City Council — 2016-12-05

City Council Regular Meeting

This meeting starts at 4:34 in a recording that covers several meetings.

Attendance

Robert A. Boisselle present · Ward 4 Alderman; Donald L. Conn Jr. absent · President, Alderman at Large; Scott M. Forbes present · Ward 7 Alderman; Gail Infurna present · Ward 5 Alderman; 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 · Ward 6 Alderman; John N. Tramontozzi present · Ward 1 Alderman; Francis X. Wright Jr. absent · Ward 3 Alderman; Michael P. Zwirko present · Alderman at Large

Agenda

Minutes

CITY OF MELROSE BOARD OF ALDERMEN BULLETIN● DECEMBER 5, 2016 Aldermanic Chamber, Melrose City Hall Regular Meeting 7:45 PM 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176

ORDER-2017-55 Opening Statement Regular Meeting of the Board of Aldermen to be held on Monday, December 5, 2016 at 7:45 P.M. In The Aldermanic Chamber, City Hall, Melrose, MA Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Robert A. Boisselle Ward 4 Alderman Present Scott M. Forbes Ward 7 Alderman Present Gail M. Infurna Ward 5 Alderman Present Jennifer L. Lemmerman Ward 2 Alderman Present Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis Alderman at Large Present Monica C. Medeiros Alderman at Large Present Peter D. Mortimer Ward 6 Alderman Present John N. Tramontozzi Ward 1 Alderman Present Francis X. Wright Jr. Ward 3 Alderman Absent Michael P. Zwirko Alderman at Large Present Donald L. Conn Jr. President, Alderman at Large Absent In the absence of President Conn and in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules of Order of the Board of Aldermen, Alderman Gail Infurna, senior member of the Board of Aldermen was nominated and unanimously elected President Pro tempore of the Board of Aldermen.

ORDER-2017-45 Utility Petition Petition of National Grid to Extend Gas Main 130' of 6 " Plastic to serve #85 Ferdinand St. as shown on Plan No. GP-MEL 1115681-16-152, dated 8-02-2016 Tabled

ORDER-2017-56 Authorization Authorization for the Mayor of Melrose to execute a Power Purchase Agreement for the installation and location of solar voltaic panels on the roof top of the Public Works Operations Facility Assigned to Committee Appropriations Committee

ORDER-2017-57 Appropriation City of Melrose Page 1 1/30/2017 2:51 PM Minutes Board of Aldermen December 5, 2016 An Appropriation from available free cash in the amount of $45,700 to the following Public Works accounts for various municipal building upgrades and repairs to City Hall, The Milano Center and Fire Station. Assigned to Committee Appropriations Committee

ORDER-2017-58 Appropriation An Appropriation in the amount of $75,000 from Available Free Cash to Public Works Professional Building Services for a Public Safety Buildings Feasibility Study and Building Envelope Study for Memorial Hall. Assigned to Committee Appropriations Committee

ORDER-2017-59 Appropriation An Appropriation in the amount of $20,000 from Available Free Cash to the Public Works –Cemetery Professional Services account for records digitizing, backup and updates of cemetery plots and burials. Assigned to Committee Appropriations Committee

ORDER-2017-60 Appropriation An Appropriation in the amount of $15,000 from Available Free Cash to the City Solicitor Professional Services account. Assigned to Committee Appropriations Committee

ORDER-2017-61 Appropriation Appropriation of $20,000 from Available Free Cash to Planning Exp - Professional Services for Master Plan Project Assigned to Committee Appropriations Committee

ORDER-2017-62 License - Common Victualler Application of Weerasak Khamsri, Chatchawal Ongsaranont and Chawalit Kaivasang for a Common Victualler License: Pho Chili, Inc. d/b/a The Bangkok Restaurant, 57 West Wyoming Avenue, Melrose, MA Assigned to Committee Protection and License Committee

ORDER-2017-63 Utility Petition Petition of Mobilitie, LLC to attach equipment to an existing utility pole on W. Foster Street, Melrose, MA Assigned to Committee Public Works Committee

ORDER-2017-43 Establishment of Fund City of Melrose Page 2 1/30/2017 2:51 PM Minutes Board of Aldermen December 5, 2016 Establishment of Streetscape Improvement Fund #2887 Passed

ORDER-2017-44 Classification of Property Request to set a Public Hearing on Classification of Property for November 28, 2016 at 7:30 P.M. and subsequently determine the Classification of Property Passed

ORDER-2017-42 Appropriation An Appropriation of $2,745,646.46 from available free cash to various accounts as set forth within. Passed

ORDER-2017-41 Appropriation An Appropriation from the Ambulance, Reserve for Retained Earnings account in the amount of $68,848.32 to Ambulance, Salary and Wages and Overtime for the recent settlement of the FY15 and FY16 contract. Passed

ORDER-2017-40 Appropriation An Appropriation from the Ambulance, Retained Earnings account in the amount of $52,610.18 to Ambulance, Salary and Wages for the settlement of the FY 17 contract Passed

ORDER-2017-39 Appropriation An Appropriation from the Contract Stabilization account in the amount of $369,520.22 to Fire, Salary and Wages and Overtime for the settlement of the FY15 and FY16 Fire contract. Passed

ORDER-2017-50 Acceptance Acceptance of Pedestrian Access Easement at Stone Ridge Heights Subdivision off Dexter Road Passed

