Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2016-06-13

Appropriations and Oversight Budget Hearing

This meeting starts at 46:18 in a recording that covers several meetings.

Attendance

Robert A. Boisselle present · Ward 4 Alderman; Donald L. Conn Jr. present · President/Ex-officio Member; Scott M. Forbes present · Ward 7 Alderman; Gail Infurna late · Vice Chairman; Jennifer L. Lemmerman present · Ward 2 Alderman; Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis present · Alderman at Large; Monica C. Medeiros present · Alderman at Large; Peter D. Mortimer present · Chairman; John N. Tramontozzi present · Ward 1 Alderman; Francis X. Wright Jr. late · Ward 3 Alderman; Michael P. Zwirko present · Alderman at Large

Agenda

Minutes

CITY OF MELROSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CALENDAR● JUNE 13, 2016 Aldermanic Chamber Budget Hearing 7:30 PM The public should take notice that the Melrose Board of Aldermen may, on certain occasions, have a quorum in attendance due to standing committees of the Board of Aldermen consisting of both voting and non-voting members. Members attending this duly posted meeting are participating and deliberating only in conjunction with the business of the standing committee. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Peter D. Mortimer Chairman Present Gail M. Infurna Vice Chairman Late Michael P. Zwirko Alderman at Large Present John N. Tramontozzi Ward 1 Alderman Present Monica C. Medeiros Alderman at Large Present Robert A. Boisselle Ward 4 Alderman Present Francis X. Wright Jr. Ward 3 Alderman Late Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis Alderman at Large Present Jennifer L. Lemmerman Ward 2 Alderman Present Scott M. Forbes Ward 7 Alderman Present Donald L. Conn Jr. President/Ex-officio Member Present In Attendance: City Clerk Mary Rita O'Shea, Elections Clerk Linda Lee Angiolillo, City Solicitor Robert Van Campen, Human Resources Director Marianne Long, Pine Banks Trustee Hank Kezer, Pine Banks Superintendent Andrew Walsh, City Auditor/CFO Patrick Dello Russo, Director of Public Works John Scenna, City Engineer Elena Proakis Ellis

ORDER-2016-158 Operating Budgets (City, School, Regional School) City of Melrose Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017 in the amount of 75,328,574.79 (Seventy-Five Million, Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Seventy-Four Dollars and Seventy-Nine Cents) No Action Taken Board of Aldermen

ORDER-2016-198 Appropriation Appropriation in the amount of $162,869.56 From: A/C # 6100-319000 (Water Retained Earnings) To: A/C # 6100-33001 (Water Reserve of Retained Earnings) Recommend Passage Board of Aldermen City of Melrose Page 1 Updated 7/28/2016 1:44 PM Minutes Appropriations Committee June 13, 2016

ORDER-2016-199 Appropriation Appropriation in the amount of $293,534.61 From: Sewer Retained Earnings (A/C # 6000-319000) To: Sewer Reserve of Retained Earnings (A/C # 6000- 330001) Recommend Passage Board of Aldermen

ORDER-2016-163 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228, Article II, Section 228-15 (Water Rates Established), as set forth herein. Recommend Passage Board of Aldermen

ORDER-2016-164 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228, Article IV, Section 228-30 (Sewer Rates Established) as set forth herein Recommend Passage Board of Aldermen

ORDER-2016-166 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228, Article IV, Section 228-20 (Elderly Discount) as set forth herein Recommend Passage Board of Aldermen

ORDER-2016-200 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228 (Water & Sewers) by adding Section 228-78 "Infiltration and Inflow Mitigation Fees" as set forth herein. Recommend Passage Board of Aldermen

ORDER-2016-33 Request BE IT ORDERED that the City shall cause all water meters in the City to be read between June 15th and June 30th of each year for the purpose of issuing water and sewer bills for the quarter ending June 30th. Hold Appropriations Committee

ORDER-2015-192 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228-14 by adding paragraph C relative to Water Meters as set forth herein. Null and Void City of Melrose Page 2 Updated 7/28/2016 1:44 PM Minutes Appropriations Committee June 13, 2016

ORDER-2015-193 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228-15 by adding paragraph A (3) relative to Unit Averaging as set forth herein. Null and Void

ORDER-2015-194 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228-15 by adding paragraph C relative to Water Proration as set forth herein Null and Void

ORDER-2015-195 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228-30 by adding paragraph F relative to Sewer Proration as set forth herein Null and Void City of Melrose Page 3 Updated 7/28/2016 1:44 PM

Transcript

▶ 0:00 Peter D. Mortimer: It's progress of some sort. Ladies and gentlemen, we're back. We have received word from MMTV that the DVD has been changed, and we're back under recording. Okay, it's back on just now. We are on order 2016-200 amending Melrose Revised Ordinances Chapter 228, water and sewers by adding section 228-78, infiltration and inflow mitigation fees as set forth herein. The order is before us. And it is my recollection from before the recess that no action has yet been taken this evening on the order. Motion to recommend. We have a motion to recommend from Alderman Boycelle. Second. Duly seconded by Alderman McAteer-Margolis. President Kahn, I saw you first. Would you like to say anything about the order, Mr. Shenner or Mrs. Ellsberg?

▶ 1:16 I was going to ask Mr. Shannon to explain the order, so I appreciate your attention. Okay, very good. I'm happy to listen. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And it's been longstanding policy in the Public Works Department, mainly in our engineering office, to, as part of our review of developments, we assess an I&I mitigation fee to contractors. if there was an empty parcel of land and they converted and the project looked to convert it to Ted bedroom condo Association that's the type of mitigation fee that we would require as part of the planning process that fee historically has been calculated by taking a ratio of what our last project cost in terms of dollars and dividing it by the amount of inflow we took out

▶ 2:06 I and I we took out since Elena's joined our department we have re-evaluated what that figure should be and it's reached the point where we we would like to codify it we've discussed this with legal counts City Council City Council Rob Van Campen has reviewed this and worked this language with us so what it is is an ordinance that would support the continuation of what has been a long term policy in the department of assessing an INI mitigation fee to contractors looking to develop in Melrose it's not uncommon in other parts of the community and Elena has some examples of what other people are doing but essentially we're establishing an ordinance to allow us to continue to do what we've done through policy with developments thanks John so the fee had

▶ 3:04 historically been two dollars and 14 cents per gallon per day and just to clarify this is a one-time fee and it's for any change in use the justification for the fee is that our sewer system is very taxed as it is especially with how much I and I we presently have and so in order for somebody to add new flow it we're essentially asking them to offset the capacity of the new flow that they're adding so if you are putting an addition on your home and you're going from three bedroom bedrooms to four you would be asked to pay for the incremental difference in flow from that one bedroom if you're constructing a brand new development that is a 90 unit development and each unit is two bedrooms you'd be asked to pay the equivalent of 180 bedrooms minus

▶ 3:52 whatever the flow had been on the property prior to that so this is historically what we've done with the two dollar and fourteen cent fee when I I started in November I immediately when I saw this fee said this does not cover the costs of I&I removal in the present day and age so what we've done is we've taken our most recent project which was the sub areas 21 and 22 that Weston Sampson had done with the city in the last couple of years and we took the total project cost so that incorporates both design and construction and construction oversight and the cost of that project divided by the gallons per day removed is six dollars and eighty nine cents per gallon per day so that's the proposed fee the other thing the ordinance does is it just codifies the

▶ 4:40 the calculation methodology pretty much everybody who does this sort of calculating tends to use title 5 which is designed for septic systems but it's a very fair and easy to use system because it incorporates every type of of development you could possibly imagine has a title five flow associated with it and so you can calculate the before and after using a very fair metric and establish what the new flow is going to be and then lastly to establish existing flows we're using the assessor's office records which is what we've done historically but we're just formalizing that that's how we establish it so they're you know to lessen the chance of somebody wanting to debate what was there before we just go by whatever the assessor's records say for

▶ 5:31 comparison with other communities we surveyed a number of communities and for those that have I&I fees we came up with 450 four dollars and fifty cents from Wakefield two dollars and fifty cents for Burlington eight dollars for Redding seven dollars for Woburn and twelve dollars for Waltham so we're pretty much right in the mix with what the other communities are doing at 689 per gallon per day and I just want to conclude but this is not an additional charge on residents this is a is a is a charge that we passed on to the developer of properties thank you very much mr. Shannon thank you very much mr. Brockess Alderman Forbes did you have your hand up I did not okay next in queue we had Alderman Wright President Kahn thank you mr. chairman just so the

▶ 6:30 Francis X. Wright Jr.: public is aware and I'm sure you guys are aware this is this issue went before the Supreme Judicial Court Thomas August and the SJC upheld these charges as appropriate so this is something this is not something that hasn't been challenged or hasn't been upheld perfectly appropriate the SJC is found and it's consistent with what other communities are doing and with everything we've heard about I and I lately it seems appropriate that if somebody's going to come into Melrose and and reap the benefits of a development that they should pay for the impact they're going to have on our sewer system thank you Thank You alderman right president Khan please yeah um where is the money gonna go that's been generated by these fees so

▶ 7:24 We have an INI mitigation account set up that the auditor oversees for us. We've used some of that money to do the beginning of the study that we're creating right now for presentation this September. We use it towards city-wide type of INI projects. So we would have that fund available. It is a fund that the auditor oversees, and that's what we deposit money into. Is it a revolving fund? No, no, it's not revolving. And when was this fund set up? Yeah, I'm just asking because I have no recollection of ever discussing this fund before. Thank you. Next we have Alderman Zwirko, please. Thank you, President Kahn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. so it says here any person or entity changing altering repairing or adding or

▶ 8:42 Michael P. Zwirko: to improving the property in any way that may or should impact the sewer system within the city of Melrose etc and then you're an example in B you use a project with a net increase of five bedrooms you know I read changing altering repairing or adding to there's going to be an imposition on on any type of work and I guess where I'm kind of going with this is it would seem to me if it's generally going to add looking for the language apologize I'm kind of running around here if it's going to impose any additional wastewater to an existing sewer connection that how would that be applicable to a bedroom so the the title 5 calculations specify gallons per day per bedroom that's the way for residential units that's how title 5 is imposed so a building permit would

▶ 9:52 trigger a review which it does now yeah just under the lower fee and with a less formal process not to be funny here but what's the difference between a bedroom going to study so we go yeah we go by well it's not different communities different do it different ways I was being a little facetious in my question I understand it's a closet but well that's why we defer to assess it so we don't want to be in the business of determining whether somebody is adding a study or an office or a bedroom so if somebody submits plans that show we're adding two bedrooms then we'll consider two bedrooms and if assessing shows their house we had once one recently that we reviewed that the plans the homeowner submitted showed that it was going from a three bedroom or a two

▶ 10:46 Michael P. Zwirko: bedroom to a three bedroom home when we reviewed the assessing records they already had it as a three bedroom home and they said it's staying as a three bedroom home so we didn't assess them a fee so we're not going to get in the mix of determining what's a bedroom what's considered an addition of a bedroom so and and I'm fine with that and I appreciate the clarification it's just you know you can make bedrooms out of rooms that you currently have so it was just seemed a little bit subjective there I guess the the one word or verb or legalese that I have an issue with and maybe I won't after you clarify a little bit further is repairing so I can understand altering I can understand changing I can understand adding to or improving going from a one and a half

▶ 11:27 Michael P. Zwirko: bath to a tube to a full bath and then for having two baths but you know repairing that seems to me that that's something that the homeowner is doing you know a tree could have fallen on your roof impacted a certain room so I guess where does repairing fall in with having a fee assessed with this because to me that's just going back to the existing so the pairing doesn't really seem kind of fair I think it's just to be all-encompassing of anything that's requiring our building permit so if you're repairing if you're having a plumber come in and repair a faucet we're not assessing that but if you're doing any work that triggers a building permit which could include repairs it's it falls into the program and when we review a project like that we would find

▶ 12:10 no impact and okay that would be it so I mean I'm comfortable with the review I mean that that takes the subjectivity out of it so again not not trying to be a nit it just seemed I had those were my concerns and at this point the majority reviews that we do are are just through the zba and through the planning board um so we'll have to formalize the process to be sure that we're capturing anything that all right well thank you fair enough and thank you i appreciate it thank you mr chairman thank you alderman Zwirko next we have alderman Tramontozzi please yeah uh thank you yeah i you i think you answered the question that i had um based on what alderman Zwirko was asking but it's this fee isn't triggered until a

▶ 12:50 John N. Tramontozzi: building permit is requested yes and is it collected as part of the building permit fee it's it's assessed right now we've been assessing it at occupancy when they're requesting sign off on occupancy that's when we make the final determination of what the change has been and what the fee amount is and then they're required to pay before we'll sign off well that's new construction but if it's uh if it's an addition it's already occupied so yeah we haven't really uh we would probably do it at the time of final inspection we once we have the ordinance in place we'll work that process out with the building commission a final final inspection by the building commissioner so just to make it clear that this does not just apply only to commercial properties is

▶ 13:38 John N. Tramontozzi: also applicable to residential properties but the comment that you made early is it doesn't it's a it's a fees attached to the developer that those I think that's what used to build it but in reality the homeowner pays it it's who it's whoever is doing them yeah right so I was doing the project just just to make it clear I mean it's a it's a fee that the owner of the property what will endure as a result and I know that's always been the case but you just question of going up on it right yeah okay thank you Thank You alderman Tramontozzi Alderman Medeiros please thank you yes I wanted to make that same point that Alderman Tramontozzi made I this this is an amendment to our ordinances by adding this section and I know you said you wanted to codify this

▶ 14:31 Monica C. Medeiros: does this mean this has not been on and existing in our ordinances before correct and so we've been charging people this fee without an ordinance to do so it was in a policy in a letter okay which is it is not fairly old yeah it's been a long-standing policy when did this policy come to effect at least ten years ago do you think you could pass that policy letter on we have we have the letter yeah that would be and and now nothing here is except for that we want to get something on the books if we're doing something but obviously we shouldn't be charging any fees that aren't in the ordinances but none of this is related to is going to affect the rates or the of the water and sewer and you said this is going into a fund so I you know I don't know how the rest

▶ 15:35 Monica C. Medeiros: of the board feels but I'd like to see if this isn't urgent and we do have a few questions about it I wouldn't think it would hurt to either move this forward without recommendation at this time or or hold it in committee I'll let some other members talk before making any kind of such suggestion but I do want to say that I do appreciate you know you're looking at this and I appreciate you're taking the cost from you know being very cognizant about trying to make sure that you're really just covering the cost and not you know we're not just trying to make money or you know get the developers something out of them this is something that you've thought you know closely about looked at the cost from from

▶ 16:22 Weston Sampson and in past projects and and applied that here so yeah like I said that the two dollars and fourteen cents that we're charging now is not commensurate with the cost to actually provide the capacity to the development just want to offer the reason why we got it on to tonight's agenda despite having so many other things to talk about is that as I mentioned that the fee that we're collecting right now is inappropriately low and we have a lot of developments that we've reviewed in the time since I've been here and we've continued to collect this inappropriately low fee and we have several developments before the planning and zoning boards right now and I think to delay this any longer could mean that we're going to continue to collect that

▶ 17:10 low fee from some of them I would move tonight to move this forward without recommendation expecting that we will get some information for the full board meeting and be able to make a decision finally at that time that's motion that is a motion thank you very much there already is a motion on that case I may abstain until the full board meeting today thank you thank you alderman boy cell yes no one is before you go ahead please you're collecting money for these reviews and you're putting them into a fund what's the fun use for I mean what's the money used for our afterwards we've used very little of it today I know that we signed one contract with Western Samson over the last 12 months to start studying citywide I&I problems, and we would use that fund for

▶ 18:12 Peter D. Mortimer: those type of projects, citywide type of projects, or a project that could beneficially impact a neighborhood where the development is taking place if that development is large enough to create a substantial payment. Okay. How much is there now? I don't recall that. uh we can we can provide with that information if you please thank you very much thank you mr chairman thank you alderman boycelle there is a motion on the floor to recommend this order for passage seeing no further discussion all in favor please say aye aye aye any opposed hearing none the one abstain abstain um all right so the motion passes 11 to 1 abstention that order will be recommended for passage to the full board the next order

▶ 19:10 Monica C. Medeiros: 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 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 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 know by April at least unfortunately that order was never heard again in the

▶ 20:18 Monica C. Medeiros: 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 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

▶ 21:09 Monica C. Medeiros: 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 additional meters so i do think it's something that is warrants looking at by the the consultant 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

▶ 22:03 Monica C. Medeiros: 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 would help in particular especially in mixed-use properties where you have maybe commercial and 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 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 and hold the balance in committee.

