacement for the entire or replacement for the red line or an addition?

▶ 23:22 Ryan Williams: I am just double checking the, uh, the, um, the ordinance.

▶ 23:29 Kimberly Vandiver: It's just the red. Um, so, so for example, right now in the red line, it mentions in accordance with the requirements of the hauler for automated pickup. I don't, is that something we're keeping?

▶ 23:39 Ryan Williams: Yes, you're correct. Yeah. Thank you. Language.

▶ 23:50 Ryan Williams: Yeah. So in addition to, in addition to the text that's currently in the, um, requested amendment for three B, which is refuse receptacles placed on the curb by 7:00 AM um, we're gonna, we're gonna do this, we're gonna strike, um, shall be removed from the sidewalk, and we're just going to, we're just gonna say shall be removed, we're gonna strike from the sidewalk. And, um, in between collection and receptacles, we're gonna introduce the language.

▶ 24:30 Ryan Williams: Refuse receptacles placed on the sidewalk shall be placed in a way that does not obstruct or interfere with use by pedestrians, if applicable, otherwise shall be placed on the edge of the public way in front of the household's property.

▶ 24:43 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay. Understood. Uh, I would like to make the motion to, uh, revise the language as you've described.

▶ 24:54 Ryan Williams: Second. And, okay. May I ask a, So we have a motion to revise the language as described, and I'm gonna work with Mr. Gabriel to make sure that we have this right, um, and that it follows the intended intention of the amendment. Um, we have a, uh, amendment motion by Councilor Vandiver, seconded by Counselor Romanul.

▶ 25:20 Devin Romanul: And may I ask a question Before I Yeah. On discussion. Oh, thank you. Um, I just wanted to get a sense of how you feel about that amendment, about how the implications for implementation with the vendor. Um, just wanna make sure we're not complicating your lives unnecessarily.

▶ 25:37 Speaker 3: My only question about it is the, the language that Councillor Williams read at the beginning is still incorporated in the ordinance. We're not changing it. So we have no person shall place or cause to be placed on any sidewalk, foot walk or crosswalk, any object whatsoever, so as to interfere with the convenient use of same by any person traveling there on this shall not apply to building materials placed by permission of the city engineer. Um, so I guess I don't entirely understand what this does that that doesn't already do, but short of that, I'm not sure that I, I don't think it changes anything really, so I don't have a problem with it.

▶ 26:16 Speaker 1: If it's not in conflict with B, there's no issue at all. Okay. Good. You wanna ask a question?

▶ 26:26 Speaker 2: Is can I ask a question? Sure. On discussion. So

▶ 26:30 Speaker 6: I feel like what I'm looking at is that language is different from what I'm reading

▶ 26:34 Speaker 3: Under E that language is under B item B Oh,

▶ 26:36 Speaker 6: Sorry. Mm-Hmm. You were reading under B. Okay.

▶ 26:38 Speaker 3: Yeah. In the same, in 1 1 98 dash two item B. And I guess the one thing I would add that I can see that, that Councilor Williams, uh, or Chair Williams' change does do is the shall be removed from the sidewalk. You know, maybe isn't good wording could just be shall be removed or, yeah. Um, so I, that is, I guess one thing that it does definitively change, but, um, otherwise it seems to have the same intent as B.

▶ 27:15 Ryan Williams: Okay. If there are no other questions on discussion, uh, let's take a roll call. Vote ordinance. Amend. This is the amendment. We're not finished with the trash ordinance. It's just this one Amendment.

▶ 27:27 Speaker 7: Vice chair. Romanul? Yes. Councillor Brosky. Yes. Councillor Vandiver. Yes. And Chair Williams? Yes. That motion passes unanimously.

▶ 27:39 Ryan Williams: Okay. Um, so we passed that amendment.

▶ 27:45 Ryan Williams: Um, the other amendment that is requested is contained in section. Just make sure I got this exactly right here. Aha. In the agenda, it's in item one C and the requested. So I would seek a motion to amend 1 98 2.

▶ 28:10 Ryan Williams: Let's take this in order. I'll seek a motion to amend 1 98 2 and three as presented in the, um, agenda packet, which reads 1 98 dash two C will say, in addition to city issued receptacles, residents may also use approved overflow bags in accordance with the guidelines of the solid waste and recycling program. Such overflow bags will be made available for purchase at designated retailers and locations throughout the city. And, excuse me. And as defined and published on the city website, residents are not permitted to place any items in any items for curbside pickup in bags. Aside from the approved overflow bags. Overflow bags shall not be placed curbside until after 5:00 AM on the scheduled pickup day 1 98 dash 2D, after which may be placed curbside and before under city sponsored source add in approved overflow bags, or this is very kind of belabored, but it, I wanna read it into the record. Um, 1 98 dash three B replace city issued receptacles only with only city issued receptacles or approved overflow bags. So we have, um, the amendments presented by the city that seek to introduce the overflow bag program and make small alterations to the, um, ordinance in a few places so that the language doesn't conflict with that intention. So the motion on the floor, uh, that I would be seeking is a motion to amend ordinance 1 92, I'm sorry, 1 98 dash two CDNB as presented in the, um, public agenda Item one C.