ORDER-2017-51 Appointment City of Melrose Page 3 1/30/2017 2:51 PM Minutes Board of Aldermen December 5, 2016 Appointment of Brian M. Donovan, 9 Morgan St., to the Human Rights Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mathew Helman; said term to expire on the last day of February, 2019 Passed City of Melrose Page 4 1/30/2017 2:51 PM

Transcript

▶ 4:36 Gail Infurna: we will proceed to the business of electing a President pro temp. Madam Chair, I make a motion to open the floor for nominations for a President pro temp for tonight's meeting. Alderman Mortimer makes a motion to open for nomination, seconded by Alderman Zorco. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Nominations are now in order. I nominate Alderman Gail Inferno for president pro temp of tonight's meeting. Alderman Mortimer makes a motion to nominate Alderman Gail Inferno, seconded by Alderman Medeiros. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion to close nominations. Thank you. Second. And Mortimer makes a motion to close nomination, seconded by Alderman Boisselle. It has been moved and seconded to open,

▶ 5:22 let's see, nominations, we've done that. So at this time, our clerk will do a roll call. Alderman Boisselle. Alderman Inferna. Alderman Inferna. Alderman Forbes. Alderman Inferna. Alderman Inferna. Alderman Inferna. Alderman Inferna. Alderman Inferna. Alderman Lemmerman, Alderman Inferno, Alderman Inferno, Alderman McAteer-Margolis, Alderman Inferno, Alderman Inferno, Alderman Medeiros, Alderman Inferno, Alderman Inferno, Alderman Mortimer, Alderman Inferno, Alderman Inferno, Alderman Tramontozzi, Alderman Inferno, Alderman Inferno, Alderman Zwirko, Alderman Inferno, Alderman Inferno. Nine votes have been cast for Alderman Inferno. nine votes have been cast and it's a chair declares that alderman inferno has

▶ 6:14 Gail Infurna: been duly elected president pro temp for the meeting of this board on December 5th we should open the floor for public purchase not yet we have to have a roll call at this time as president pro temp I'll call the meeting of the board of aldermen is called to order and the clerk will call the role alderman Boisselle. Here. Here. Alderman Forbes. Here. Here. Alderman Lemmerman. Here. Here. Alderman McAteer-Margolis. Here. Here. Alderman Medeiros. Here. Here. Alderman Mortimer. Here. Here. Alderman Tramontozzi. Here. Here. Alderman Zwirko. Here. Here. President Pro Temp-Inferno. Here. Here. Nine members present. Nine members being present and there being the necessary quorum, please stand and salute the flag.

▶ 7:02 Gail Infurna: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Madam President, I make a motion to open the floor for public participation. Second. Before we do that, I'll take a motion to accept the minutes of the... public participation is first in case any members of the public have comments on the minutes ready there was a motion to open for public participation second by Alderman Boisselle all those in favor of opening for public participation say aye all those opposed we are now open for public participation if there's anybody in the audience that would like to come before us and talk about

▶ 7:49 Gail Infurna: anything on our agenda this evening this would be your time motion to close public participation seeing no one to participate there's a motion to close public participation by alderman mortimer second second by alderman Boisselle all those in favor of closing uh public participation say aye aye aye all those against public participation patient is now closed and in accordance to the open meeting law this meeting is being recorded and if i could just take a moment to recognize um we have two fine gentlemen in the back here from boy scout troop 615 sitting here observing our meeting um for looking at their communication merit badge so welcome all righty madam madam president pro temp i have in my hand the minutes of our meeting from

▶ 8:37 Gail Infurna: october 5th 2016 and i move that they be accepted into the record without reading second the motion to accept the minutes oliver mortimer makes a motion to accept the meeting um minutes of the meeting is seconded by alderman forbes all those in favor aye aye all those opposed those minutes will be accepted without reading uh the clerk of committees will now read communications from his honor the mayor and other city officials order 2017-56 authorization for the mayor of melrose to execute a power purchase agreement for the installation and location of solar voltaic panels on the rooftop of the public works operations facility that order will be sent to the committee of appropriations order 2017-57 and appropriation from available free cash in the amount of forty

▶ 9:25 five thousand seven hundred dollars to the following public works accounts for various municipal building upgrades and repairs to city hall the milano center and fire station that order will be sent to the committee on appropriation order 2017-58 and appropriation and the amount of 75 000 from available free cash to public works professional building services for a public safety buildings feasibility study and building envelope study for memorial hall that order will be sent to the committee on appropriations order 2017-59 and appropriation in the amount of twenty thousand dollars from available free cash to the public works cemetery professional services account for records digitizing backup and updates of cemetery

▶ 10:11 plots and burials that order will also be sent to the committee of appropriations order 2017-60 an appropriation in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars from available free cash to the city solicitor professional services account that order will be sent to the committee of appropriation order 2017-61 appropriation of twenty thousand dollars from available free cash to planning expenditures professional services for master plan project that order will be sent to the committee of appropriation order 2017-62 application of where sack camsri catches sowell sorry ong sanarant and charlotte kevasang for a common victual license fo chili incorporated doing business as the bangkok restaurant 57 west wyoming avenue melrose mass that order will be sent to the