▶ 22:49 Peter D. Mortimer: That's a motion. Okay, Alderman Medeiros has made a motion that we hold this order for procedural purposes in the Appropriations Committee. And it's getting late. Pardon me, please? And it's getting late. 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

▶ 23:42 John N. Tramontozzi: you answered the question oh i see okay well alderman Tramontozzi you have the floor sir 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,

▶ 24:40 Monica C. Medeiros: but I don't think it was something that we wanted to get involved in. But anyways, that's just my comment. Thank you, Alderman Chairman Tosi. Oh, is that it, sir? Yeah, that's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Alderman Medeiros, please. 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, and you know he did say he wanted to speak to the consultant have the 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 Peter D. Mortimer: 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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

▶ 27:21 Peter D. Mortimer: We will be in a brief recess. May we please reconvene. Alderman Inferna has raised a very appropriate point of information regarding this order. 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

▶ 28:38 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

▶ 29:21 Monica C. Medeiros: 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

▶ 30:12 Monica C. Medeiros: 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 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

▶ 31:01 Peter D. Mortimer: 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. The next order we have before us is order 2015-194, amending Melrose revised ordinances chapter 228-15 by adding Paragraph C, relative to water proration as set forth herein. And it would seem that this order is in the same category. And the next order we have before us is order 2015-195, amending Melrose revised ordinances chapter 228-30 by adding Paragraph F, relative to sewer proration as set forth herein. Once again, the same situation and rule applies. And number 12 on our agenda tonight, order 2016-33.

▶ 32:17 Be it ordered that the city shall cause all water meters in the city to be read between June 15th and June 30th of each year for the purpose of issuing water and sewer bills for the quarter ending June 30th, and this order is before us. President Kahn, this is your order, please proceed. Yes, it is, and since it's very late, I'm going to be very brief. I filed this order in an effort to correct what I saw as the inequity relative to retroactive billing and I filed it in the belief that since we had the new water meters we would be able to read all meters within a two-week period so we could have a uniform bill at the crossover point between one year and another um I think it's too late to discuss this order this

▶ 33:25 Peter D. Mortimer: I think after the discussion at the end of the last meeting where we had some explication of the administration order relative to billing. I would not like to give this order leave to withdraw, but I would like to have it retained in committee at this point. Second. President Kahn has made a motion to keep the instant order in committee. That motion was seconded by Alderman Medeiros. On discussion? Seeing no discussion, we're ready for the vote to keep this order in committee. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, this order will be retained in committee. Motion to adjourn. We have a motion to adjourn from Alderman Forbes, duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. All in favor, please say aye.

▶ 34:22 Peter D. Mortimer: Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none. The Committee on Appropriations is adjourned. Thank you, one and all.

▶ 46:03 motion to adjourn i have a motion to adjourn made by alderman Zwirko duly seconded by alderman mortimer all those in favor any opposed concludes the finance committee stay tuned for appropriations Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Committee on Appropriations on June 13th, 2016. It is 7.49 in the evening. I am Chairman Peter Mortimer. We are joined presently by Alderman Michael Zwirko, Alderman John Tramontozzi, Alderman Monica Medeiros, Alderman Robert Boycelle, Alderman Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis is out in the hall momentarily on business, but is in attendance. We're expecting Alderman Inferna any minute, the vice chair of this committee. Continuing on the list of those present is Ward 2 Alderman Jennifer Lemmerman and

▶ 48:42 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman Scott Forbes and President Donald Kahn. This is a committee of the whole. All members of the Board of Aldermen are members of this committee. This meeting is being recorded by MMTV and DVDs for future viewing are available or you can stream view it on MMTV website or on the City of Melrose website. Is there a motion for public participation? So moved, Mr. Chairman. Second. Alderman Forbes has made a motion to open the floor for public participation, duly seconded by Robert Boycelle, Alderman Boycelle. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. any opposed hearing none we are now open for public participation anyone wishing to speak please come forward state your name and address for the record and you will be heard

▶ 49:33 julie de lillo 13 circuit street um so again i'm just coming forward with some observations because i just some questions i have the first one has to do with the retro retroactive billing I saw that my meter was red today so today's June 13th and it appears that my bill that will contain that would be sometime in the fall and so I'm trying to figure out just an understanding what's going on if retroactive billing is going away that means like you could only charge me for my at the higher rate for my water use starting july 1st so i'm just sort of the question i have is are there is there water used in june that will go to that that bill and therefore retroactive may not truly be retroactive going away if there may still be some retroactive so that's one second is that when

▶ 50:36 people when they were going in and installing meters into people's homes in their basements I'm not sure if there was a check for all the sump pumps that supposedly are dumping, that are pumping into the sewer system. And so, that's just sort of an observation or a question of why wouldn't we have done that at the time we were putting those meters in. So that's it, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Lilloff. Good evening, Mr. Moroz. Hi, thank you, I'm Jerry Moroz. You know, I know you're all smart people here, and I come here, as I do in my work, I bring facts and analysis and give the basis why I recommend a certain decision on something. But in this chamber, the facts and analysis that I've brought to here over the last few

▶ 51:43 years is disregarded you know because I I don't expect that you all are gonna know the depth of the issues necessarily as I've taken the time to explore myself and to learn about but it strikes me as strange that when the state law says that you can have a second tier say to fairly reflect the volume of high consumption users the resource demand of high consumption uses in the volume of it all of you seem to come out here say oh I like you know no I should say all of you some of you come here the other night and said oh well I like option 4b or I like this option or that option or I'm voting for the tiers well I got to tell you that if you vote for a tiered option and don't support why you believe

▶ 52:44 that people who use more than 2,000 cubic feet or 2,500 cubic feet or 3,000 to 10,000 cost the city in the water system more money than people who use less you haven't if you if you do that you haven't justified it you can't do it the law says to fairly reflect the resource demand and consumption of high volume users if you're gonna go out there and say I'm gonna make these tears to fairly reflect show us how it fairly reflects it I've pointed out here before that the consultants haven't brought forth any cost of service analysis to support there's been zero cost of service analysis let alone a cost of service analysis that would support that people who are using higher volumes of water are crossing the city more money or the water and sewer enterprise more

▶ 53:33 money in some way so I want to put it out there on the record that if you vote for a tiered system be ready and I would believe that you should put it out in advance you know quantify exactly how this is the case I don't see it I presented here a number of times about this issue I don't see that and in fact I see that given that we have such a low fixed charge per user on our system the people who are using a lot of water as you might call them high volume users are actually disproportionately funding the huge fixed costs of our system way more than people at the lower levels I found it cynical the other night that people talk about oh we can't have 70% of the users have an increase in their

▶ 54:23 water bill well 70% of the users have had a subsidy in their water bill and I I feel it's reprehensible that anybody here would be willing to vote to tax 30% of the people, the minority of people, to pay for and to tax them a huge amount to pay for what 70% of the majority might be getting a benefit of. That's not fair. That's not equitable. People use those terms here. But if you're going to say fair and equitable, you've got to back it up. it's not fair and equitable to give 70% of subsidy because they may vote for you and you'll get votes and get reelected and put the burden on 30% that includes the hospital and some other other large-volume users that again don't cost us any more and they pay more than their fair share so number one tears aren't

▶ 55:17 supported in any way and I'll be the first person to be out here saying that it's actually appropriate that people pay their share of the water and sewer rates the water and sewer bills of their fair share not these these shares that have been brought forward here with all these rate options that make it seem like something impressive when really all it is is a recasting of the same thing over and over and over with small nuances different without without meeting the principle of the issue you know you strain the credibility of the board you strain the trust that people put in this board when you go and you take unjust actions by doing things like this i don't know again i know you're smart people

▶ 56:05 you know i don't want to be too cynical here and say is it all about the votes and trying to make it look low and i'll tell you at the base of base of everything here there needs to be hard work done to control the escalating costs of melrose i've shown you that we're among the the at the the very highest of the country of water and sewer rates in the country. There's not really much talk about that. I was a person that brought here a few years ago inflow and infiltration issues. But yet, now we have this semantic saying, oh, it's so wonderful now we have a program, not a project. Well, I'll tell you, I'd rather see a comprehensive project today than a program that's going to just use the same money

▶ 56:47 that MWRA makes available to us at no or low cost as they've done every year that we've made use of already. Nobody here has yet proposed, and DPW hasn't proposed, that we actually invest in our system. You know, it's a difficult issue. It costs money to invest in the system, and that cost of money is going to show higher water and sewer rates. But if we don't ever invest in the system, we're going to be sitting here at the highest of MWRA and the highest of the country year after year after year forever. it you know for those of you that are so concerned about votes and so concerned about your political standing in the city spend some of that political capital if people believe in you go out and say you know this is a hard job but

▶ 57:37 we have to do it we have to start controlling these things and I also want to bring up the issue of that it's clear from the conversation the discussion the night here that the alderman feel that they have no choice but to include 270 000 of city water rates city water bills to make the water and sewer rate payers for to have all these city funds and you know they've been very creative about finding costs of the city to put on the water and sewer rate payers let's be very clear it seems very apparent to me that it's purely designed to be be a circumvention of proposition two and a half and you may believe you have no other options but there are other options there is tough work to be done in the budgets

▶ 58:32 to do things not just to sit there and rubber stamp every single thing the mayor comes forward here you know a few of the members here in this budget process have made have made some efforts at trying to get at some issues and and you know a tiny tiny issue but is important is what one of the aldermen brought up about the um the cost of some of these small committees and what we give this committees and how it's not equitable between human rights and and you know the new um women's commission and these other things but in that conversation that night what stood out to me is because everybody was saying oh we need the money to pay for the chamber of commerce's victorian fair that we provide main street for free for and that all our city commissions are

▶ 59:20 paying them thousands and thousands of dollars right maybe if we're going to provide our city street for the chamber of commerce to benefit the businesses maybe they can give the city commission something free and that money can be available to pay city costs that we need to pay not given to the chamber of commerce and it's all one big picture right every bit of money that we waste somewhere in the city is money that now we don't have to pay for the city's water and sewer use or for the mayor's staff at some level's cost because they say this. I mean, I can't believe that the auditor has 50% of his time in the city on water and sewer issues. Come on. You know, I can't believe that the city solicitor has, I think, $29,000 for water and sewer issues last year.

▶ 1:00:08 Come on. What's that, a quarter of a salary on water and sewer? We meet about it once? that's not that this isn't real it's it's not real the numbers that are brought up here and it ties back to water and sewer issues that you're looking at tonight the issue of retroactive billing I was astonished I you know I was pleased to hear that we were going to delay the rate increase till October because it appeared to me the natural thing to do was we were going to get all the meters in place read them all September 30th and bill everybody on September 30th at the rates that we currently have and then we start all fresh on October 1st I was shocked the other night to find out and and and and Alderman Medeiros raised this issue and I I was just shocked that we're

▶ 1:00:55 gonna have retroactive billing again we're just changing the date from June 30th to September 30th that doesn't solve the issue and by the way retroactive billing is the enemy here proration just to get our terms straight proration is a mitigating strategy to help recover from the harms done of retroactive billing and I can't believe with all the money we spent on the consultant and all the DPW and all the the time billed from the auditor and the city solicitor that somehow we're still doing the same thing but and it's not about whether it's FY 17 rates FY 16 rates it's about is somebody being charged for water and sewer for the month for a certain month at a different rate that somebody else is being charged that's the issue here and the answer under

▶ 1:01:44 their proposal appears to be yes it's going to be still it doesn't solve the problem now you know we I again I thought that the water the water meters are all going to be in by June 30th and then you know some reasonable delay October 30 it's a great September 30 it's a great time to figure those you have gone over the 10-minute limit okay I'll finish up include your comments Thank you. You know, people have said it here before that what you decide has to be defensible. And I haven't heard any defense for the proposals or the references that have been made by the people on this board so far as to which option you're going to choose. it's not defensible I see them as being unjust arbitrary I see them as exploiting a situation

▶ 1:02:35 Peter D. Mortimer: to tax the water and sewer rate payers to pay for things in the city I don't know what to say more but I appeal to you please there's a way to do this appropriately there's a way to do this legitimately there's a way to do this honestly and transparently I don't believe that that's been done to this point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Moroz. Are there any further members of the public wishing to come forward to be heard at this time? Seeing none, is there a motion from the board, please? Motion to close public participation. Second. Alderman Forbes has made a motion to close public participation for the Appropriations Committee for this evening. Said motion was duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none,

▶ 1:03:22 Peter D. Mortimer: public participation is closed. We will now take up the business at hand for the Appropriations Committee this evening. We are presently engaged in our budget season, working on the budget. It is Order 2016-158, City of Melrose Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2017, in the amount of 75 million three hundred and twenty eight thousand five hundred and seventy four dollars and seventy nine cents the first budget Department number 161 that we have before us tonight is the city clerk budget Is there a motion to suspend the rules, please? So move mr. Alderman Forbes has made a motion to suspend the rules Duly seconded by alderman lemmerman all in favor. Please say aye aye any opposed hearing none we are under suspension and we will ask our

▶ 1:04:20 city clerk Mary Rita O'Shea to come before us so we may discuss the city clerk budget in the amount of two hundred and seventy three thousand eight hundred and twenty eight dollars and twenty two cents good evening miss O'Shea nice to see you would you like to make an opening statement well the budget in front of you um well all right well maybe what i'll do is um maybe i'll start off and just let you know the function of the city clerk's office i'll give you a brief rundown births and deaths we process 1 912. marriage intentions 52 amendments to vital records 42 uh business certificates 23 board of appeal cases 11 common vicula 41 second hand deal of five class one and two licenses nine flammables 46 taxi seven livery three and dogs 1883 dollars

▶ 1:05:33 and then last but not least the board of alderman legislative orders approximately 200 annual and then there's board meetings and minutes so just that's just a brief rundown of my office and now to go over the budget there's just a few line items that have a slight increase in them the printing went from 1180 to 1500 because we're using more security paper due to increased volume of vital records dog maintenance went from 700 to 800 maintenance agreement went up in the cost and we have more dogs so we need more licensing dogs so we need more dog tags and then professional services there's been an increase 7,000 is to compensate for Ruth's reduction in her hours because she never was brought up

▶ 1:06:32 Peter D. Mortimer: back up to 30 hours a week so she works 25 hours a week within my office 4,650 is to cover for vacations for my office staff Mary Rita Susan and Ruth in 2000 is supplemental help when we process the dog licenses January and February so that brings it to thirteen thousand six hundred and fifty dollars for that line item other than that everything is pretty much the same thank you very much ms o'shea is there a motion motion to recommend second we have a motion to recommend this order from alderman Boisselle this budget from alderman Boisselle duly seconded by alderman mcintyre margolis and on discussion the first to show her hand is alderman Medeiros i'm sorry that was motion was seconded by alderman

▶ 1:07:27 Medeiros and you are the first to have the floor please proceed thank you i just wanted to ask if you could talk a little bit about um the the recode that's recodification every code where we stand with that yeah so we're in the final process with the final very end now and city solicitor and i plan to have we're working this summer to finalize it and then we should have a draft in september and then go before the board of argument to accept okay great thank you thank you very much alderman materos alderman inferno please thank you very much mr chairman just a quick question could you explain the printing increase again yeah for security we have security paper that we use um for our vital records so there's been an increase in vital records it's

▶ 1:08:19 Peter D. Mortimer: a special paper that you special paper that we have to use because i mean i know we're trying to go paperless so i wasn't quite sure i just wanted to make sure you were paperless in the office more or less and but if that's a special order for yes security paper okay thank you thank you alderman inferno are there any other aldermen wishing to be heard seeing none there is a motion to recommend this budget for passage duly seconded all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none this budget will be recommended to the full board for passage thank you for your attendance excuse me you may as well stay right in the chair because our next budget is for the election and registrar office which offers your office overseas good

▶ 1:09:03 Peter D. Mortimer: evening this is lindy linda angiolillo linda lee angiolillo who is here before us as our election commissioner good evening would you like to make an opening statement ms angiolillo angiolillo thank you very much thank you the only thing um i think is our programming that went up a lot um and that depends that's just a fee um no that actually went down um So, I mean, I don't have anything to say if anyone has questions on anything on it. Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from any of the aldermen? Motion to move the bottom line. I have a question. Okay. Would you mind? I'd like to take the motion first. We have a motion to move the bottom line for this budget. Second. Duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle.