▶ 29:50 Devin Romanul: Can we ask a question of the, uh, I guess absolutely. Ask a similar question of mine one Before Council Councilor Ruminal? Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um, would love your opinion, how you feel like it changed implementation, or it's just a helpful clarification to your initial

▶ 30:03 Speaker 1: This, this, this request allows for overflow banks. It's one that was not considered as part of the initial order, and one that we're seeking your guidance as an alternative to offer to our residents. We are in, we are in full support of, uh, a counselor making this motion and to add this to the ordinance.

▶ 30:24 Devin Romanul: Great. Alright. So moved.

▶ 30:27 Ryan Williams: Okay. Uh, motion, uh, introduced by Councilor Romanul.

▶ 30:33 Kimberly Vandiver: I'll second it. I I'll second it. Okay.

▶ 30:35 Ryan Williams: Second it by Councillor Vandiver,

▶ 30:40 Speaker 7: Vice Chair Romanul? Yes. Councillor Broski. Yes. Councillor Vandiver. Yes. And Chair Williams? Yes. This Motion passes unanimously as well.

▶ 30:50 Ryan Williams: Okay. So we've got two amendments to this ordinance under wraps. Are there any other discussion items or questions from counselors? Councillor Vandiver?

▶ 30:58 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, so I wanted to address also within, um, this area, although not, um, part of the proposals, uh, the line item changes proposed to us so far. Um, when we look at me, scroll back to the correct place. Uh, so in, uh, 1 98 dash three, um,

▶ 31:25 Speaker 4: and I believe we're under

▶ 31:29 Kimberly Vandiver: H as it I currently exists, uh, in the red line. Um, and section three, the section is, uh, called discount and it addresses different cases in which, um, somebody may exclude it, be excluded from part or all of the trash and recycling fee. Um, right now we're, we're looking at, um, approximately doubling the amount that residents need to pay for their trash and recycling program. Um, and looking back in the record, we have not revised the hardship rates for the past nine years. Um, and this is something that's also been discussed, um, throughout, at least the past six months, um, since we've been talking about this new trash and recycling program. Um, that, you know, the, the increased fees alongside other increasing costs may present a real challenge for certain residents. Um, and so I would like to pro propose an amendment to this section.

▶ 32:39 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, I, I would also in the future like to, to see this fully reconciled with other town in the area reconciled with the water program, um, further adjusted to, to be better. But I think that we can make some adjustments right now that are a good first step, um, and that will, uh, help people out going into this new program who are at that, those lower limits. Um, so with that said, the proposals, the specific proposals I would like to make, um, are,

▶ 33:12 Speaker 4: uh, in, in

▶ 33:15 Kimberly Vandiver: that same section in part A, uh, there's a 50% discount on the fee that's only applicable to senior citizens with an income of 65,870 for a single or 75,280 for married couples. Um, I'd like to remove the language, senior CI citizen and, uh, 65 years or older and replace with resident of Melrose. The reason that I think this would be a good change is that for any non-senior citizen who meets those income thresholds, this would effectively keep their fee unchanged because the fee is doubling. They would get the 50% discount. Um, and this would at least provide some mitigation of that for them. Um, and then on the next section, section B hardship cases. Um, I would like to revise the language,

▶ 34:20 Kimberly Vandiver: uh, and, uh, I'll, I'll just read what I think the, the final version would be because it's a number of deletions and additions. Um, but the, the intent of this one would be to, over the course of two years, increase the threshold there, um, which will give us time to have a first step forward if things seem to be going well, allow that further increase to take place. And if not, um, or if another more comprehensive process takes place within the last, the next year, we could, we could revise this again. Um, so what I would like that section about the 100% trash discount to read is effective July 1st, 2024. Any resident of Melrose who owns and occupies a single family home or condominium with an income of 60, uh, sorry, with a, uh, with an income of $45,000 or less for a single person, $50,000 or less for married couples will be eligible for a 100% discount for this fee. And effective July 1st, 2025, any resident of Melrose who owns an occupies a single family home or condominium with an income of 55,000 or less for a single person, 65,000 or less remarried couples will be eligible for 100% discount on this fee. Um, and the last thing I would mention, uh, with respect to those amendments is that we should keep in mind that when we're talking about these income limits, we're talking about non-senior homeowners in Melrose. And so, I, I really don't think that there are very many of these people who are able to afford a home in Melrose and live in Melrose and make, you know, essentially approximately, um, in the neighborhood of a little over minimum wage depending on which, which threshold we're talking about and if they're married or not. Um, I, you know, I think this is going to be relatively few people that we'll see impacted by the change, but that for those people, it would make a big difference. So, uh, happy to repeat any of that, because that was a lot of detail, but that is my proposal for amendments to both A and B.

▶ 36:27 Ryan Williams: Thank you Councillor Vandiver. Um, right now as a point of order, we have to open the finance committee meeting because it's almost at the half hour limit from seven 15. So I would entertain, uh, a motion to recess, legal and legislative