▶ 11:06 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: committee of protection and license order 2017-63 petition of mobile light llc to attach equipment to an existing utility pole on west foster street melrose mass and that order will be sent to the committee of public works are there any orders out of order this evening are there any orders from committee and are there any comments from the various City Committee Alderman McAteer-Margolis Thank You Madam President Pro Tem as the representative to the library building committee I'd like to announce that there will be a meeting open to the public on Monday December 12th at 7 p.m. at the library to present the initial design plans with for the renovated library with the architects great thank you thank you are there any other updates

▶ 12:17 Gail Infurna: the clerk of committees will now read from the calendar order 2017-43 establishment of streetscape improvement fund number 2887 this order comes from the committee with the recommendation for passage motion for passage madam president mortimer makes a motion for passage seconded by alderman McAteer-Margolis on discussion seeing none all those in favor favor of passage say aye aye all those that's a roll call i'm sorry that's a roll call alderman Boisselle yes yes alderman forbes yes yes alderman yes yes alderman McAteer-Margolis yes yes all the medeiros yes yes salomon mortimer yes yes salomon trematosi yes yes alderman wright alderman circle yes yes um president pro temp inferno yes yes nine years nine yeses that um

▶ 13:17 Peter D. Mortimer: order passes order 2017-44 request to set a public hearing on classification of property for november 28 2016 at 7 30 p.m and subsequently determine the classification of property this order came from the committee without recommendation what is the will of the committee alderman madam president pro temp i make a motion that we adopt a selection of a minimal residential factor of 1.535 that we do not have an open space discount since we have no open space under the law that we do not grant a residential discount and that we do not adopt a granting of a small commercial exemption is there a second point of order you said residential discount do you mean residential exemption that we do not have a residential exemption and that we do

▶ 14:16 Robert A. Boisselle: adopt a minimal residential factor and that that minimal residential factor be 1.535 all right so alderman mortimer has answered the four questions that have been before the board second um on this it's a second by alderman Zwirko on discussion alderman Boisselle just out of curiosity why are we selecting 1.535 when one pi one five two five and one point five three give the same results on the residential aspects of it is there a difference that we we have to look at or we're supposed to suspend the rules you're looking at that's my that's my question you should suspend the rules and bring forward mr we'll call them and we have an assessor our goal is to make a motion to suspend the rules so we can hear from mr will second

▶ 15:10 Robert A. Boisselle: back in the motion second by alderman mortimer all those in favor suspension of the rules say aye all those opposed mr. Wilcock if you could come before us thank you for coming back this evening again answering the question recommended the CIP shift of one point five three five but one point five two five and one point five three represents the same number for all three categories for the residential side and for the commercial side it varies from fifty dollars to seventy dollars difference is is there a reason why one point five three five was selected one point three five I'm sorry one point five three five is where they're balanced it's up to the board to select any of the shifts I just outlined

▶ 16:03 Robert A. Boisselle: where they were balanced with a two point eight percent increase in both the residential and the commercial side it is not a recommendation from the Board of Assessors so in other words in that last column of the full of the fiscal 2017 tax shift option where the change represents the 2.89 is for both groups is that what's that's correct there's a 2.8 change on both the residential and the commercial tax at that that fact in comparison to the others is 2.29 and 2.59 for the other categories that's correct so everyone commercial and residential the average increase will be uh 2.8 percent across the board for both of them on the uh five point uh one point five three five that's correct sir okay thank you

▶ 16:53 Michael P. Zwirko: thank you man thank you madam pro tem um and at first i'd like uh mr wilcox thank you so much for responding quickly with the items that we had asked at the last meeting to provide us with it's very helpful so you know I know some of that information isn't easy to gather and I know that you need us to set this rate in this evening so in doing this analysis it was very helpful because we often talk about communities that are either near us or communities that are similarly situated to us and one of the items that you provided was municipalities in the Commonwealth that have within a certain margin of error commercial tax parcels within the range of Melrose's commercial tax parcels so there's an attachment

▶ 17:48 Michael P. Zwirko: that shows some of the other cities and towns and the only one that I think is somewhat similar or as similar to Melrose is Redding and on that list the one thing that also jumped out at me is that all of the communities the municipal communities have no shift Melrose is the only outlier there and in 2016 our rate was 1.48 for the shift is that correct that's correct the you know you can when you look at the list of communities I believe it's just over 20 and I had stated just a moment ago that reading is the closest reading also is while it is closest it also differs from our community and in many ways as well even though the percentages of the parcels are similar for whatever reason writing has decided to put the burden on the residents versus the commercial

▶ 18:41 Michael P. Zwirko: properties to in their shift something that we've done here historically we have not done here and I also wanted to raise that the at the last meeting I wanted to entertain the possibility of looking for ways that maybe we could reduce the increase of this shift on the residents and after much consideration and much review for a list of reasons I've determined that maintaining a excuse me going with a CIP shift of one point five three five makes the most sense and particularly if you look at the graph that you provided that shows the rate shift options the rate of rise on the commercial side and the factor is enormous per half percentage basis point that it shifts whether it's up or down just giving an example if we were to go to the bottom of the shift on page four

▶ 19:37 Michael P. Zwirko: of your your table at one point four eight the increase would only be that of fifteen dollars to the resident over a calendar year whereas if you were to go another that same amount on the increase to one point five eight the residents would only be saving $25 in the increase whereas for the commercial property there are commercial properties would drop a hundred and ten dollars at one point four eight or they would go up almost double at one point five eight to just over seven hundred dollars per annum the shift whether it's small or not by just half a basis point a full basis point or even ten basis points the factor and the rate of rise is extremely high on the commercial end and furthermore I want to talk about the commercial properties that we have here