▶ 1:10:04 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: discussion first in line we have alderman Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis thank you mr. chairman thank you for coming I know I remember last year you're saying you were having difficulty getting people to work at the polls has you taken that into consideration with this budget are you offering any more incentive or free lunch or anything like that senior center you know offer free lunch and most cities and towns do offer free lunch so if you would like to throw that in there I'd be more than happy to see what we can do yeah now the poll workers we hire 86 as you know for each election and it is tougher and tough because we tougher and tougher each time because they have to work a 14-hour day and we only pay them 120 dollars for the entire day but we always pull through so

▶ 1:10:57 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: we find people and hopefully we would love to go part-time and do but then we need double that so we go election to election is it required that they work the whole shift the only reason it is is because we can't find anyone I mean and most of them love it I mean they love the social aspect of it but it is a long day so you haven't increase you haven't made any increases or anything like that for the next year or no that's the time salary movie for the poll workers so we haven't increased that at all we are looking for more office staff with early voting becoming them an issue for this November well maybe we can see if we can for the presidential election do something about that thank you mr.

▶ 1:11:50 Thank you very much. Alderman McAteer-Margolis. Alderman Medeiros, please. Thank you. How do we stand with the voting machines? Well, we're going to put it off because this is going to be a crazy election year, and we're waiting to just see. I think there are probably 20 to 30 towns that have already moved into the new machines, and we're letting them figure out the bugs in it before we order them. so we would like to have them ordered for next spring and have them all set for the next local election and so that's not in this budget and it's not going to come out of the budget I guess I believe it was if I may chair what we had done is we had appropriated I believe was a hundred and seven thousand

▶ 1:12:48 to the Capital Stabilization Fund, which will remain there until, for the election machines, which will remain there until we're asked to make that appropriation. But the money is there. It does not close the general fund. It will stay there until this board acts. Great. Thank you. And when we do get the machines, it will be something that is on, like, the state contract, or the types of machines are mandated by Secretary of State? Yes. so we'll see how it goes and you think we are in good enough shape to get through this crazy election with the existing machines we're going to rent we will have someone from LHS like we have the past few elections to be on hand in case something goes wrong we're going to rent a few machines like we've been

▶ 1:13:34 doing so we're trying to stay on top of it in case something happens we have backup machines and ready to go they are going in the total of the part-time salary and wages that are here are for the poll workers the professional services are you looking at or high time salary and wages is police DPW and poll workers that's what comes out of that the pot professional services is office help that we need during election season and that possibly using constables instead of police to try to lessen that cost that was a contract dispute it had we used the constables and the auxilary for the longest time and they were only paid a flat rate just like the co-workers of a hundred and twenty dollars a day and now our budget is five to six thousand for police details thank

▶ 1:14:34 you thank you very much alderman Medeiros are there any other alderman wishing to be heard at this time alderman Boyce L please the new machines that are being considered and so forth are these a state-of-the-art where is sort of a touchscreen type voting or is it similar to you still have to make your mark you still mark but everything is put into a computer and it's it's actually a slower machine but it tell tallies everything and calculates it so it's always there people are pretty they seem to be happy with it it just seems during a busy election like an election here presidential it's going it could cause lines and that's the only issue we have is a city election it shouldn't be an issue but this very good now at the Statehouse there's an initiative for

▶ 1:15:24 Robert A. Boisselle: what they call early voting and so 11 days before the actual 11 business days before the election is that coming this year are we looking at for next year I mean are we gonna see this in November so the early voting initiative will be available to the public now is this going to be an outreach by the state or by the cities or how does how do the voters find out about this and can your office handle an influx yeah we have no idea what's gonna happen from other states and from the way the state I'm going to a convention on Wednesday and we will discuss it in detail but other states have had 25% people that were eligible would vote out of we have 19,000 registered voters we could have 5,000 people ten days before the election coming through my office to

▶ 1:16:21 Robert A. Boisselle: vote okay that's my question I mean right now the voting is spread out to five or six schools or other areas now you're gonna have 5,000 people according to this into your office how do you gonna handle that good question we are hiring I put in the budget to put a full-time person in during that so that's in this budget that's in this budget okay that's in the professional services we just don't know what's gonna happen we don't know if there are gonna be lines out the door i don't know what's if we have 5 000 people you're talking only 10 days 11 days that they are allowed to vote and it's during the entire day you can't set hours you need to have it from the moment you open till closing well in the order that they're pushing

▶ 1:17:12 Peter D. Mortimer: is basically the city can adjust that to saturday operations or extended hours is that being considered it hasn't been but it's an option that's available to the city good yeah we have the staffing and the money to do it okay thank you very much and good luck Thank You mr. chair and Thank You alderman Boisselle any further alderman wishing to be heard a motion has been made to recommend this budget to the full board it has been duly seconded all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none this budget will be recommended to the full board for passage thank you very much for your attendance thank you thank you the next budget that we have before us this evening is budget 151 it is the city solicitor's office in the amount of seven

▶ 1:18:08 hundred and sixteen thousand five hundred and seventy nine dollars and seven cents Yes. Thank you for coming before us, Mr. VanCampen. This is Mr. VanCampen, our city solicitor. Would you like to make an opening statement, sir? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through you to the members of the committee, I just want to report on my office's FY17 budget and just report that you'll note the bottom line is increasing 4.6 percent and the lion's share of that increase is absorbed in the liability insurance line for fy17 which is increasing by 6.1 percent we're building a little bit of a cushion into that line item this year as i do every year i instruct the city's insurance agent to shop around our policies to get the best price in the marketplace

▶ 1:19:05 and this is roughly where the market is today so we're looking at approximately a five or six percent increase um in our insurance you will note salaries is increasing 5.3 percent that is not a true increase as i understand it there's a 53rd payroll week in this coming fiscal year so the increases in my office um are nothing more than natural step and cola increases it's not a 5.3 increase it's actually less than that but because we're paying for that 53rd week it shows as an increase in the budget all other line items mr chairman are level funded and i'll answer any questions that members may have thank you very much mr van kampen president khan please yeah mr van kampen on your your salary and wages line um what percentage of the actual salaries paid

▶ 1:20:02 are reflected in the city solicitor budget um i would defer to mr delarusso for that uh answer i don't have that okay so none of the city solicitor salary and wage uh expenses are allocated to any other any other budget at this point no there is an allocation for water to store but it's a direct allocation it's not a direct cost though okay and how much how much i don't have that in front of me i can get that for you though okay well maybe we can talk about that later when we talk about the water and sewer budget this evening okay okay so so 100 of the funding for the law department is set forth in in your budget correct and of the 715 odd thousand dollars 487 is for insurance correct and that's insurance for virtually all all

▶ 1:21:04 property all buildings all employment activity I think the only car vote is the cemetery correct other than that this covers all correct the cemetery has a separate policy I would just point out all the president Kahn mentioned the insurance question you'll note that at the bottom there's a miscellaneous line for six thousand nine hundred and one dollars that's a that's a FY 15 prior year bill that was applied to the year-end auto endorsement for the insurance policy as you folks know typically in the fall I'll come back for an adjustment on the premium where we add vehicles dispose of vehicles add property etc etc that's what that signifies so I just wanted to make sure that's clear to you folks thank you President Kahn seeing no further

▶ 1:21:52 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman wishing to be heard is there a motion please motion to recommend second alderman inferna has made a motion to recommend this budget for passage duly seconded by alderman boycelle all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none budget 151 the city solicitors office and the amount of 716 579.7 will be recommended to the full board for passage thank you thank you for your attendance sir mr chairman i'm also here for the liquor commission just so you're aware I am aware of that, and thank you for the reminder. The next budget, coincidentally, serendipitously, is budget number 165. It is the Liquor Commission in the amount of $2,000. Motion to recommend. We have a motion to recommend this budget by Alderman Boisselle.

▶ 1:22:42 Peter D. Mortimer: Was that second from Alderman Inferno? Oh, it was from Alderman McAteer-Margolis. Thank you for the second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? This budget, $165,000, $2,000 for the Lickum Commission, will be recommended to the full board. Thank you again for your attendance. The next budget we have before us is budget 152. It is the human resources budget in the amount of $134,247.43. We're still under suspension and we're joined by Ms. Long, the Director of Human Resources. Good evening, Ms. Long. Hello. Would you like to make an opening statement? Yes. Just by way of introduction, the Human Resources Department areas of responsibility, we manage approximately $12 million.

▶ 1:23:40 We oversee and participate in recruitment, screening, hiring, and orientation for positions in police, fire, public works, library, and city hall departments. Obviously, we ensure compliance with personnel ordinances, collective bargaining agreements, mass general laws, civil service regulations, and federal laws. We consult with Mayor Dolan and all department heads on employment matters, variety of employment matters. We interpret and enforce personnel policies, procedures, et cetera, set forth in the city charter employment manual ordinances, collective bargaining agreements. We administrate approximately 11 benefit programs and the budgets associated with them. We manage the HR information system, and we ensure the integrity of the employment data

▶ 1:24:39 for all municipal employees, their accruals, their benefit deductions, their compensation, employment history, et cetera. And throughout the year, we interact in person, by phone, or electronically with approximately four hundred retirees and approximately four hundred employees not including the school department and we manage obviously all information related to their employment and lastly we manage and advise on policies performance management and terminations thank you very much as long president Khan please yeah miss long in your budget you have the director and the assistant director position by the amounts set forth in your salary and wage schedule the full amount of the salaries and wages paid

▶ 1:25:39 both for the director and the assistant director positions so our salaries for the director seventy seventy five percent of my salary is in the human resources budget I actually I have it for you the exact amounts I can give you a copy sure if you could just explain it for sure 75% of my salary is in the human resources budget 25% is in the health insurance health contractual budget Paulina Lada 50% of her salary is in human resources and 50% is in the health contractual budget and you'll see the in the health budget is Donna Cardillo our financial systems analyst and approximately seven hours or 20% of her time is within the health contractual and I have a copy for you that I can give you great yeah if you could make that available to the board I

▶ 1:26:46 Peter D. Mortimer: will make that part of our yes I will do that thank you we need a second for that motion I'll be happy to second that to make that part of the record yeah that is a motion duly seconded by Alderman Medeiros all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none that submission will be added to our record by motion thank you very much for bringing that I saw Alderman's work go first oh no just scratching you scratching your head alderman Medeiros I saw next please thank you could you talk about the line item 529 zero zero zero teachers which is zero that's that was the teachers innovation grant that was in the HR department budget I believe for two fiscal years and it was removed from the human resources budget quite honestly I don't know where it was I

▶ 1:27:43 Peter D. Mortimer: think I believe that teachers innovation grant was abolished if I understand it correctly but I I'm not certain of that but I do know it was removed from my budget could you inform us whether that appears somewhere else in the budget or not no again to my thing it's not in another budget we'll verify that for you Okay, thank you, thank you very much. Thank you, Alderman Medeiros. Is there anybody else wishing to be heard? Is there a motion, please? Motion to move the bottom line, Mr. Chairman. Second. We have a motion to move the bottom line for the human resources budget made by Alderman Forbes, duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, this budget will be recommended to the full board for passage.

▶ 1:28:42 the next budget we have before us is budget nine one two nine twelve the workers comp budget in the amount of three hundred and forty thousand dollars miss long would you like to speak on this I'll proceed directly to questions well I think I would like to take a moment and recognize Paulina Lada who isn't here tonight but as you know she is the HR manager primarily the benefits administrator and I have to credit her for managing this budget so well she has the unenviable position of on the one hand obviously managing taxpayers money that funds this this line item and on the other ensuring that our employees whether it's public safety employees that are injured on duty under 111 F or if it's under workers compensation ensuring that they receive on the

▶ 1:29:47 benefits that they're entitled to and that they receive the care that they're entitled to quickly efficiently and in the best way possible we're level funding as I mentioned earlier we're fortunate I think transferring to an outside private contractor to do trash and recycled pickup has really significantly reduced injury so we're very fortunate and as you all know these line items are self-funded in the event of so there are years where we may not use some of those funds and then of course unfortunately there are years where the expenses increase due to injuries on the job thank you very much miss long are there any questions or a motion from the board president Khan please yeah I don't have a question it looks like in FY to 15 you expended

▶ 1:30:56 about two hundred and eighty seven thousand dollars yes your 2015 I'm sorry did you say yeah and I wanted to ask you because I didn't have an opportunity to check the account detail but back in late April when we got the the budget printout you had expended about a hundred and seventy seven thousand dollars out of this account what's what's the balance of the expenditure at this time so with this particular account I have the year-to-date for FY 16 the the we have two long-term recipients so that's approximately $1,500 and per week and we have through the rest of the year through you know through June 30th they've only been paid so far through last week so that's approximately $3,000 and then we've been able to do some pending transfers as you

▶ 1:32:02 have approved before and that is about thirty five thousand dollars so we have approximately year-to-date one hundred thousand dollars remaining in FY 16 okay and you don't you know with two or three weeks here to go you don't have any knowledge that there's going to be any large we have nothing planned we have no obviously unplanned but in terms of workers comp if I'm a city employee and I go fall down the stairs in the course of my duty I don't get a large lump sum award no I would a weekly benefit which would be approximately 66% of my average weekly wage plus medical benefits yes so I you know this budget has been well managed i i don't remember any year where it hasn't been in surplus and you know i wonder

▶ 1:33:04 Peter D. Mortimer: not to you but i wonder if we have other areas in the city that seem to be not adequately funded why money weren't transferred out of this budget which seems to be adequately taken care of of into somewhere else where it may be more needed. That's all for now. Thank you, President Kahn. I'm seeing no other aldermen wishing to be heard. Is there a motion, please? Motion to move bottom line, Mr. Chairman. We have a motion to move the bottom line for budget 913, unemployment. Excuse me, 912, workers' comp, duly seconded by Alderman Boisselle. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. opposed hearing none one opposed we have one opposed so this budget will be recommended to the full board for passage the next budget we have before

▶ 1:33:57 us is budget 9 1 3 it is unemployment in the amount of 140 thousand dollars as long please so with unemployment compensation under mass general laws the maximum benefit that in a former employee may collect is the total is twenty one thousand six hundred and sixty dollars the maximum number of weeks is 30 weeks and the maximum weekly amount is seven hundred and twenty two dollars doesn't mean everyone receives that but that's the maximum someone may receive we have no federal incentives or extended benefits that we're aware of or that we've had to budget for in this fiscal year thank you very much miss long president Khan please again looking back at the information that we were provided with it looks like in fiscal 215 you you spent just under 124,000 out

▶ 1:35:06 this budget and uh back on april 27th when uh our copy of the budget was was promulgated uh at that point in time you'd spent eighty one thousand nine hundred and eighty six dollars and forty two cents and what has been expended as we sit here today the actual amount year to date um the the amount that you have doesn't include a number of months of expenses that we have to pay I think I've mentioned to you before the Commonwealth bills cities and towns or I assume private industry as well several months ahead or I'm sorry behind so as an example we have not received a bill for May or June and have not paid a a bill for May or June so the the amount that we project that we will have remaining is approximately 39,000 in unemployment and again you've done a

▶ 1:36:14 good job managing this budget I can't remember a year ever where this has been overspent am i wrong in in the recent past I mean you I'm sure you all remember a couple of years ago with the recession we had significant expenses but but not in the recent past well yeah we had we had higher well at least they better they believe themselves to be higher forms of government who were telling us that we were mandated to pay correct longer periods the federal extended employment and these determinations were made during the midst of our budget years so we had to deal with them but at least recently in the last four or five years I think you've always come in under yes this budget and again the magnitude in this budget is smaller but it seems like a

▶ 1:37:06 Peter D. Mortimer: budget that always always comes in under Thank You president Kahn motion to recommend we have a motion to recommend the bottom line on this budget second Duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle, duly seconded by Alderman Forbes. Seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the unemployment budget, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, this budget will be recommended to the full board for passage. The next budget we have before us is budget 914, the health contractual budget in the amount of $11,828,345.28. 28 cents as long please continue okay so with this particular budget although it's called health contractual you will see a listing of all budgets I'm actually going to make a recommendation to change the name of this budget to

▶ 1:38:06 benefit so that it encompasses what it what it really does all of the accounts that are within this this particular budget so you'll notice a couple of line items the first two line items that says train aka and cook aka that refers to the Affordable Care Act again we as an employer are responsible now under the employer mandate the aspect of the Affordable Care Act we had to purchase or I'm sorry our immunist software system had to create write a new software program for all cities and towns and then we had to all of us be trained on this new program this included Donna Cohane in the school department Judy Connors in the school department myself the financial systems analysts the HR manager etc so that's what those amounts are for and with

▶ 1:39:15 group health I believe that's the next line item FY 17 we are budgeted for approximately ten point seven million dollars the average rate increase from THE GROUP INSURANCE COMMISSION WAS 3.6 PERCENT THE THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET AGAIN AS I MENTIONED TO ALDERMAN MEDEIROS IT'S BASED ON ACTUAL ENROLLMENT WE DO IT AS OF MARCH 1ST EVERY YEAR SO THAT WE'RE VERY CONSISTENT IN OUR ENROLLMENT AND FORECASTING FOR THE COMING FISCAL year so as an example the budget before you was based on 529 employees 739 retirees for a total of 1268 subscribers both employee and retirees and that includes obviously individual and family plans we saw significant increases in In our health insurance rates, and just as an example, Harvard Pilgrim happens to be

▶ 1:40:32 one of our plans that has the highest enrollment. It's one of the most popular plans with our active employees and our non-Medicare retirees. We have 110 families enrolled in that plan. We saw an 8.9% increase. So just as an example, for that one plan, the city of Melrose pays $20,000. That doesn't include what the employee contributes. Health insurance is very expensive. Harvard Pilgrim Independent, the individual plan, we have 28 individuals enrolled. That also saw 8.9% increase. As an example, with the Medicare plans, we contribute 70% towards these particular plans. We saw a 12.6% increase, hence the amount that is budgeted before you. Any questions on that? Thank you very much, Ms. Long.

▶ 1:41:38 Alderman Medeiros, please. Thank you. Could you repeat the number? You said 529 employees, and I didn't catch the number of retirees. 739. 739. And that includes retirees and spouses. Retirees. Spouses are covered. Spouses, okay. And in terms of the Affordable Care Act, I've heard that some municipalities are concerned because their benefit packages are getting close to being considered to be Cadillac plans what is the average cost of to the city for a family plan and in a private individual plan right now and how far away are we from being well it's the group insurance commission is actually discussing that and you know that mayor Dolan is one of the commissioners they are discussing this monthly whether or not we will come bump up against the Cadillac

▶ 1:42:46 tax is what you're referring to meaning that the plans themselves are so expensive that the federal government is going to start taxing these individual health insurance plans, you know, to drive costs down. So the Group Insurance Commission is actively working with the individual plans. And they have negotiated with the individual plans very, very aggressively. I mean, truthfully, Alderman Conn will remember this in 2009 when we transferred from Blue Cross Blue Shield over to the Group Insurance Commission, in 2009 our cost was $12.4 million with Blue Cross Blue Shield. And now we're, you know, eight years later, longer, we're only at 10.7. So we're working very hard to keep those costs down. But to answer, to further

▶ 1:43:47 answer your questions as an example the network plans I'm just choosing one Harvard primary choice the city of Melrose contributes fifteen thousand dollars per family for that particular plan and I believe that I don't I have to be honest I'm not well read about the Cadillac tax because we haven't had to pay attention to it yet and I know we have a governing body that's leading the effort so I'm not quite sure what their numbers are if it's 27,000 per plan I don't know I don't think it's quite that high but I I know there are some communities that are yes yes and and as an example with Harvard Pilgrim because there was an eight point nine percent increase the group insurance Commission froze enrollment they're not allowing any new enrollees in the Harvard

▶ 1:44:54 Monica C. Medeiros: pilgrim plan for that reason so they are being very aggressive with Harvard building hopefully if we get to that point some hopefully we hope our leaders in Congress might make make some kind of adjustments for high-cost areas like Massachusetts I in my budget review I came across this you know one of the things that I kind of loathe about this budget is that you know we have this huge lump sum of you know right here you know ten point seven million dollars and one lump sum I came across a health insurance budget detail for fiscal year 2014 that you had prepared for us yes and it kind of compared the membership comparison from FY 10 to FY 14 giving us the total GIC membership count active employee count active school active city active family active individual active

▶ 1:45:52 Monica C. Medeiros: retired and it actually broke down the insurance by department yes I was hoping that perhaps I know obviously you don't have that for tonight but I was wondering if perhaps you could I can produce that for you yes provided to the board I will that would be that'd be great the other thing I wanted to ask you a little bit about is is health insurance for the water and sewer department it's a you know good portion of the indirect costs that are being funded through water and sewer we've seen a lot of of credits and transfers out of the health insurance line item yes have there been employees who have opted out in water and sewer I off the top of my head I can't answer whether particular employees from the

▶ 1:46:56 water and sewer department have opted out of health insurance there may be but But I'm not quite sure I understand your question, the comparison between health insurance and water and sewer. So I guess what I'm wondering is if we had savings in this department and they were based on — if we had savings in this department and they were based on funds that were being brought in through indirect costs from the water and sewer rates, if there's any benefit the water and sewer rates or enterprise funds or you know i mean obviously this is a money that's appropriated in the general fund budget and maybe this maybe it's a better question for mr delarusso yeah i'm not sure that i'm if we have savings at the end of the year if all of that goes

▶ 1:47:51 into a free cash number or if any of it would somehow go back as a you know there'd be no discount on the water and sewer rate or would there be yeah that that's out of my expertise i'm sorry that i can't answer that particular question i okay no problem thank you thank you alderman Medeiros talk about that thanks you're welcome thank you alderman Medeiros uh next we have president khan please yeah um we have saved millions of dollars over the years by our membership in the GIC however it seems like the pendulum starting to swing the other way and I know a lot of communities are leaving the GIC and you can't just as a municipality decide you want to leave because my understanding of the way the GIC works is you have to periodically enter into agreements with

▶ 1:48:53 is what's called a public employee committee or coalition and have the union membership in the city agree yes to either be in or to leave correct the GIC what year are we in our current public employee committee agreement and I believe they're usually three years we you you can choose to agree on a three year or a six year we have a six year and this is year two of the six year agreement with the Public Employee Committee however I will say that I think it is absolutely to our benefit financially to be a member of the Group Insurance Commission when I believe it was the year that we were negotiating with our unions they requested that we go to other companies and get quotes and all of the quotes were higher than the rates that we had when was the last time

▶ 1:50:00 we went out for quotes well it was while we were negotiating this six-year agreement so approximately two years ago yeah so at the present time we're not really in a position to explore leaving the GIC unless we had the acquiescence of our union committee correct yeah and i nor would i recommend it truthfully yeah i i don't know unless unless uh people look at the numbers i don't i don't know either i just know that there are communities that have been going the other way leaving the gic health insurance is expensive regardless of the vendor thank you mr chairman thank you president khan alderman's worker please thank you mr chairman thank you miss long sure so i just have a couple of questions that

▶ 1:50:46 Michael P. Zwirko: it's really educational um not too certain how it works i get my health insurance through my employer so some of my questions may not comport to the municipal gic so i'm just curious do the menu um employees are offered a menu of various plans correct correct is there a high deductible only or a deductible only plan that's available in that suite of services the co-pays and deductibles are the same across all plans so yeah so there's a plan that my employer offers that is very very high deductible and it's a plan that's essentially created for folks that don't generally have health issues generally the younger yeah they're generally called indemnity plans where there's and the city of Melrose does offer that option yes do you know the the breakdown

▶ 1:51:42 Michael P. Zwirko: for services or their subscribers rather for that I if you give me one moment I may have the individual enrollment by plan just bear with me one moment no actually I don't I'm sorry I don't have it with me but I can get that for you I'd be interested for the whole suite of services actually so covers broken down by which essentially is is what alderman Medeiros requested as well so I think the document that she requested will answer your questions yeah and the only reason I bring it up is because it's nice to have a suite of services to choose from I know obviously there are certain considerations that each individual needs to make whether that's an individual plan or a family plan and what might work best for them and their family or lack of family I only ask

▶ 1:52:37 because it's something that I'm considering moving into and I just just I just want to make sure that on the private side that the public side has a similar menu of options like I said I'm unfamiliar with how GIC fully works and I'll be very brief I won't bore you with the details however with health insurance plans it's really all about the network so if you happen to live in in the western part of the state, some of our plans may not serve you at all. Some people want the wider, broader network and they're willing to pay the increase of 8.9% because they get the services that they want. They want to go to Mass General, which is a very, very expensive hospital. They may want that very particular specialist

▶ 1:53:28 for a member of their family. So it really is, the Group Insurance Commission offers six plans to our active employees with a range of networks. Although the co-pays and deductibles are the same throughout. Hospitals are tiered depending upon their expense. Mass General's very high. And with those plans, is the percentage that the employee or subscriber pays the same as well? So like an 85-15 or a 78-22? 84 16 84 84 paid by the city 16 by the employee right and with medicare it's 70 30. 70 by the city 30 by the retiree okay so you actually just answered my next question so those are all the questions i have i appreciate it thank you thank you alderman Zwirko next in queue we have alderman right please Thank You mr. chairman when you last negotiated with the PC for the

▶ 1:54:36 Francis X. Wright Jr.: GIC six-year agreement did either the city or the PC request what I believe is called a utilization accounting which would be I know you're only allowed to to ask once or twice during the life of the agreement yes we did because we used that to give to the other vendors so that they could give us a quote okay and that yeah that's where I was going so they got an accounting of all the expenditures that the the city's employees and retirees yes having heard so that when you go out for quotes you can get real it's real exactly they know exactly what over the life of that agreement was spent on city employees and retirees who were members of the plan and although I don't remember all of the details I'm sorry because it was two years ago I do remember the other

▶ 1:55:30 Francis X. Wright Jr.: vendors all of them gave us a quote which was higher than our current rates and they refused to give us a multi-year quote okay and that's my understanding difficult if not impossible to get a better quote than the GIC it has been in our experience yeah for communities of a certain size which Melrose fits and larger it's just the GIC seems to be the best deal along that line the GIC is kind of tightened its belts and as a result the employees have had to incur a higher copays is that correct yes and they've done away with the PPOs is that correct and went to POS point of service okay so there's more less and less choice within the system except I think unicare for someone to actually go out

▶ 1:56:21 and just go choose a specialist of their own they have things now they have to get the referral and again the co-pays are higher the it's a tie it's a belt tightening measure on the part of the GIC is it not I'm sorry it's a belt tightening it's a way to save money yes it is try to keep the cost down it's giving it's giving us as a consumer choices so if you choose services from a particular hospital from a particular doctor or services out of state you're going to pay more for them but you still have that choice of doing that so as it's very important and again I have to give Paulina a lot of credit it's very important for employees to be educated about their particular benefits within their particular plan because there are choices there are tears the doctors you

▶ 1:57:28 Francis X. Wright Jr.: can pay as much as $90 copay or $20 for you for your primary care physician yes and they've also I'm sorry copays and deductibles really didn't increase this particular year they have in the past this particular year there were some changes but not significant excellent okay and they've they've gone to as I understand that a system where in order to avoid emergency room costs which are driving up insurance for everyone they're covering a much greater percentage of the cost of a visit to an urgent care facility yeah so it's a copay for if I was to go to an urgent care facility would be like $20 as opposed to $200 if I go to the ER okay so I mean I just want the public to understand that that the city and the GIC are attempting to save money but

▶ 1:58:27 Peter D. Mortimer: also passing along the costs and effectively making their members which are our employees be educated about the choices they make otherwise they're going to spend the considerable amount of money out of pocket for these services as opposed to the city picking up that cost yes great thank you thank you mr. chairman Thank You alderman right I'm seeing no further alderman wishing to be heard we have a motion to move the bottom line by alderman MacMaster Margolis duly seconded by alderman Boycelle all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none budget 914 health contractual will be recommended to the full board for passage thank you very much thank you very much for your attendance and your excellent presentations thank you the

▶ 1:59:19 Peter D. Mortimer: next budget we have before us is budget six five two it is the pine banks budget in the amount of two hundred and eighty five thousand seven hundred ninety eight dollars and ninety five cents good evening mr. Kieser thank you and would you please introduce the gentleman you have with you this is Andrew Walsh our new superintendent we found after a nationwide search he's a 2002 graduate of Melrose High School and graduated from the University of Massachusetts where he studied turf management and all related aspects he has been at Fenway Park. He has been at the Country Club in Brookline. These are all working duties, weren't they? And he comes most recently from the Longwood Cricket Club and has

▶ 2:00:29 assured us that we can get lessons sometime in the future to understand what's going on. Welcome, Mr. Walsh. Thank you. Welcome to the City of Melrose and at five banks we're very happy to have them indeed the format of the presentation to the board is the same as it has been for the last six seven years the page of primary interest is on page seven where it indicates the budget and the prior year and then the columns on the right break it out dollar increase percentage increase the amount per city and the increase per city we have divided this up into three conceptual categories line one through five is compensation we call that type one we have all of our employees leased from the city of Melrose and quarterly

▶ 2:01:30 the city of Malden pays their share so we've got centralized operations through Merrill's HR and it's worked out very well administratively lines 6 through 42 our operations we call that type 2 income that's allocated to the Pine Banks Park Foundation under a contract that we initiated two years ago and that That allows us to have centralized distribution and monitoring of the amounts that are actually spent so that we can come up with a more accurate idea of what is being spent. Prior practice with regard to compensation of individuals was that a person would be paid one week by Melrose and one week by Malden. We had an individual who was injured. The question came up between the two cities, well, who's weak, who's tab, is this on?