▶ 20:32 Michael P. Zwirko: in Melrose because the term small business gets thrown around a lot but if you look at the Small Business Association or the excuse me the Small Business Administration their definition of a small business is a business with 500 employees or less in certain categories I can't think of an employer in the city of Melrose that has 500 employees and furthermore I don't even think we have small businesses we have mom-and-pop shops for most of our downtown our Franklin Square region our Wyoming our Wyoming Street area our Tremont Street corridor we do not have many commercial properties not those that are tax-exempt commercial properties that employ probably over a hundred people I actually can't think of one there may be one but we do not have

▶ 21:16 Michael P. Zwirko: many and many of the businesses that we have whether or not their restaurants nail salons, hardware stores, clothing stores, and even some of our newer businesses, their employees are probably the owner, or at least the owners among one of those employees. I feel like any burden that we, any increase in the shift that we give to the commercial side is actually going to not only hurt the business owners, but it's easier to do this if it's a chain or if it's a nationwide company that's here. And I just think this time, this burden being shared of the rate of increase of 2.8%, both on the residential and the commercial, is fair and equitable across the board. The other comment that I did want to make, and this is something that we're seeing both at the national level and the local level, there is a large feeling of uncertainty out there, given the outcome of the most recent election.

▶ 22:13 Michael P. Zwirko: We have Treasury yields are rising, interest rates most likely will be going up this month by the Federal Reserve, if not certainly soon, if not sooner, and the dollar is getting stronger, which means that our goods being exported will decrease. There is, in my business and the employer that I work for, as well as just a general sentiment, there is a lot of uncertainty that we haven't seen, at least in my lifetime. I mean, even in the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, it might not have been a rosy scenario, but you were certain that the economy was tanking. Right now, we do not know which way this is going to go. I feel that at this time one point five three percent five percent rate is at

▶ 23:02 Gail Infurna: least going to allow stability and some modicum of certainty to our mom-and-pop shops in the Greater Meadows area so I would support that and with that I yield thank you very much at this time I do have two other speakers but it is past eight o'clock and we have a public hearing so could we just recess this order for at this time and if you could just step back mr wilcock and we will begin our public hearing motion to open the public hearing Medeiros makes a motion to open the public hearing seconded by alderman alderman mortimer all those in favor of opening for the public hearing say aye all those opposed we have a public hearing on order number two zero one seven dash four five the petition of a national grid to extend to extend gas main 130 feet of 60 inch plastic to

▶ 23:56 Gail Infurna: serve 85 ferdinand street um is there anybody here from um national grid sir if you would like to sit at the table introduce yourself and tell us um about the order hello my name is jesus call us um represent the national grid sure and this is for our main extension on ferdinand street of 160 feet uh six inch main and it's gonna serve number 85 i they're gonna extend the main to first service from them 85. they had to go on the same side as the existing main is right now okay thank you if you could step back and i want to see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this order is there anybody here this evening for or against this order doctor if you could have a seat sure

▶ 25:00 Gail Infurna: thank you good evening i'm the owner of 85 ferdinand could you state your name and your address please for the record carl henriksen 85 ferdinand melrose mass owner of 85 ferdinand and looking to install nat gas for heat and um home cooking great thank you is there a motion to close the public hearing so alderman mortimer makes a motion to close the public hearing seconded by alderman Boisselle all those in favor of closing public hearings say aye aye aye all those opposed the public hearing is now closed and sir if you could come to the table again and i'm sure the alderman will have some questions for you alderman Tramontozzi as the alderman in ward one the location yes thank you sir uh thank you for coming in um i do represent ward one uh ferdinand

▶ 25:58 John N. Tramontozzi: street is uh in ward one uh the uh the resident at 85 ferdinand street is uh was is here and has um confirmed and requested this uh uh pipeline for to uh serve natural gas to his premises is is 85 the only one on ferdinand street is um that has requested the natural gas yes at this point um the the cost to uh to to bring in the uh the the gas and run the lineup from the gas main is incurred by who is it by the gas company it's i believe usually the customer has paid for some of that yes so customers paid right so um so the uh the cost to the homeowner uh would be uh to run how many feet is that uh 160 i believe is that the closest to to make the connection that's the closest yes because the the main right now with dead ends in front of number 77. right

▶ 27:07 John N. Tramontozzi: for an end is a dead end street up to the top where that is um if there were to be other homeowners wishing to tie in at some later date do they incur additional costs or once the the homeowner of 85 incurs the cost does he get reimbursed i brought that to their attention years ago and um as as far as i'm concerned i mean i've been there 40 years and i believe that if somebody else would would attach to that line they should get the original owner should get something back but doesn't really that doesn't happen um the uh you were just presented with a memorandum dated december 5th 2016 that is from the city engineer have you had the opportunity to look at that i just gave it to her i just okay so it was just

▶ 28:02 John N. Tramontozzi: presented to you right there so what we normally do in these situations we put con conditions on the work uh and as you can see the um it's it's it's standard uh conditions pretty much i don't suspect that the um the national grid would have any problems with this no sir these conditions okay um one uh one question i have is that uh on um number six in the conditions where we talk about payment restoration yes so the pavement restoration is to be accomplished by grinding and inlaying at least one foot beyond the trench area to the nearest edge of the roadway again sometimes standard language the the cost for the restoration and the payment is that also incurred by the homeowner that i'm not too sure of on this particular packet but i'll definitely