▶ 2:02:34 The insanity of this operation made us centralize into the least employee and benefits package that we've got now. The same thing with operations. With operations, if we bought a hammer, we'd get one bill from the hardware store. We'd photocopy it and send it to city hall for one half payment and other city hall for another half payment it made it almost impossible to figure out what was being paid for what so we've been doing this now for two years the variations that you can see in the columns indicating changes and shifts there are reflective of our having the first 12-month experience of actual appropriations so that we can figure out where we are previously our budgets were really guesses we want to get away from guessing we want to have a more accurate idea

▶ 2:03:31 our guesses for fiscal 15 appeared to be twelve thousand dollars uh short of available funds those available funds were made up by the pine bags park foundation and we intend to be much more accurate going forward so uh we have had an increase in compensation that's due to the fact that the cities got together and said that we had to upgrade the compensation and quality and caliber of the people that we have working there which is reflected in our acquisition of the gentleman to my right we also had the HR departments of both cities get together and try to normalize the remainder of the staff so that they had comparable compensation with their equal numbers in either city and after that negotiation and consideration by the mayor they came

▶ 2:04:29 up with modifications that we see here the other thing that I would say is that lines 43 through 54 are more or less capital projects line 45 is the ball field project amortization our last project was the baseball field on Main Street we are in a project now where we are resurfacing the rugby field which was originally put online in 2001 that has come to the end of its useful life we have that project we have another project which is the reclamation of woods between the end of the rugby field in wyoming cemetery which was previously used by the city of melrose as a municipal dump the state would like us to reclaim and remediate that area it's essentially what they call urban fill which is problematic i think because it's got glass and ash and the remedy for that is to

▶ 2:05:38 cap it with two or three feet of fill and then find a different use now the the rugby field was also part of the dump so that that sort of remediation is something that they like to to look at the sylvan street lot was also used and most of the softball field was also within that my memory is they stopped using that in 1958 but the clearing of those woods and remediation means that we will be approaching our long promised dog park it has a capacity for 40,000 square feet which is a big park for dogs but they are in the planning stages of looking at that and trying to find an endgame and final remediation for the issues that are in those woods. We have a couple of other small projects in fixing the bungalow which is on Main

▶ 2:06:42 Street. There's a sewer and water problem there and clearing out the old animal sheds which used to be part of our petting zoo. The method that we're approaching to finance this is through a mass development tax exempt bond which would be about 1.7 million the rate is fixed for ten at three hope is to be able to lock these favorable rates into the future on a long-term basis but what you can see there is line 45 is indicating a reduction in the project ball field project amortization number of $28,000 down to 202 per year so that is about where we are there is an increase on the bottom line of $43,000 that's principally the compensation equalization and staffing it thank you very much mr. Kieser there any all didn't move the bottom line we have a

▶ 2:07:59 Monica C. Medeiros: motion to move the bottom line second made by alderman boycelle duly seconded by alderman makatia margolis and on discussion and questions we have alderman Medeiros please thank you thank you very much thank you for sitting through uh all of our evening fun so far uh could you just confirm the number that you're looking for for the for our appropriation in melrose the dollar amount Are you looking for this $275,814.15 on page six? I would have to refer to Mr. DelaRusso as he is more familiar with. Yes. Well, I ask because in our in our munis budget, the number is $285,798.95. But on page six, and I wasn't sure if I'm looking at this correctly, under the municipal funding formula, and the highlighted number we have here for fiscal 2017

▶ 2:09:02 for the Melrose portion was $275,814.15. We're created under a statute from 1905. It was Chapter 393. And when they created it, they said this is going to be a public park for everybody in Malden and Melrose as long as there is a minimum appropriation from each city and the formula that you see there on page 6 is just a breakdown of what that number would be based on current assessed values so that's what we call a mandated number that's on line 70 on page 7 we just have that there so that we can see where we are in relationship to the statutory number that the converse family had put into this and we are asking for more than that number okay and principally the amount of the excess is the amount required to do the capital project mr delarusso do you wish

▶ 2:10:05 to further enlighten us on that subject i certainly will great question um we have two Good evening, if you look at the 101-294-18 for capital. That's in the budget for a capital within the city itself. So if you look at, going back to the capital budget. This year, capital outlay. You'll see that the difference is 101,294.18. That's the over last year. That's the exact amount of money that is required for the payment on the obligation. The next year, what we did this year is, and it's a great question because it's something that you won't see in the fall anymore. We incorporated it right in the capital budget so that we don't come back in the fall for that allocation. So the number you have in the budget, your actual budget in front of you,

▶ 2:11:19 that we are required to appropriate, i.e. on the operating side, because we've already appropriated the capital side, would be for 652, 285, 798.95. Now there is a $2,401, and I think it's $408.76 difference. Because if you look at the very top of this page that's been provided so kindly by Pine Banks up top, you'll see salary and wages, pension, benefits, and insurance. Under a city, it's 98,336.98, and $95,745.74 pension benefits and insurance. The differential there is that $2,400, and that's the money that comes in and out because what happens is that Melrose pays more than reimburses, so it clears itself out. So that's why the number you have in your budget, the $285, is the figure we should be improving.

▶ 2:12:30 Gail Infurna: Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. thank you alderman medeiros next in queue we have alderman inferno please thank you very much mr chairman um first of all pine banks has always been a great constituent of mine down in ward five so i i thank you for um running such a um a great um place for us combined with malden uh and it's also great to see that track being used every time i drive by it's unbelievable the activity that's in that new track and so that's really nice to see i know i uh last year i asked you about that gate and that fence i have to say i i have not been by there and i don't know if that was improved at all still there we had a car on main street across from hunts veer into our fence we got a

▶ 2:13:20 payment from the driver of the car to fix it but we also have some areas where trees have fallen down elsewhere in the park sidewalk pile took out a section on sylvan street so we thought we'd have the fence fella come at one time and fix things one of the things to fix is the gate and i think it's got to be moved either further towards wyoming or closer to the corner but it's definitely uphill and it should be on a level right and that's that's part of the project and our new superintendent is right on made aware before tonight that uh the gate is an issue okay thank you and thank you for all that you really do it looks great down there thank you alderman inferna alderman mcintyre my goal is please well thank you very much mr chairman welcome mr kaiser again

▶ 2:14:16 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: and mr walsh um you probably enjoyed that field as a young melrose high athlete i'm sure Mr. Kieser, you're really fortunate that Pine Banks gets a tidy sum of grant money, and you're going to use that towards your capital projects. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Yes, the Adelaide Reed Baird Foundation has committed to another $250,000 over five years, which will bring them a million dollars since we started this project. And his annual additional contributions, maybe 40 or so for various things like buying a piece of equipment. And we have just recently given $10,000 to pay for two interns, one from Arrows, one from Malden. This is David Pashuto. I knew his brother Matt was an Eagle Scout a couple of years ago.

▶ 2:15:22 And he's at Norwich University in Vermont, and he just finished the National Guard service. It was good to, there's two things. They get some money for school, and it keeps them outside and working. And our staff has been very happy with what we do. We have a young fellow named John Wright also, excellent worker. so do you are you um gonna use some of that um baird foundation money like towards the reconstruction of the rugby and soccer fields is that part of the plan right so that's going to decrease the city's capital outlay for those projects right yes uh we also have the mystic river rugby club which plays there um they uh two things first they won the national championship last saturday but the second thing is they've given us a hundred thousand in cash which will be

▶ 2:16:26 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: dedicated toward that same purpose for that field also that's great and um i know you also um in probably getting rid of some of those old buildings um are thinking about maybe this would be better for mr walsh although he probably hasn't totally absorbed the whole park yet but um maybe increasing some of the walking paths and whatnot up there or do you have any plans for that that That area is right behind the bungalow, it's sort of a dead end up there where they put the park equipment. But you can see from our map, our satellite picture, we do have a pretty intricate setting of trails. Mm-hm. There was the Malden YWCA had a cross country fundraising race and it was all within the park. I think it went around two loops.

▶ 2:17:18 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: And Mayor Christensen from Walden decided that he was going to run. He said he'd never been back there, but it almost killed him. We won't recommend it to Mayor Dolan. We need him too much right now. Great. I mean, I just think it's kind of an untapped and sort of unknown resource in that respect. And, you know, with all the running clubs out there that want to do races and whatnot, it might be a great you know resource if it doesn't you know impact the environmental stability of the park too much so but welcome aboard and we look forward to your continued improvement thank you Thank You Waldman MacMaster Margolis seeing no further alderman wishing to be heard is there a motion motions been made on this one oh thank you so much motion having been made to

▶ 2:18:12 Peter D. Mortimer: recommend the time banks budget and duly seconded all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none pine banks budget will be recommended to our full board chairman before she leaves can I thank Mary Ann long Marianne's miss long some so grateful I'm grateful comments are coming your way someone's saying thank you this last year trying to find the new superintendent I think The burden fell on Marianne Long's office, and I think she did a superb job. She put a committee, and it's surprising how deaf she is, handling various personalities and egos from two towns. It was a cooperative effort between Melrose and Malden. It really worked marvelously. It's no surprise that she did an outstanding job

▶ 2:19:06 carrying the torch, as usual. I wanna thank Patrick DellaRusso and his office the efforts that he's put in and also for bailing me out of that last question and john chena for sending a crew up to get rid of the deadwood on main street across from body seas without his assistance without that department's assistant we'd be totally dead in the water so thank you very much and thank you for your assistance thank you thank you thank you mr kiza and welcome aboard mr walsh thank you great to have you president khan please yeah mr chairman would you entertain a motion this motion is made in the interest of trying to move forward quickly with two orders that I don't think are controversial I'd ask that we

▶ 2:19:55 Peter D. Mortimer: vary the order of business to take number five on our list order 216 dash 198 which is appropriation any amount of one hundred sixty two thousand eight hundred and sixty nine dollars and fifty cents to be transferred to water to retain earnings very good sir our president Kahn has made a motion that we change the order of business and take order number five next it's order number two one six dash one nine eight as just read by President Kahn second most the motion has been seconded by alderman Forbes is there any discussion on the motion to change the order of business I've seen none I'll call for the vote All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, the order of business will be changed, and we will take up said order presently.

▶ 2:20:49 Peter D. Mortimer: President Kahn, please. I coincidentally have a second order, a second motion that I'd like to make at this time, which is I'd ask that this order be taken concurrently with order 2016-199, appropriation in the amount of $293,534.61 from sewer retained earnings to sewer reserve. uh and uh again i'm making the these motions in the interest of time these are to uh put the reserves that have been earned in the in the year just concluded into the appropriate reserve fund so i'd ask for concurrent action relative to those two waters please second president khan has made a motion to take order 2016-199 and deal with concurrently with dash 198 the motion we just suspended the order of business for to take up at this time that motion was

▶ 2:21:43 Peter D. Mortimer: duly seconded by Alderman Inferna seeing no discussion on the motion its procedural all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none the two orders will be taken up concurrently and they will be taken up at this time President Kahn you still have the floor sir yeah I don't believe this is you know I don't mean to presume for the board but I don't think that these orders are very controversial and I would move that these orders be recommended to the full board president president Kahn has made a motion that the joint orders be recommended to the full board for passage that motion was seconded by alderman inferno is there any discussion on the motion to recommend these orders to the full board for passage alderman Medeiros please

▶ 2:22:32 thank you suspension of the rules mr. de la russa our city auditor mr. de la russa would you come forward please could you tell us what the balance in each of those accounts will be if these appropriations are finalized through the chair the first fund um water balance will be 404 077 68 and number two if you saw the balance would be 493 763.93 thank you thank you thank you alderman Medeiros are there any other aldermen with questions or comments at this time seeing none we are ready for the vote on the joined orders on the motion to recommend these orders to the full board for passage all in favor please say aye aye any opposed hearing none these orders will be recommended to the full board for passage

▶ 2:24:06 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you and we will now return to the regular order of business the next order we have before us is order 2016-163 amending melrose revised ordinances chapter 228 article 2 section 228-15 water rates established as set forth herein alderman inferno please thank you motion to recommend option 4b alderman inferno has made a motion to recommend order 4b at this time option Option 4B. Oh, I said order. Thank you. Option 4B. Thank you for that correction. At this time, is there a second? Second. Second. I'll beat you up by just a second. Alderman Zwirko has made a second to Alderman Inferna's motion to recommend option 4B. Said motion is before us for discussion. On discussion, I first see Alderman Forbes, please.

▶ 2:25:12 Scott M. Forbes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're welcome, sir. As you all know, I am an advocate of Option 5. I think this is the appropriate forum where I can sit before my colleagues and basically state why I feel like Option 5 is the more favorable plan. Over the past several months, many of us have voiced our concern and displeasure at the water and sewer structure that we currently use in Melrose, and there has been an emphasis among many of us, if not all of us, that something needs to change. and we were optimistic upon the hiring of a new consultant that could provide us with new ideas new insight and a fresh perspective so I think all of us in this room can agree that some form of change is needed I believe our goal as a

▶ 2:25:59 Scott M. Forbes: committee and a board is to select a water and sewer rate option that considers all of the city ratepayers not just the majority also to paraphrase President Kahn I have to give him credit one because he said at first we need to select a rate option that this board can defend and justify when challenged now he's 100% correct and that is the approach that I've taken over the months that I've spent as the automatic representative on the water and sewer committee in order to understand where we need to go moving forward it is important to remember how we got here in the first place during my lunch hour today I was able to put a couple of things together on a spreadsheet I passed amount to each and every one of you I am a numbers guy and working a CPA firm so

▶ 2:26:42 Scott M. Forbes: forgive me for the spreadsheet comparisons we have here but first I want to just state that on page one you have a historical rate analysis of where the city of Melrose has been with our water and sewer rates starting up above waters on the left-hand side sewers on the right-hand side it's pretty self-explanatory fiscal year 13 you could see before we went to a tiered rate system water was $5.75 per 100 cubic feet sewer $9.90 okay now Mass General Laws chapter 165 section 2b states that the block rate must ink the block rate increase must fairly reflect the resource demand and consumption of high volume uses of water so as you can see as we move to fiscal year 14 15 and 16 I think it's pretty easy to see the appropriate tears that we put into place

▶ 2:27:35 Scott M. Forbes: the percentage is the rate of percent that it went up or down per year if option 4b passes the increase in tier 3 water goes up to sixty three and a half percent when compared with rates four years ago prior to the tears sixty three percent in fifty one point three percent in sewer now my question before this board is how does that fairly reflect the resource demand and consumption of high volume uses of water when you have apartment complexes condominiums and people that don't necessarily fit into the cracks that I think all of them in Lemmerman said it before in a previous meeting it kind of squeezing into a box that they may feel that they don't belong in in someone like the towers we received a letter from Joan Leighton she's a resident and on average each one

▶ 2:28:32 Scott M. Forbes: of those units use less than most water and sewer users in the city so who speaks for them I know we like to talk about the 79% and then we like to talk about the tier 1 users but what about the other 20% who's their voice you know I think this is the appropriate forum to discuss that now when you compare that rate to tier one users who actually had a rate decrease and I'm a tier one user I'm just trying to look at the numbers and justify what they are tier one users for water and sewer for the first two years of the tiered rate structure went down now the MW IRA assessment went up during those two years operating budgets went up during those two years yet tier one water rates went down so again I

▶ 2:29:23 Scott M. Forbes: think it's important to know how to move forward it's important to know where we're coming from now on pages two and three that I gave you I put both of the options before us option 4b and option 5b so they're on the same sheet of paper so you don't have to keep flipping back and forth okay but most important is the last page you have the percent comparison between both plants and you have the dollar change between both plans and I know everybody likes to say that you know we have to take care of the tier one or the majority of people that are under you know 2500 CF because that represents 79% of our ratepayers but if you look at these numbers for water and sewer bills that are between 1200 and 2500 CF when comparing the two rate options side by side it is clear

▶ 2:30:10 Scott M. Forbes: that option B actually benefits this group as a whole users that are between $1,200 and $1,800 CF represents 61% of the bills that we print out, and they will pay less money. Now, if you look at the annual increase, it's $2 per year, or $3.68 per year, but it is a decrease. In addition, the $2,500 CF group, which is 18% of our bills, shows an increase of just $2 per year. So the point that I want to emphasize to all of you is that this 79% core that make up this tier up to 2,500 CF is going to be unaffected under option 5B. And actually, the numbers illustrate that option 5B is financially better than option 4B for tier one users. And these are the numbers that we all have here. This is the data that was given to us by the Water and Sewer Committee and by the consultant.

▶ 2:31:10 Scott M. Forbes: So now we talk about the 79%. we have 20 percent of our bills remain which are at 500 cf and beyond and the one group that actually pays more opt in option 5b when you compare the two plans is the 5000 cf category that represents 16 percent of our bills now the payment is approximately 12.60 more quarter which is 50 bucks a year as you continue down these groupings however you can see that plan 5b saves hundreds and in some cases thousands of dollars to the remaining 5% of our rate payers. Included in that 5% are condominiums, multi-families, apartments. During my time on the board we've listened to many condo owners and people have come in here during public hearings that have stated that they don't appropriately fit into the tiered system, yet time and time again

▶ 2:32:05 Scott M. Forbes: we have done very little if anything to act option 5b at the very least would stop the bleeding on this group of rate payers who have experienced significant payment shock under the current system we have in place let me emphasize again 63 and a half percent in water 51.3 percent in sewer now 5b can accomplish all of this with no significant increase to the rate payers other than the fifty dollars a year that were increased in the 5000 cf group option 4b doesn't do any of that so in conclusion when you compare the two rate plans option 5b shows an even or better comparison to 86 of the rate payers in the city of melrose again we have an opportunity here to choose an option that can benefit the city as a whole and not just the majority of people that

▶ 2:33:00 Scott M. Forbes: that reside in the tier one category, which I actually showed, it benefits them too. That's why I support this option. Again, we have an opportunity to select a rate option that we can justify and defend the number when challenged. Option 5B provides a second tier. It is in compliance with Massachusetts general laws. And the 2000 CF cutoff can be explained using the conversion formula of two and a half people per household at 65 gallons a day. Everything over 2000 CF is billed another corresponding rate and that's it that's all we have to say the rate option is straightforward it's simplistic and it shows that less can be more sometimes also when you consider the fact that it saves most of our

▶ 2:33:44 Scott M. Forbes: ratepayers in the process when care compared to the corresponding rate plan that tells me that 5b is the much better choice of the ones that we're considering this evening I do hope that you consider this information when you make your decision tonight like I said change is needed and this is at least a start worth of moving in the right direction I'm not saying that this is the most ideal plan but at least it moves us forward if we want to make a statement then let's make an actual rate change option instead of modifying the existing one that we already have in place in my opinion staying the course is not the answer moving forward Thank You mr. chairman Thank You alderman Alderman Forbes, next in queue, we have Alderman Tramontozzi, please.