▶ 28:57 John N. Tramontozzi: i could find out definitely um maybe if the homeowner can step forward for a minute it you don't think the reason i'm asking that is sometimes we have a seat sometimes we as a board uh request the national grid to sometime repave the street especially if it's a main street because of the heavy traffic uh curb to curb that's not required in this memorandum uh but i am i'm considering doing that however i don't want to assess the cost to the homeowner for curb to curb if that's that's the condition is that the homeowner is going to pay for that do you know do you know if what what the cost that Verizon obstructs like that National Grid has assessed to you do you know what that includes and they're

▶ 29:46 John N. Tramontozzi: comfortable with that up to I don't know if it does curb to curb I know that between Franklin and my property for the the existing six-inch pipe they didn't curb to curb they did um you know just covering the the damage to the road right and that's that's uh they're it's over as far as you can to the uh to the sidewalk area i i see that from the plans and the in in the memorandum is requiring just one foot beyond that back to the edge so um if you're comfortable with the cost incurred in that i will not request additional curb to curb to add additional cost to the homeowner yeah i mean it um was it wasn't mentioned to me to include that what was mentioned was uh the six inch pipe uh 160 feet i noticed on that

▶ 30:41 John N. Tramontozzi: plan there it says one and a half inch pipe not that that makes a significant difference in cost but i'm i'm unaware of having to pave the whole road right okay no all right there's i i would definitely i'll talk to uh supervisor there tomorrow and recommend you know that he shouldn't be charged for it regardless i don't think i i would agree with that i mean if we're going to ask national grid to uh pave and to uh to settle and grind and make good the street and the condition it's in uh now and not to to deteriorate it any further i don't don't think the homeowner should be assessed any of that would you agree with that i agree sir yes all right mr alderman i'm finished at this point you could just follow up with that with um dpw

▶ 31:43 Gail Infurna: and a national grid on that to help out um and did you want to submit this memorandum into yes the time that we are yeah i can make a motion at this time to incorporate the memorandum dated december 5th 2016 into the uh the order second second alleman Tramontozzi makes a motion to um put the memo from december 5th from elena paracas ellis the city engineer into the records that was seconded by alderman mortimer on discussion seeing on all those in favor of submitting this in the order all those opposed this order this memo will be put into the order thank you i'll yield the floor to further discussion okay and i think i had alderman Boisselle followed by alderman mcintyre margolis okay uh the memo indicates 130 feet right uh

▶ 32:35 Robert A. Boisselle: you mentioned 160 is that changed on this one but I'm looking at the print right here it says 130 okay my next question is you are only creating a trench of 130 feet this is not going to be connected to the home according to this plan trench is not no sir that's gonna be a separate trench so you're going to be coming back for a second permit exactly all right I just want to make sure the homeowner's advice should all go on the same permit because it's a main extension in the service but then you're cutting up the street across then yes sir that doesn't show that it's only says proposed right but they I mean that's the only we're gonna get it to this to get the service there so no I'm just trying to clarify according to what you're saying right this permit or this

▶ 33:27 Robert A. Boisselle: diagram doesn't represent what you're considering what's it's proposed right once we get the main in there first and then we come back and do the service form has to go in there first okay so you're not going to do the main and the extension to the is home at this time uh meaning was we're going to get it done as soon as possible before the winter time hopefully but this plan is only showing 130 right 130 feet if you're coming back for another permit to do the 50 feet or 60 feet you're going to need another plan to show that usually when we have a main extension with the service it's all included in the same well this the plan doesn't say that no so what this document is you're showing doesn't represent what you're seeing both of these right here that I had and

▶ 34:24 Robert A. Boisselle: also did the register you should have a register engineer stamp on this on this plant some sort of stamp by the engineer mr. can't own as far as I know it's aware of this okay well at this point excuse me alderman Brazil I mean he still has to go through the city engineer before he starts anything okay well I just want to make everyone aware that what they're saying doesn't represent what you see on this map. It only indicates a 130-foot trench and then a proposed extension. It doesn't say if it's gonna be done next week or a month later or next year. So according to the documentation and from what's being discussed, I can't vote for this. Thank you. Thank you. Alderman McAteer-Margolis. So that was actually a part of my question also.

▶ 35:23 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: The trench is on one side of the street, but the home is on the other side of the street, correct? Yes. Okay, so it appears as though this is not complete. And I don't wanna hold up Mr. Hendrickson, but I think before I vote on it, and as Alderman Boisselle, because that's gonna affect the rest of the paving, because right now the conditions of the memo state that the trench just has to be like within a foot of the repaving has to be within a foot of the side you know with the edge of the street and if you're crossing the street that's kind of a different story you know that's a whole different ball game depending on when that street was originally done over if it was in the last five years and you've

▶ 36:09 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: got to do the whole street and obviously we don't want Mr. Hendrickson to be including you know incurring costs that he's not expecting um how close is this service to the franklin street intersection that i'm not sure it's i'm a little disappointed that you that this is doesn't appear to be a very well um presented plan this evening i don't know if they called you at last minute or that's what happened yesterday yeah yeah so i i would prefer personally need to make a motion to put this on hold until we have some further information I could just draw your attention to item number two on the memo and it shows that the Elena puts here that these records are however lacking in detail and will require verification in the field prior to any excavation it

▶ 37:04 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: is the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that such verification is performed so according to this memo well true you have to report still to our city engineers to tighten up some of the details on it I mean there's nothing in here about public safety if this mr. Hendrickson I'm sure you can tell us where your house is in relation to Franklin Street yeah it's it's it's at the far end of the dead end right next to the conservation so it's quite far away the the main line was put up Ferdinand probably four years ago just before we moved in but I respect all your considerations well I just I you know if it's that's a can be a busy street there in the mornings with people commuting and after school and if in any way the work is going to impact that end

▶ 37:56 Gail Infurna: of the street then we should have something in the memo that refers to you public safety but if it's way at the other end of the street and there's already a line there it's it's at the far end it's at the dead end the line is already i do think that yeah there's already a moratorium on on the mainline insertions in the fall uh so i don't think there's a temporal item number five in the memo public safety yes right so we're on the job site yeah so i think really everything is in this memo um and they still have work to be done but that they can work that out with our department of public works and city engineer so um are you all set thank you mackenzie margolis alderman Medeiros thank you i'm just on discussion too i i would support an

▶ 38:48 Monica C. Medeiros: motion to hold this until we got a more updated plan i think that would really we should be voting on what we're looking on we've had a public hearing on it obviously if people don't realize that's not complete then there's not they may or may not know that that's what they were looking at as we see the homeowner here and this memo did just come out today so i know not all of us have had a chance to look at it thoroughly and certainly not the homeowner not not even national grid and it it might be you know i i would like to see especially where it looks like the homeowner is going to incur some of these costs and we're asking a little bit more than what maybe was anticipated that you have time to to really take a look and see what that cost would be and whether

▶ 39:35 Gail Infurna: or not it really is absolutely something you can before we go and open up the street let's make sure that you know you feel comfortable with what the cost is and that it's actually beneficial to move forward so uh you know for that reason i i would support holding for now what is the will of the committee motion the whole um motion to let's see can we uh refer it to the we actually i believe we need a motion to remove it from the table at this point yeah motion to remove the order from the table second man uh Tramontozzi makes a motion to remove the order from the table seconded by alderman mortimer all those in favor removing the order from the table say aye aye all those opposed the order is removed from the table a motion to return to the table alderman Tramontozzi makes a

▶ 40:27 Gail Infurna: motion to return it to the table second second by alderman MacMaster margolis purposes to get the discussion yeah the purpose is to get clarification and additional um clarification in order from the city engineer and yeah national grid we've concluded a public hearing but i think we uh we'll get national grid back in uh with the city engineer so you're you're making a motion to table it to our next meeting next meeting yeah which would be 19th december 19th and we asked that national grid come back before us at that time right i mean we don't want to delay uh unnecessarily the uh the project but i think in the in the homeowner's best interest in the in the city's interest that we need this clarification all those in favor of the motion to table the order all those opposed

▶ 41:29 Gail Infurna: motion is tabled and we'll see you again on december 19th and i think in the meantime you should meet with city engineers to tighten up some of the questions that the board members had here this evening thank you thank you thank you thank you all right now we will resume order number 217-44 which is a request to um set the public hearing on the classification property um if mr wilcock if you could come forward again and we had uh alderman work or did you finish up on your comments i i i did yield um i i yielded so i have further comments but i'll i'll reserve them for later maybe you can come around again alderman mcintyre margolis thank you um mr wilcox um and i i appreciate also all the work you did in getting

▶ 42:28 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: us all the documents and information um and particularly on the residential exemption that we had discussed that was helpful to know that um you know kind of how that would play out in so far as raising, really raising the rate for pretty much everybody. My question about the rate now is that, as Alderman Boisselle mentioned, if we did the 1.52, which means that the residential percentage is a little higher, but the cost is the same, would assist in lowering the percentage and the increase to the commercial rate would that mean that the tax rate would be higher per thousand it look it doesn't appear as though it would we would still be able to generate the same amount of revenue if we went to a shift of 1.5 to 5 it stays the same as on the

▶ 43:39 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: residential and it and it drops on the commercial that's so are we the assessed values going up we need to still raise the same amount of revenue correct yes the commercial portion of the pie is so small that the residential rate stays the same on three different shift levels and the commercial is impacted roughly $40 each shift that's right so it could in fact help some of our mom-and-pop businesses as alderman's worker was suggesting um without impacting our residents our residential properties correct that's correct right and we'd still be able to raise the same amount of revenue that we're needing to raise it would be slightly less but yes very close it's a rounding issue but we would have enough money to operate that's correct we would okay that was my question thank

▶ 44:30 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WONG. All set? MS. Mm-hmm. CHAIRPERSON WONG. All right. I have Alderman Lemmerman next. MS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilcox, for this additional information, and also you provided some information on some questions that I had earlier in the week, so I appreciate that. With regard to Alderman McAteer-Margolis comments that she just made on Alderman Wiesel, and I know we talked about this a little bit, but just to ask again and confirm for the record last year when we set the tax shift I believe that we did choose to go with within the bracket that the residential rate would be the same but the version of that that put a little less burden on the bit on the commercial