▶ 2:34:29 John N. Tramontozzi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Alderman Forbes for putting this together. This comparison has really, I think, significantly helped me in reviewing those two options that we seem to be the board seems to be leaning towards that's option for being option option 5b I wish I'm too you know I was torn even before the this evening as to where I was going to go but I do appreciate all them in Forbes numbers thank you he's a numbers man in that the CPA comes through thank you and I'm impressed and I think you know that that does seem to be probably the closest option to the flat rate system that we once had which would fairly represent all the ratepayers including the high-end users of condominiums and

▶ 2:35:32 John N. Tramontozzi: multifamilies so yeah with that said I think I'm going to support you all them forbes i think um the um 5b is a better option and um and i think i'm going to head that that direction this evening thank you thank you that's all i have here thank you alderman chair matosi are there any other aldermen wishing to be president khan please yeah um i i don't want to i don't want to uh belabor anything that i've said before so i'll try to be uh i'll try to be brief here um and you know people in the public have come forward and asked us to attempt to justify our positions um i am and have been concerned about the affordability of our water rates um i i am going to ask again and i'm going to make a motion that in building the rates

▶ 2:36:29 that we not set rates that would raise two hundred thousand dollars in surplus for each of the water and sewer accounts for the year ahead as we just heard we have in excess of four hundred thousand dollars in surplus currently in in connection with our water account and we have almost five $500 in our sewer account and it is my intention to make a motion before we vote on the whatever rate the board chooses to adopt that we set a rate funding at 25% factor for a surplus so there would be an additional $50,000 going into each of the accounts that would get us up to well over a million dollars in surplus with all due respect to other speakers who differ with me and have differed with me in the past I do not believe that we will spend a million

▶ 2:37:34 dollars out of our water surplus this year or next year or over three or four years we have had years in the past where we had no surplus we've built a decent surplus and I cannot justify raising another $400,000 on the rates to boost our surplus to a million dollars I certainly respect mr. de la Russo's position it's his job to be conservative and I understand that he feels that you know he's committed himself to this position and he has but in the last analysis with the people who vote and I think that this is a way to provide great relief to the ratepayers and to do no harm this is not a situation which we confront when we're setting the rates or defining the tiers where relief to one party harm someone else i don't see this as doing any harm i would respectfully request that the

▶ 2:38:50 board give great consideration to setting a rate which limits the contribution to the surplus for this one year uh to 25 of what's been requested and we can revisit this in in coming years but having a million dollar surplus here coming from five years ago where we had no surplus and we're in deficit uh i think is appropriate and i hope that you'll give that consideration for clarity's sake is is that a motion at this time president khan yeah i'll make it as a motion all right um that's probably going to want to explain what yeah we already have one motion on the floor it's it's a motion to amend Well, I was going to withhold my motion until there was a vote taken on the principal motion and then I was going to make it, but I wanted to get it out on the floor so that people, if they had any doubt, that I would reiterate it tonight, realize that...

▶ 2:39:51 Peter D. Mortimer: If you would like to make the motion at a later time, you can do it at your pleasure. You can either make it a motion to amend at this time, or you can wait and make it a motion at a later time. I think I'll withhold the motion until a later time, please. all right then um that that is uh what we will do then so uh we are still under discussion of alderman inferna's uh main motion to adopt option 4b duly seconded by alderman's worko is there any further discussion on the motion to adopt option 4b at this time. Alderman Leibman? Okay, thank you. If you'd like. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also just wanted to take a moment to talk about the numbers that are before us, and I also do thank you, Alderman Forbes, for the work that you've done to do this, to put some of these numbers in a different light.

▶ 2:40:54 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: But I did speak at the previous meeting about my concern about the multi-unit dwellings. I do feel that they're being put into a system that they don't necessarily fit in when you look at their usage. I think that really neither of these options or any of these options still fully satisfy me in that way. think that I again would reiterate that I would like to see a little bit more information about the way this is being handled we've been told that there are lawsuits pending and that we should wait for that which I understand but I think when as I've looked at these two options that I think are the right two that we should be focused in on on those that are in front of us I do feel that 5b is

▶ 2:41:47 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: the most equitable option looking at a range of residents and a range of water bills and sewer bills you know Alderman Forbes mentioned that he's a tier one and he's been looking at it and and still feels that way I can say that I'm both a tier one and it and a tier three I have both a single-family home and a condo that is being put in this you know there's a there's a lot of people that are looking at their their water bills in their various situations through each of these lenses and as I do that trying to take those various perspectives I do see 5b as as the one that will most equitably take the impact of this year's required increase to meet our budget and spread it among the city ratepayers so I

▶ 2:42:33 Michael P. Zwirko: just wanted to take a moment to mention my thinking on that so thank you thank you very much alderman lemon alderman's work oh please yes thank you mr. chairman I have a couple of questions I was I was hopeful that I could speak to mr. John Shen if he's available he certainly is and we're still under suspension mr. Shannon would you join the discussion please thank you mr. Shen I'm gonna try to be brief I've just a couple of questions this is regarding these multi-unit structures to your knowledge have there been buildings within the city of Melrose within the past three or so years that have been able to do individual metering within their buildings have there been buildings that you know that are impossible to be individual meter can

▶ 2:43:22 Michael P. Zwirko: you can you tell me about the the changeover from a one main to an individual metering and just your knowledge of what has occurred over the past three years within the city the answers yes to all of those questions there have been there have been a condo Association buildings that have converted there have been new consider has been new construction that is built and plumb their building and there are also some apartment buildings and condo associations that mechanically just cannot install the individual meters so answers to all three parts of your question is yes so there are all different circumstances so there are there are instances where some folks again using Alderman Lundgren's term kind of fall through the cracks it's

▶ 2:44:06 Michael P. Zwirko: just an unfortunate circumstance outside of their own control where they fall into default a higher tier because they're unable to individual meter their unit that group exists that group does exist the when a building or a condo owner or an individual has the opportunity to go into individual metering how is that cost born I guess when I'm going with this is that born by the the ratepayer themselves is that a discretionary tack that they employ themselves or is it something that you know the city helps subsidize a change or is it something that through the ratepayers there's some sort of a subsidy or is it does the cost borne on them no we provide the meter itself like we do to all new residential homes that are constructed if condo Association

▶ 2:44:58 decides to go individual meter we provide them with them with the meter we provide them with all inspections we assist them in the process we assist them in the analysis to see when the return on that investment comes but the actual plumbing costs are a born by the Association okay and and then my final question you may not know the answer to this but the individuals that are unable to individually meter their units or within their building do we know that population size about do we know the impacts roughly as to the folks that are just in an unfortunate circumstance of having the I know of two that have come forward to associations that have come forward that physically without gutting all their walls could not individually meet up but um you know we're willing to

▶ 2:45:53 Michael P. Zwirko: help yeah anytime we can with the analysis and I've heard through the weeks and months of going through this rate discussion that because of our billing program or the way that we bill there's nothing that the city or the water and sewer department can do for that small group of individuals they have this they have to be within the system that we're going to set the rates that we're going to set so there's this this the small population is again unfortunately burdened by this this rate structure correct thank you those are all the questions I have for you I do have a short statement and then I think I'm through but I do appreciate your time and giving me clarity on that piece thank you so and I alluded to this when we met on Thursday that I was in favor

▶ 2:46:53 Michael P. Zwirko: of option 4b I do also want to make say thank you to Alderman Forbes for the paperwork that he provided us tonight I have spoken separately with Alderman Forbes on numerous occasions regarding these water and sewer rates and he has been a valuable resource not only on the committee which he dedicates a lot of time to but also informing me you know the rookie of this whole structure so I do want to also say thank you I myself tried to come up with a plan that I thought was going to be helpful in this discussion I put together two proposals they both came back with results that were not favorable but to the extent i thought that they they would be favorable and would actually move this discussion along they weren't

▶ 2:47:43 Michael P. Zwirko: but i did try to open up this menu of options before us i do think that in the if we were to change the structure that we have now going from a three tier to a two tier that will be the third time in the past five years that we've actually changed the structure here we've gone from a flat rate to three tiers and then to two I know that with you know consumers especially myself it's nice to have consistency in the program that you're going to when we made the jump from the flat rate to the tiered rate you had individuals that you kind of can't untie that knot you're gonna throw people into situations that previously they weren't in and then when you change it on them now it's difficult for them to kind of forecast and judge where they will

▶ 2:48:29 Michael P. Zwirko: appear to be and I think when we're moving the change again in such a short period of time I don't like the uncertainty that comes with that I will also add that I do feel that Alderman Forbes is correct that change is needed I do believe that 4B is addressing that change it is allowing consistency for the ratepayers and a structure that they are aware of previously at our Thursday meeting mr. Shana stated that our usage is actually down I think that the imposition of these this three-tiered structure has slowly been working to reduce the use on the higher end I'm looking at some of these increments and I would find it very hard-pressed that there is a large number of residents that are falling in the very top usage amounts I would think that those would

▶ 2:49:20 Michael P. Zwirko: be other commercial properties versus a resident I don't think and many people here have said this themselves that no matter what option we choose there's going to be pain associated with it I I think for the program that we have been trying to build and that the folks in the water and sewer are going to be employing this next fiscal year I feel that the 4b plan is the plan that should work out for our city going forward um we always reserve the right to change and tinker these i do appreciate the work of everyone here i know that they're going to do what they feel is right uh for myself it's option 4b i i'm i'm complete uh no more questions or comments thank you very much alderman's worker you're welcome alderman MacMaster my goal is um thank you could i just ask

▶ 2:50:15 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Mr. Shenna to come back yes most most definitely Mr. Shenna if you would please so both of these plans Mr. Shenna the the fixed charges are the same is that correct on the like the meter charges per quarter for like the water and the sewer the am I reading that when when you compare a 5a and 4 a 5a they are 5 4 B 5 B they are they are there is a difference between a and B right so if we're looking at the one with the 90% sewer which I think is something that we the base fees are the same and they include a reduction in the second meter of base fee as well as well to be options so what people do need to understand is whichever one of these if we're leaning towards one of these we decide on if it's 4a or 5 the 4b or 5b we're looking at the 90% bill on the

▶ 2:51:17 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: sewer so the sewer in essence you'll be billed a little bit less can from a consumption perspective a consumption perspective okay so then my other question and I'm I'm not really a numbers person but I I did go home the other night afterwards and well not that night because it was a little late but the next day and look at the numbers again and kind of crunched them a night I didn't do this nice spreadsheet but I do have lots of numbers written down and you know I was surprised and and Alderman Forbes did sort of prove it out in a in a nice order more orderly fashion than my scribbles but the thing I wondered is all of the charts that we have are showing the break between 1800 and twenty five hundred but yet our tier goes to two thousand is that right

▶ 2:52:09 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: that's right it changes it after two thousand correct so how many people do we have or how many how many accounts I mean why did we choose twenty five hundred for that break then it's just it's just the frequency that the consultant decided to run his charts and his numbers okay and you know it does have the charts to show the percentage of bills is the third column right and if you're looking to convert that into number of bills he looks we put out about eighty eight thousand to eighty four hundred bills per quarter so that times four so that's why he did the percentage I see yeah because it would sort of be interesting to know I mean what I what I found and what I see all and Forbes has sort of shown us is that the under under for B it's those to me

▶ 2:53:02 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: the percentages of increases are more equitable across the board with the three tiers but when you look at the two tiers I'm concerned that that middle tier that we're missing where you know I don't know how many people are between 2,000 and 2,500 that those are the people between like the 2,000 and and 15 or 10,000 that are really getting the brunt of the increase again he created this chat for comparison purposes when you look at the windows of comparison they're really windows of comparison right between 1200 and 1800 the next one looks at that window between 1800 and 2500 it's an analysis just meant for comparison purposes and do you feel confident that either one of these first of all that either one of these would fund your operating budget adequately

▶ 2:54:02 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: and they both would they both quit and I had one of the question do you think that there I forget my other question I guess for maybe for mr. de la Russo or for you um do you think one would be more complicated in terms of switching the billing over to the two tiers as opposed to the one tier well i think i can speak to the billing function of it um option b both instead of a will require a reformatting of the bills in terms of internally because we take the hundred percent consumption and so we have to drop it to ninety percent right there's a data entry process with the first round the bills in the fall that that portion of it encompasses changing the base fees changing the base fees of the second

▶ 2:54:56 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: meter that's another function of the billing process that has to be changed if we drop the tear there will be yet another function of the of the billing function that up front has to be changed so the difference between four and five you'd add another layer of change initially and and then once it's changed once we can move forward and do you would you feel that um option 5b satisfies the mass general law that requires us to have tiers that are differentiated and based on you know consumption and that the higher users are billed at a higher rate it does it does Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, Alderman McAteer-Margolis. Alderman Medeiros, please. Mr. Chenow will stay for a minute. Thank you.

▶ 2:55:48 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you very much. And I just want to clarify a couple of things. The rate that we had prior to FY, that, you know, prior to FY14 was actually, we often refer to as a flat rate system but in actuality there were two tiers one residential and one commercial just no base charges and it was just you know looked at a little bit differently but I also I have a number of a number of items that have been presented either tonight or at the last meeting I think you know didn't quite make it into the record so right now we have something on the table i don't want to make motions to add all that to the record at this moment but through the chair to the clerk of committees i'm not sure what the best way to handle all those are some handouts

▶ 2:56:51 Monica C. Medeiros: from the administration and from members of the board um i would say that they are motions on their own and when we are concluded with this motion um you may make that motion okay if that's if that's your satisfaction do you find that to be uh appropriate that should be fine okay thank you very much so uh mr shenna in talking about some of the buildings that that can or can't meter and how that affects some of the large multi-unit or sometimes smaller multi-unit dwellings and i consider those to be both condominiums and apartment buildings where you have residents there i know there are some apartment buildings that have individually metered sort of sub metered their own units but that doesn't they're still receiving one master bill

▶ 2:57:44 Monica C. Medeiros: from the city that's just so they could break down the charge that's correct okay and then i i thank you i just saw that um i think you had sent this chart to to i think to me and i believe the other members of the board um do i have a copy if anybody doesn't have it i'd like to see about i think four this afternoon so i appreciate that i know we just met on thursday night late and that we had you guys had mandatory training on friday so there was not a lot of extra you know manpower time to get that done but this would be one of the things that i'd be moving to add to the record but i just want to point out and i know we've talked a lot about it i've talked a lot about it and i've heard a lot from so many residents that are sort of stuck in this situation

▶ 2:58:31 Monica C. Medeiros: and i just want to point out now this is a breakdown that compares uh residential commercial And actually, I was looking for, you know, I'd love to see us have a rate that broke out and treated commercial residents separately. But nonetheless, this chart that you've provided, I just want to point out a couple of numbers. And from FY13, which was the last year that we had the old system, the average bill here for the highest group, user group, of consumption, The average bill at that time was $36,650 quarterly. Now, as of FY16, so the year that we're currently in, the highest bill is $55,232. and I see that as a you know eighteen thousand five hundred and eighty two dollar difference quarterly on that tier that in my calculations comes to fifty

▶ 2:59:42 Monica C. Medeiros: one percent increase just since that change which I think is very significant and as comparison the eighteen hundred the consumption of eighteen hundred we said is the average the average household from what we heard before the 65 gallons per day per household per person per household that bill in FY 13 was 264 dollars in FY 16 the current year that we're in it's 313 dollars so that is an increase of 49 dollars per quarter per quarter which is still a lot of money which means almost two hundred dollars per average home but that's only a 19% increase in in the rate over those years and you know it's hard to say that that's only a 19% increase but 19 compared to 51 you know this I can't I can't justify going to option 4b because to me it's the same system that we have

▶ 3:00:52 Monica C. Medeiros: slightly different base charges for the same three tiered rate that isn't addressing this problem at all in at least and I'm you know I don't think these any of these options are honestly perfect but I do believe that 5b somewhat addresses this and gives you know some of those people in the highest tier a little bit of relief just this year and by a little bit of relief I mean it's the difference between at that highest tier level a 57 we'll call it $58,000 bill per quarter versus a $55,000 bill per quarter I mean these people have already seen that 51% increase and that will still be on whatever rate we choose but that increase has already come and gone and they've already borne that cost and you know I can't justify increasing that I think 5b does the best to sort of

▶ 3:01:56 Gail Infurna: recognize that and you know again that doesn't take away that increase that they've already seen and they've already born in those highest here so I know a lot has been said and done and I appreciate also alderman Forbes and his time on the water and sewer rate committee in this time putting this together as well so thank you Thank You alderman Medeiros are there any other aldermen wishing to be heard for the first time we have alderman Forbes please right and I am NOT going to also labor this we had a late night last week and we could be in the same position tonight and be here at a quarter past eleven still come out without a vote I so I'm not going to repeat it but I thought alderman as work oh did a nice job of summarizing how I feel I do like

▶ 3:02:50 Gail Infurna: still seeing the three tiers I think tier three protects the people in tier one tier one are the people of the majority of the city and sometimes when issues are tough we have to look at the greater good and do what's what's best for the greater good of the population not to say that I don't feel bad for the people in the condo units I too am a single homeowner as well as a condo owner so it affects me in both ways but I think once again I'm not going to be repeat what Alderman Suarco said I'm still going to support 4b I think it is the least amount of change and I I do believe it will still work out in the and we have made a lot of headway on this there's been a lot of effort on a lot of people Thank You Alderman Forbes being the number person but I I just

▶ 3:03:46 Scott M. Forbes: kind of feel that I'm going to stick with 4b and and hopes that the alderman will will also do that thank you Thank You alderman Inferno we have for the Any other aldermen for the first time? Coming around for the second time, we have Alderman Forbes first, and then Alderman McAteer-Margolis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak for the second time. Mr. Shenna, I know we had a conversation today, and I said I was going to bring this up, but last Thursday when asked if you thought which plan was more beneficial, either 4B or 5B, You said 4B because it manages, it best manages to increase, the increases to over 80% of your accounts, your customers. It meets the fiduciary responsibilities this board has to meet.