▶ 45:15 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: and that you confirmed that this past fiscal year we have raised the revenue that we needed that doing that in fact played out in the way that we thought it would which is that we were still able to raise the revenue that we needed to operate for the full year is that correct that's correct thank you and I just also wanted to reiterate a request that I made for the record that to the extent possible would like to strongly request that we are able to get this information as early as possible next year to be sort of operating in in a situation where we're making a decision that very directly impacts personal and business budgets and that we have a week to that we have to make a final vote feels very very quick particularly when there's you've been great about getting

▶ 46:04 Jennifer L. Lemmerman: us the information quickly that we need but it's still a fast turnaround to consider these and also that with these four decisions being made simultaneously and some of them actually they're the decision being made has an impact on the analysis of the other decisions being made that if we could get that information in some kind of chronological order that allows us to make that make those analyses in order with the the right information would just be helpful in having this debate for next year thank you if I could just make a comment on that we are at the discretion of the Department of Revenue and unfortunately there's 351 communities I try to get in as fast as possible this process started in August and we're just getting our final numbers

▶ 46:52 Michael P. Zwirko: now we did have a reval this year which pushes it a little further but i do try to get to the the top of the list um and i will try next year also thank you i do i do appreciate that and you know obviously i know it causes you to have to scramble just as much as it causes us to have to scramble so i'm sure you know you would like to do the same so thank you thank you all set uh anybody else for the first time all the ms work over the second yeah i just had one thing that i left out thank you uh madam president pro tem uh that we received correspondence from mayor dolan um i believe on december 2nd i would like to uh make a motion that that correspondence be attached to this order uh for the record second alderman Zwirko is making a motion to

▶ 47:35 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: have the memo from his honor the mayor from december 2nd added to the record seconded by alderman mortimer uh on discussion seeing none all those in favor all those opposed that will be entered into the record i yield my time thank you alderman mcintyre margolis so um i'm just asking for a point of order um president pro tem do we have a motion on the floor now for all four parts of this order we do yes so um i think i would like to make an amendment to that motion to change the um the shift from 1.535 to 1.525 which would 525 which would leave the residential rate still at 1180 with an increase anticipated of 163 dollars and 2.8 percent and the commercial rate would go to 1854 with an increase of 270 dollars which is

▶ 48:47 Peter D. Mortimer: approximately 58 uh 80 dollars less than the um equal shift point of order second oh sorry point of order that's not an amendment that's making a different motion we have a motion on the table for specific number to change the number that i have moved is not an amendment we need to vote on the motion i made first if that fails then another member another number can be profit but to it's not an amendment to change the number there's a motion before us thank you i'll leave that to the discretion of the president so we have a motion um to select the residential factor of 1.535 with no open space discount no residential exemption and no commercial exemption that was made by alderman mortimer and i believe it was seconded

▶ 49:44 Scott M. Forbes: by alderman Boisselle at one point no all those work oh i'm sorry um on any further discussion on that order alderman i have one quick question before we vote and i i appreciate your your patience with me right now um the difference at 1.535 at the 353 dollars for the increase on the commercial side and at the 1.525 that's been proposed by alderman mcintyre margolis at 270. that represents an eighty three dollar swing how much of a difference in revenue does that does that equal as far as what we're collecting it's it's just no I and I apologize for cutting out but when it comes to budget time I know we're always talking about trying to find the right balance and that we only have a certain amount of dollars in revenue and trying to make all these

▶ 50:37 Scott M. Forbes: programs that we're trying to put forward work so if we're actually going be accepting less revenue it does it all even out in the wash because i know with 163 dollars are we talking about rounding dollars and cents and so it's that dollar shift on each side um you know comes out to have these numbers in the brackets that's correct um let me just make two points these are the closest tax rates that we can come up with this in this in this scenario right now they can change by a penny i did note that at the bottom um but you are correct uh it's within a rounding it's roughly thirty thousand we'll never get it exactly we don't have enough decimal points to get it exactly to our maximum levy so there's always money left on the table

▶ 51:24 Scott M. Forbes: every year this is within the normal constraints of that that rounding okay so from these three plans though from what i guess we're looking at 1.525 to 1.535 they all generate basically the same amount of money yes in my opinion yes okay there's no extreme difference about roughly 30 000 at the most is a swing 15 to 30 is is usually what what it is no more not more than 30. okay um i i am in favor of the 1.535 i i honestly feel like we are so the the percentage of residential the commercial is so great in this in this community that i would just assume that we would have a balanced approach if it's 2.8 on the residential side it should be 2.8 on the commercial side um i i honestly feel that that's the best way to go moving forward i understand we could save

▶ 52:15 John N. Tramontozzi: a little bit on the commercial side going down that bracket but i i honestly feel even if it's dollars and cents and it's rounding um i just feel like that the the best way forward would be the balanced approach um that's all i have thank you very much thank you alderman forbes so on the motion to uh accept the tax shift of 1.535 i just have a question i just want clarification here so if if we go if we go with the 1.525 i want assurances that that's by lowering the rate to the to commercial that that's not going to increase the rate for the residential is that an insurance that you can make to us tonight it's it's not going to increase I mean it might swing a penny on both each way when I put the numbers in but it's not gonna ink I mean it's it's gonna be

▶ 53:10 John N. Tramontozzi: within a penny of these numbers well then tell me you know fill my head with knowledge here why would we not go with the 1.5 to 5 and lower the commercial rate if it's not going to affect the residential rate and it's giving a break to the com the commercial mom-and-pop stores am i missing something here that that option is completely up to you uh it's it's at the option of the board which way they go i don't have any formal recommendation okay right but if it's not gonna if but if it's not gonna increase the the residential rate i i see no harm then in going with the 1.525 shift it's just i mean they're mind that the shift is such a minute percentage but it seems to me that you give a you know more of a significant break to a consumer to the commercial