▶ 3:04:37 Scott M. Forbes: I looked at the numbers this weekend, and I had a difference of opinion with you. I called you today, and I was wondering if you were able to look at the data that I talked to you in comparing the plans, and if you thought that 5B was actually more beneficial to the 79% rather than 4B. oh again speaking as speaking personally speaking as the director of the department a director who has substantial institutional knowledge in the makeup of the system I still stand that 4b is the is the right and it's such slightly ahead of 5b I think there are other things that have to be taken into account other than the percentage of this year's increase it's the ability in the future to sustain the increases in that first tier it's the you know

▶ 3:05:25 three tiers were put in place for a reason it's the it's the comment that all of ins work or made again they both work financially the impacts between the different between the two was a very minimal your numbers are not skewed they're correct and although I didn't see the presentation but they come right out of the book but again when I was asked personally which one would I favor and it would be for be just slightly above 5b because I think the picture is sometimes greater than just the number it's the ability of the purpose the stability of the system it's it's we're not changing every two years there's a lot that went into my thought process when answering that that's not to say that your numbers are incorrect by any stretch of the imagination but again

▶ 3:06:18 Scott M. Forbes: that's that's why I answered the way it did okay I just want to just reiterate that if we're concentrating on people who are in tier one when we talk about the majority 5b is more beneficial than 4b at 1200 CF and at 1800 CF which makes up your tier one users at 2500 CF the difference is two dollars a year and that represents the 80% of our base so again this is not going to affect 80% of our bill payers it is going to provide relief for the 5% that have been down the bottom that experienced this new rate structure and it's putting and when you talk at commercial buildings or buildings like the Melrose Towers it's putting a square peg in a circle hole it doesn't fit yet we're forcing them to

▶ 3:07:19 Scott M. Forbes: fit into the system that we put in place and Melrose Towers uses over a half a million cubic feet of water a year and just on that analysis alone if you just look at the hundred thousand dollar a hundred thousand dollar hundred thousand cubic feet model at tier 4b at a hundred thousand cubic feet a quarter that rate is or that dollar amount is going to go up by over a thousand bucks right in 5b it's $100 so for the hundred and fifty some on owners at the Melrose towers I think they know I think I know what option they would want and again we've talked this is my third year on the board I wasn't I wasn't a member of this board when this rate structure was put in the place but I do know that we have

▶ 3:08:07 Scott M. Forbes: these public hearings and we hear these people talk about their situations that they just feel like they don't fit into a certain place and they are correct and this option would at least reshuffle the deck a little bit and bring the numbers back into somewhat of a more realistic approach that I think we can work with moving forward again the the job here is not done but we need a starting point point and if everyone acknowledges that we want to talk about why we're changing the tiered rate system the reason why we're changing a tiered rate system is because over the past three fiscal years it's gone up 20% across the board in each tier and everybody doesn't like the yeah we expected modest increases but I

▶ 3:08:54 Scott M. Forbes: don't think we expected six and seven percent increases and a five percent increase compounded it's 20% across the board so I think we had expectations but But I don't think the expectations were met, which is why we're discussing these options, which is why we hired the new consultant, which is why we had ten plans put before us. So for me, if we're going to make an actual change, and a change that will do better for every rate payer in Melrose, then it's something that we need to do that's a little bit different than what we're doing now. And I just feel that option four is the same rate, the same structure, with a base charge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Alderman Forbes. Alderman McAteer-Margolis, please.

▶ 3:09:39 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Forbes is very articulate and has really, I think, hit the nail on the head in many ways. If we're going to make a change, I think we need to really change it up, which isn't to say that we can't go back and change it again. I feel like last year during election season, we heard so much about the water and sewer rates. Personally, I think the increases in water and sewer really led to the failure of the override to pass in many ways because people were feeling hit in that pocket and really didn't feel like they could handle it in the other pocket. And I know that many of my colleagues didn't necessarily support that but some of them may have had an easier time thinking of it in a positive

▶ 3:10:35 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: way if you know the public was not so vocal in in the fact that they had had to absorb these big increases in the last few years in water and sewer um you know the other night i was really pretty convinced that 4b was the way to go but after running some of my numbers and hearing from you tonight mr. Shana I feel like if we are gonna you know want to make a change and try to make things better and really affect more of the ratepayers in a better way that maybe it's maybe it's time to try something new and try the two tiers if it's satisfying the regulations if it's meeting the budget I personally don't want to have to cut the reserve funds I know Alderman Kahn is going to make that motion later I think by accepting for 5b perhaps and

▶ 3:11:33 Peter D. Mortimer: lowering the increases across the board it won't be you know quite as pressing an issue with with the reserve funds and I think I'm gonna have to change my mind thank you thank you very much alderman McAteer-Margolis are there any other aldermen wishing to be heard at this time we have a motion on the floor to recommend option 4b to the full board for passage all in favor please say aye Aye. Aye. Aye. We'll see a show of hands on the aye, please. Three in favor. All opposed? Opposed. Opposed. The motion to adopt option 4B fails. The order is back on the floor before us. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to motion that we accept option number 5B. Second. Alderman Forbes has made a motion that we accept option 5B.

▶ 3:12:39 Peter D. Mortimer: That motion was duly seconded by Alderman Lemmerman. Is there discussion on this motion? President Kahn, please. Yeah, I move to amend the motion to include language indicating that in building the rate that we would establish a surplus that would be 25% of that which has been proposed. And in support of that, one point I want to make clear. can we can we wait for a second please president second okay a friendly amendment to the main order has been made at this time that we reduce the amount contributed to the reserve fund by 75% and give only 25% I'm sure somebody can quickly work out those numbers tonight or if not before our next full board meeting president Khan's motion for that reduction to the

▶ 3:13:34 The donation to the appropriation to the reserve fund was seconded by Alderman Medeiros. So that motion to amend is before us, and President Kahn, you had the floor and began to speak when I called for the second, so please continue. I want to make it clear, this is not a motion to cut reserves, as it's been characterized. It is not a motion to cut reserves. a motion prospectively not to collect as many dollars in reserves if this motion passes by the end of this next fiscal year we're going to have at least one million dollars in our reserves five or six years ago we had no dollars in our reserves one million dollars is a healthy amount it will sustain us it will not be spent this year this this doesn't involve any

▶ 3:14:32 pitting of one tier of rate payers against another it is simply our decision not to collect reserves from the rate payers at the amount that stated again mr. de la Rousseau has appropriately calculated the rate based on our past votes but what we need to do is get a handle on our water and sewer rates not be amongst the highest in the MWRA system and this would be a step in that direction I've been here for over seven sixteen years I believe I've always acted prudently and fiscally responsibly I don't think that this is any kind of a gamble or a dangerous move I don't see any downside to this motion and I would ask that you support the motion please thank you very much presently we are discussing a motion to amend the main motion which is to adopt

▶ 3:15:36 Peter D. Mortimer: option 5b and the emotion to be amend would be that in the water rate order that the contribution to the reserve fund would be 25% of the amount that presently is slated for contribution to that reserve fund next in queue we have aldermen's work Oh followed by alderman inferno alderman right and alderman Tramontozzi ozi alderman's work Oh please proceed Thank You mr. chairman I'll be very brief here I just wanted to say I will be supporting the amendment as proposed by alderman Khan I do think that it is prudent and I do think that the reserves at the end of this fiscal year will be adequate so I appreciate his amendment and I will be supporting that furthermore I'm also going to be supporting 5b I just wanted to be clear that my preferred rate structure was 4b

▶ 3:16:32 Michael P. Zwirko: I put my best foot forward I supported an argument to defend that it failed we still need to establish a rate structure here the next best option in my opinion is 5b I will be supporting that here so this is not a cake and have it and eat it too this is just based on sound policy I put the argument forward it failed you move on thank you for your time Thank You alderman's work up alderman in front of please thank you very much mr. chairman in the spirit of tough issues once again and for a number of years when I first came on this board I sat next to the ultimate award six who was known as the great compromiser so I'm that's not you his picture up on the wall that's right that's right so I have

▶ 3:17:23 Gail Infurna: learned to compromise when the issues get tough and I will certainly support 5b and and that's fine I wonder if with all due respect to President Khan's amendment if and I know it's probably kind of in there without Rick saying the words but I think I feel better saying the words and having the words written in the amendment that a sunset clause to expire for just you know for one for this one year only I am a firm believer in having great reserves I think we've put them to great you know we can put them to great use of god forbid something happens we have done lots with our money and how we pay our debt for all the projects that have been spent in probably just about every part of the city and every Ward so even though because it's a budget thing it's

▶ 3:18:19 Peter D. Mortimer: probably written there without the words but I would like to see the words to say to you know expire at July it would seem and mr. de la Russo and mr. Shana can I can bring this to make sure it's correct, but it would seem that the rate and the contribution to the reserve fund would be for this year's budget only, as it exists. I guess I would just like to see the words, because I think it will set a precedence for next year that we're just not automatically going to do this, that we kind of are hoping that it was a one-year thing. Next year would be a whole new ballgame, if I can use the vernacular. Could I be correct in that statement, Mr. DelaRusso? Next year's contribution and next year's rate is a clean slate.

▶ 3:19:03 Peter D. Mortimer: Just to allay the concerns of Alderman Inferna, just so we're all clear. Mr. Chairman, maybe I can, if I restate my motion is that the water and sewer rates for the fiscal year 2017 contain language so that the surplus collected would be 25% of that proposed by the administration. yes yes sir uh and that's that's how i understand it does uh does that assuage any concerns uh you may have alderman inferno would you like to hear more from our city officials sure always thank you very much would you please elucidate us thank you to the chair um again the program in front of us and it is a program was predicated on five years at two percent per year voted by this board should the board vote to deviate from that that's the board's

▶ 3:19:55 Peter D. Mortimer: decision and I leave it up to the boards and obviously from where I my vantage point and all the McConaughey's was so correct I may be conservative in my respect and I personally prefer to stay with the 2% plan for five years personally I feel it shows a confidence and a dedication that we take it serious um having said that whatever the board like i will do if if i could and i i um i understand what you said but would you more specifically address uh what alderman inferno saying that this would be this would be a one year yeah that's fine and then what we would do is reevaluate next year and if there's any adjustments we'd make it appropriately then is is that uh satisfactory alderman inferno hearing that it's for one year from our city

▶ 3:20:50 auditor sure i'm still in my compromising mode though all right thank you very much uh alderman inferna uh next uh in line we have alderman wright thank you mr chairman uh patrick can you stay put um this reserve would be for necessary work potentially that might come up unexpected costs um is that correct yes correct particularly during the year when um We don't have anywhere to go when things happen, not should they happen, but when they happen, that's correct. And we have flooding issues that goes into the sewer system, or they did, is that accurate, John? Storm water isn't covered by the sewer improvements. Sewer improvements, I&I improvements could be an eligible expense towards the sewer reserve.

▶ 3:21:47 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Could be. Yes. Okay. we've had storm water issues in the past and Ward 2 we've spent how much money about 10 years ago about 5 million dollars okay and what about the Melrose Towers issues um that was part of Ward 2 okay that included that that project was the same and is that El Pond as well El Pond no El Pond was separate there was about another three million uh sewer force main most definitely helped the and that was another 1.8 million so there's been a lot of projects that have helped that area okay and I am NOT an accountant like Alderman Forbes but by my math to reduce both of these by $200,000 well I guess that by 25 if you were to reduce the by a total of $200,000 by my math you would reduce the

▶ 3:22:45 Francis X. Wright Jr.: water came up we're approving as far as the water rate bottom line figured by point zero three seven percent from the sewer by point zero two six percent so I don't know what the number is as to what the savings will be for each rate payer or on average or but I'm guessing it's not going to be much and we've had major projects in the past since I've been on this board and I don't want to be penny wise dollar foolish so we did as you say mr. de la Rousseau make a commitment at least the members of who are on this board when we entered into this and I intend to keep my commitment I think it's in the best interest of everyone in the city we've had projects in the various parts of the city that benefited

▶ 3:23:39 John N. Tramontozzi: from from well thought-out policies and I would like that money to be available should other parts of the city or even those parts of the city need them again in the future so I look forward to seeing what the savings will be on the proposed cut thank you thank you thank you alderman right alderman chairman Tosi please thank you mr. chairman I am gonna I am going to support president khan's amendment i think one million dollars in the reserve is uh is prudent and reasonable and and i think giving back even a little bit of rate relief to the rate payers is is what we owe to the the public um we we do have other orders on the table and i think we are going to address the infiltration and inflow issues through a separate order so i don't see where we're going

▶ 3:24:43 John N. Tramontozzi: to have to necessarily dip into these reserve accounts to take care of those problems since we're already going to be addressing them through other orders so i think it's a prudent amendment to uh the uh the order and uh and i will be voting in favor of that amendment and lastly i just want to uh say thanks to alderman's work call and alderman inferno and um alderman's work will never consider uh any suggestions uh and recommendations uh that you might have i think it's always good to bring alternative discussions to this board and he did a fine job in presenting your uh viewpoint uh so uh so i i respect that and uh and i appreciate that uh both you and alderman infern is uh coming around to the uh the other order but anyways

▶ 3:25:33 Robert A. Boisselle: thank you thank you alderman chairman tozy alderman boisselle please just for clarification you're taking money from one account and putting it into the reserve water retained earnings and sewer retained earnings what is that account what what are they or just that's the free cash in other words the cash that you're collecting is just sitting there that's the results of fy 15 right retained earnings through the chair so after this year we'll turn through and next year we'll be sitting here talking about fy 16. if it just sits there what does it do it'll turn back if we don't allocate it prior to um july 1st allocated to water and sewer a water or reserve fund the respective fund it will simply roll over into

▶ 3:26:22 the next fiscal year but it'll stay in that fund it'll stay in that fund um unless you know it you got it it's voted on before july 1st so if you move that money out into the reserve funds what's the that that all right let me back up a minute um what happens is that you're dedicating that money now to a reserve so you've taken it from the stream which is called pool cash you've dedicated Now you've set up a fund, that reserve fund, that will hold that money. So that as we go forward into next year, we'll have a resource to go to for when something happens in the middle of the year. You don't have free cash in the middle of the year. What you have is whatever's in the reserve fund. Okay, so that-

▶ 3:27:09 Robert A. Boisselle: And that's where the money comes from. Okay, so it has double purpose in the point that you have an emergency fund to work with. you also have a financial the brokerage houses are looking at these funds also that you're saving is that correct sure so that's the second bonus that you're getting out of that all the time okay so at a 25 percent you're you're tying up another 330 534 dollars in that account in the retained earnings and you're putting just about 41 thousand seven hundred seventeen dollars into the water and seventy three thousand three hundred eighty three dollars into the sewer retaining uh funds and so forth so you you have a lot of money it's just going to sit there and not do any be invested

▶ 3:28:05 and used properly uh i've i'm i'm supporting 5b but if the amendment to only put 25 percent is attached to it i will not support 5b i'll stay with 4b thank you very much mr chairman thank you gentlemen thank you very much just just um so you understand alderman boycelle 5b has already has passed you're right you're right my mistake my mistake it has not and thank you for your comments thank you next I have Alderman Medeiros and then we'll go to you Alderman Medeiros please thank you although it's been this board that voted to adopt this reserve system at the time I did not support that my feeling was that this you know especially where I've been hearing for many years that people want lower rates and we had many many years of good

▶ 3:29:12 Monica C. Medeiros: fiscal management in the water and sewer funds without ever having a deficit until I think it was FY 12 FY 13 sorry we had a deficit of about a hundred and fifty nine thousand dollars in the sewer account only since then we've had no issues we have not taken anything out of the reserves that have been built up is that correct mr. Shannon very little I think we took 30,000 out of sewer and then this past fiscal year we took very we took small amount for contractual obligations new CBA agreement right and in those those moving the money out those did require a vote by the board of alderman absolutely absolutely and anything moving forward would require a vote from the board of alderman correct for those for the near as uh president

▶ 3:30:10 Monica C. Medeiros: khan has has rounded up say a million dollars that will be there at the end of this fiscal year i think that that's sufficient i i feel like you know we've got now we have new consultants who are here who consult for many many many from the biggest water and sewer rate consultant in the world I think I heard or at least in the United States during the discussion these new rates whatever they shall be I think you're going to be I'm pretty confident they're going to justify funding the system mr. So I asked Ms. Long and probably took her by surprise about indirect costs and I guess it's because we don't necessarily always see the breakdown of what's projected versus what actually is. And normally there's no savings in health insurance

▶ 3:31:06 Monica C. Medeiros: because it just goes up and up and up. But this year we've seen some savings in health insurance, not necessarily as it relates to water and sewer. But if, for instance, when the reconciliation takes place at the end of this year, if there are savings maybe due to people opting out in water and sewer to the city plan, and we do a reconciliation, I assume, at the end of the year, if what's been spent is less than what we budgeted for indirect cost, would we see that turned over as part of the retained earnings into water and sewer? Or does that stay the same? no it it's a it's an allocation for water and sewer um and again um it is i.e a moving target at times and no one in this room can control that including myself but i'm not strictly water and

▶ 3:32:01 Monica C. Medeiros: sewer strictly water okay so uh i thought i was gonna make a point but i guess i'm not but uh in this in this you know what's planned and what I've heard is planned I hear we have a program rather than a product you know a project we had one of the things that I'll be moving shortly to add to the order includes the presentation we had from our city engineer last week but in it you know the proposed next steps include funding authorization from the MWRA which went for grants and loans it it doesn't include from what's here taking from capital reserves at least what's been presented to us so far and I see the city engineer shaking your head now so I believe that this is sound and prudent and would you know I kind of

▶ 3:32:57 Monica C. Medeiros: look at this as you know here's our constituents money and you know we've got in one case we've got a high interest credit card debt it's not a debt it's just it's just as this bill that they have to pay and on the other hand you know that's it's saving and it's always good to save but sometimes sometimes you just need to pay the stuff that's in front of you at the time so I don't think it does anybody any good just sitting in a bank doing nothing I'd rather either see it put to use to fund some improvements in projects that might help fix the leaks in our system or stay with the residents and not be put to sit in a bank account. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman Medeiros. Alderman McAteer-Margolis, please.

▶ 3:33:51 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: This is one thing I'm not going to change my mind on. I remember when we established this fund it was a very difficult thing it was a very difficult vote for many of us to take and I do think that was the year that we lowered the rates and ended up having to come back after July 1st to reset the rates and I believe we made a commitment to achieve 10% of the water and sewer budget in reserves is that not correct mr over five years i opted for three but i was outvoted it's okay five years is fine at five years at two percent right that's correct right and so um and and i fully admit i'm i'm not a math person but i i did take out my calculator and um the water and sewer budget combined is approximately 13 million dollars

▶ 3:34:46 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: so that what 10% is 1.3 million that we should have in reserves at the end of year five which is two years away two fiscal years away based on that each individual budget our contribution this year for the water would be approximately a hundred and seven thousand dollars and for sewer approximately a hundred and fifty four thousand dollars 25% only funding it at 25% is only going to save us a combined total of about $55,000 I see the accountant over there with his numbers going am i right am i right anyways I think our consultant our new consultant on his in his you know preliminary observations said continue to develop strong reserve fund balances the city's current target is 10% of its annual operating budget, but it should be striving for 20% to 25%.

▶ 3:35:47 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: I think that's maybe a little bit overkill, but I'm not a premier water analyst, and I think that when you even take advantage of these MWRA grants to do I&I, you never know what you're going to find, and you never know what's going to blow down the line. And we've seen it before. I'm sure that we'll see it again. And I feel confident that saving $60,000 is not going to affect the rate significantly enough to reduce the good things that we can achieve by establishing and continuing to donate to this fund. So I'm not going to support this amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Alderman McAteer-Margolis. on the amendment we next have president khan and then alderman wright president khan please i'll pass mr mr chairman thank you sir alderman wright please very briefly

▶ 3:36:48 Francis X. Wright Jr.: patrick when we took that vote three years ago and it was a difficult vote is it fair to say that the bond rating companies relied on our our vote and and that the expectation as all as Alderman Boisselle indicated is that we were going to reach a goal of a million dollars which would be a little less than ten percent and as a result we've benefited from that financially yeah it through the chair the bond rating but out but but also the Department of Revenue is expecting us to do that and if we don't do that is the possibility we could see a bond rating decrease they would ask why the change in policy and I would have to explain why I mean you can't predict what Moody's or Standard & Poor's is going to

▶ 3:37:46 do but were they to do that that would be yeah that would create an unstable situation which then could possibly lead to a minimally but negatively impact potentially our bond rating which would cost us a little bit more to borrow money yeah absolutely and John I and I we getting grants or interest-free loans I think it's a 70-30 split grant loan zero interest loan thank you thank you Alderman Wright president Conn please yeah I really wasn't going to speak again whether it's $50,000 or $250,000 it's rate payers money and it matters to them so that's something to keep in mind mr. Del Russo yes sir the bond rating agencies evaluate us every year is that correct every October based on our current event when we do bond that's correct based on our current financial condition and projected

▶ 3:38:52 they ask us for projection for the next year and they ask some very probing questions okay and you're not telling the board that if we fund 25 percent instead of if we make a 150 000 variance in a reserve that we're going to be downgraded in your opinion as a result of that action i i can't i can't say that um it's not gonna um look negative because i think it would they will look negative because there's no basis for which would decrease in the contribution because we haven't met a requirement we make all kinds of votes all the time about all kinds of reserve funds is that correct that's correct um however and i just want to be clear are you telling the board that you believe that our bond rating would be downgraded if we took this vote

▶ 3:39:37 no what I'm but I am telling the board respectfully is that when you change position and if they ask it's not going to be a positive it's not positive for us to in their eyes no and I understand and I respect your position and I can't make that call I'm not in a position to to evaluate what S&P will do I'm I'm in a position to advise you that it's not a positive thing when you reduce it. Oh, I understand that. And you have great experience in your field, and I respect your experience. Almost 25 years now. Yeah, and I respect that, and I respect your opinion. Thank you. And I don't believe you're telling us that this vote would result in a downgrading in our bond rating. I can't make that statement.

▶ 3:40:29 Peter D. Mortimer: Okay. That's all. Thank you, President Kahn. Are there any further all the motion to be heard? Seeing none, we are ready for a vote on the amendment to the main motion which is to adopt option 5B. And the amendment would be to adopt option 5B but adjust the rate commensurate with a decrease in the proposed amount for the contribution to the reserve fund by 75% so it would only be 25% of what it is now all in fit does everyone understand once again it's not to be didactic it would reduce it would adopt the main motion is to adopt 5b the motion no amend by President Kahn is that the currently contained contribution to the reserve fund would be reduced to 25 percent of what it stands now reduced by 75 percent to 25 percent we're voting on the amendment we

▶ 3:41:41 Peter D. Mortimer: are voting on the amendment only okay we are voting on the amendment only the amendment would come first are we all on the same page not to be pedantic but I want to make sure we we all have this all right all in favor of the amendment to reduce the contribution to 25% please say aye aye may I see a show of hands on the I please one two three four five the motion to reduce the contribution to the reserve fund fails that amendment fails the main motion is before us which is to adopt option 5b is there any further discussion on the main motion alderman Medeiros please at this time I'd like to move to amend the order to include various communications I'll start with adding the city of Melrose infiltration

▶ 3:42:49 Monica C. Medeiros: and inflow reduction program PowerPoint presented to us last Thursday mr. Shenna's summary of water and sewer bills by consumption categories FY 12 through FY 17 as emailed this afternoon I have comments from mr. Philip Taymor which were read into the meeting it was read by Miss Cork and Ellis in public participation on June 9th and then he subsequently has emailed this to us in regard to these orders the three pages as presented by alderman Forbes tonight city of Melrose historical rate analysis alderman Forbes 613 2016 the three page that I handed out at the last meeting on Thursday indirect costs kind of what starting with what are they indirect costs how do they compare this year to last and the page that starts with water and sewer and direct costs total from

▶ 3:43:57 Peter D. Mortimer: schedule a to 12 to 2016 and I think that that is the oh and one more sorry uh from mr shena summary of residential bills from fy12 to fy17 as presented to us at the last meeting last thursday night thank you very much alderman Medeiros alderman Medeiros has made a motion to include the aforementioned documents into the record that motion was was duly seconded by Alderman Zwirko. Seeing no discussion, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, those documents will be included in the jacket, in the record of the deliberations on this order. We will now proceed to the main motion, having no amendments at this time, to be voted, upon which to be voted. All in favor of the adoption of option 5B to be recommended to the full board, please say aye.

▶ 3:45:05 Peter D. Mortimer: Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, option 5B will be adopted and recommended to the full board for passage to be adopted as the water break. The next order we have before us is order 2016-164. Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances, Chapter 228, Article 4, Section 228-30, Sewer Rates Established as Set Forth Herein. Is there a motion? Motion to adopt Option 5B, Mr. Chairman. Alderman Forbes has made a motion to adopt Option 5B for this order. Is there any discussion? And it was duly seconded by Alderman Boycelle. Thank you. alderman boy cell were you presenting to me that you had seconded it are the judges to speak second it only the second second a duly second alderman Mack alderman Medeiros please thank you at this time I'd like to just

▶ 3:46:11 Monica C. Medeiros: unfortunately technically add those same items that I mentioned moved to add those to this order as well the city of Melrose infiltration and inflow reduction program summary of water and sewer bills consumption categories all the moment errors may I ask you to pause just briefly for a second I think we're going to work get some guidance from our clerk of committees please those with the exception of mr. tamers correspondence the summary of water and sewer bills that were received by mr. Shana today and alderman Forbes handouts are already included in the budget orders that were recommended out committee on Thursday night I I guess I would like to see this added I don't see it in with the with the water and sewer rates as especially some of these items

▶ 3:47:09 Monica C. Medeiros: reflect the rates all the orders were I know taken concurrently last week under consideration and you know I I made some I filed an order to change the rules last year specifically so this would just happen as a matter of course and obviously that didn't go through and there were discussion that this is just how we do it and it automatically becomes part of the public record once it's presented which I believe that it does but without that do you want them in every single order well I think they do belong at least in the the rate setting orders as they do affect the rates and these are certainly things that I've considered when when I've been judging what rate to all right we'll we'll take your motion can we forego the reading of all the conditions we we've

▶ 3:48:10 Peter D. Mortimer: We've heard what the documents that you wish to include. So, Alderman Medeiros has made a motion to include the documents that were added by amendment to the last order to add them to this order as well. Is there a second? Second. Alderman Suarco has seconded the motion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye, and they'll be added to this. One opposed, please, Mr. Chairman. All right, one opposed, so they'll be added to this order as well. And now we have the order before us for the sewer portion of the budget, dash 164, to adopt option 5B for this portion as well. All in favor of the adoption of 5B, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, 5B will be recommended for adoption to the full board for order 2016-164.

▶ 3:49:10 Peter D. Mortimer: The next order we have before us is order 2016-166. It is amending Melrose Revised Ordinances Chapter 228, Article 4, Section 228-20, elderly discount as set forth herein. The order is before you. Motion to recommend. Second. We have a motion to recommend from Alderman MacMaster Margolis, Absolutely seconded by Alderman Inferna. On discussion, Alderman Medeiros, please. Thank you, I do support this. I'm glad that we had the city solicitor in a few weeks ago, a month ago or so, to talk about this. He says that he does believe that this is legally justifiable and present a discount of some sort to all income-eligible senior citizens 65 years old and older. And I just wanted to specify that there is an income limitation on this,

▶ 3:50:19 Monica C. Medeiros: which I think was not necessarily made as clear as it should be, and I don't want to give everybody the idea that it goes to everyone. It's the yearly gross income, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the yearly gross income does not exceed $15,000 for a single person and $23,000 if filing jointly. And I believe that we've heard that we think that there's going to be, I want to say 700, I believe Mr. Schoen has said that he thought that there would be, they expect 750 accounts to total a discount of $127,000 to be applied. Thank you very much, Alderman Medeiros. Alderman Boisselle, please. In the documentation we have concerning the elderly discount, it gives all the qualifications. Could I have either John or the account to come in and

▶ 3:51:27 explain to us how they're going to execute it? mean this is a 20% discount on the water bills or is it going to be on their taxes how does that work accounts in condo associations or people residents elderly and condo associations the I was getting to me too now will get the average discount that people of the program so for instance in fiscal 16 it appears that the average discount that a senior received in this program living in a residential home was 156 146 dollars so what we would do is take that average and apply it on the third or fourth quarter real estate tax bill of a condo association owner we would we would create the we would receive the application we would make sure that the application met the criteria and then we

▶ 3:52:33 would provide a list to the treasurer's office to actually give the discount and the treasurer in order would do an internal transfer between the water and sewer enterprises and the general budget to compensate for that so the owner has to apply for it all the all owners have to apply whether you live in a home or you live in a condo association there will be an application process for that okay is that sixty six thousand two hundred fifty cubic feet also with the condo that's correct no no what condo associates sixty two fifties with a resident six you can't determine what a condo that was like that was I was wondering how you that's why that right that's that's why they end up with the average of what the people in in homes get okay so what what

▶ 3:53:22 Robert A. Boisselle: What was the maximum, again, that they could get in a discount, $146? Well, if we used this past fiscal year's statistics, 146 was the average. There are seniors that get more than that, and it depends how much water they consume. Okay, and they make an application for it, and then you evaluate it, and then it's deducted from their tax bill. That's correct. Okay. Condo associations only. Condo associations only. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Tarrant. Thank you, Alderman Boycelle. Seeing no further Alderman wishing to be heard on this order, we'll call for the vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none. Opposed. One opposed. Nevertheless, the elderly discount will be recommended to the full board for passage.

▶ 3:54:14 Peter D. Mortimer: We have already, due to a previous motion by President Kahn, taken Orders 5 and 6, they would be recommended to the full board for passage. So the next order we have before us is Order 2016-200. Amending Melrose Revised Ordinances Chapter 228, Water and Sewers by adding Section 228-78. infiltration and inflow mitigation fees as set forth herein. The order is before you, Alderman McAteer-Margolis, please. Mr. Chairman, before we deal with this order, I've been notified by MMTV that we need to take a two minute recess so they can switch up the desk. Very good, thank you for that reminder. Alderman McAteer-Margolis has made a motion to take a two minute recess. So we may change the DVD that is recording this meeting.

▶ 3:55:15 Peter D. Mortimer: Is there a second? Second. Second by Alderman Forbes. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, we'll be in recess for two minutes.

Appropriations & Oversight Committee — 2016-06-13

Attendance

Agenda

Minutes

Transcript

Original documents