▶ 54:09 John N. Tramontozzi: mom-and-pop stores at the one point five to five now granted right now as all them in them Forbes mentioned it looks the one point five three five gives it the two point eight percent on both sides and that's the balance but But historically, in the past, our shifts have always added a higher percentage to the commercial. So why don't we this year give them a little bit of a break? Make it more in parity if you've taken five, six years. Because the commercial rates have always gone up and always were ahead of the residential rates. So now they're getting an opportunity to provide the commercial mom and pop stores with a little bit of a break. Again, without affecting the residential rate in the residential homeowner.

▶ 55:01 Monica C. Medeiros: Why not? It seems to me like it's a no-brainer. Thank you. Alderman Medeiros. Hi, I think just to sort of answer the question that may have been a little bit rhetorical that Alderman Tramontozzi just asked, why and i think the reason why is to keep that equality between the two in terms of the percentages to be able to tell the homeowners you know we didn't raise your rate any more than we raised the businesses rate and to tell the businesses we didn't raise your rate any your commercial you know any any differently than we did the residential and have it be in fact equal and not that we're giving the businesses a discount now i know you know i mean i know i spoke last week about you know being careful to maintain you know the balance that is

▶ 55:50 Monica C. Medeiros: downtown and it's beautiful and make sure that we're not doing anything that's too harmful at once but at the same time you know i do know that you know that extra you know fifteen or thirty thousand dollars which is basically going to give as a discount now if we go to a lower rate um for commercial than residential in this you know in this just what seems to be discussed here is the difference is going between five point three five and you know and in five point sorry one point one one point five three five and the difference between one point five two five um is that we're in fact giving a discount to the commercial base and you know we we may want to do that um i'm not sure that i want to say give that 15 or 30 000 discount to the commercial i

▶ 56:45 Monica C. Medeiros: know there are some things that we often want that are in that price range that we you know we have uh groups out there in the community like the melrose ed foundation you know really happy that they just raised 22 000 i think and we have you know street signs that we asked for for years and years and years on on howard street and we couldn't get the money that was in you know a lot in less than that range and we finally were able to do it we have narcan that we weren't able to fund in the last budget and we're happy to be able to bring it bring it in but you know that's that difference of you know two thousand dollars or such if we're gonna give somebody a discount i would prefer to give that to the residential side but so i'll support long story short i'll

▶ 57:30 support alderman Mortimer motion thank you all right anybody else for the first time Alderman's work. No, you're also at Alderman's Worker. Alrighty. So we had a motion, uh, for 1.535 that was duly second. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. That's a roll. Oh, that's a roll call. Yeah. Alderman Boisselle. No. No. Alderman Forbes. Yes. Yes. Alderman Lemmerman. No. No. Alderman McAteer-Margolis. No. No. Alderman Medeiros. Yes. Yes. Alderman Mortimer. Yes. Yes. Alderman Famitose. No. No. Alderman Zwirko. Yes. Yes. President Inferna. No. No. So the motion fails. Madam President, I make a motion that we accept a residential classification. I make a motion that we select a minimum residential factor of 1.525, that we not have an open

▶ 58:48 Michael P. Zwirko: space discount, that we not grant a residential discount, and that we do not exercise the granting of a small commercial exemption. Second. Second. Motion was made by Alderman Mortimer for a 1.525, seconded by Alderman Boisselle on further discussion. Alderman Twerko. Thank you, Madam. President Pro Tem. So let me get a little handle on this. Mr. Wilcox, because the size of the parcels within Melrose are so great, at half a basis point of a 1.5 basis point swing, the residential rate on this shift can stay the same but it can decrease or increase for commercial properties and we come out generally within the same under our levy is that correct that's correct right so by going from 1.5 to 5 versus a 1.5 3 5 what we've done is we've reduced essentially $8 a month of

▶ 59:57 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: an increase on commercial taxes and could potentially have brought in our levy below what it may have been had it been at one point five three five is that correct it's gonna be when then that fifty thousand a thirty thousand dollar rounding range yes so there's there is the potential the increased potential for the loss of revenue by shifting from one point five three five to one point five two five is that correct yes thank you Alderman McAteer-Margolis followed by Alderman Forbes thank you thank you mr. Wilcox and I really appreciate my fellow board members analysis on this I do realize that there is a potential potential being the key word maybe for raising a little less revenue however I think our businesses particularly in

▶ 1:00:55 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: this climate right now of uncertainty we want them to know that we value them we want them to know how much we appreciate all they do for our community I would venture to say that there probably are very few businesses that are storefront businesses in Melrose and even many many others that are not storefronts that don't donate more than eight dollars a month to this community and if in any way shape or fashion we can acknowledge that I'm more than willing to do that the past three years we have been very fortunate to have great management and and we have ended up with very large sums of free cash that we have been able to put towards programs that we might not have otherwise been able to fund.

▶ 1:01:42 Scott M. Forbes: I'm confident that the leadership in this building will be able to continue with some of that and any potential loss that we may incur by acknowledging the hard work and the support of our businesses, I hope that we would certainly make up in that area. so I am definitely gonna be supporting this, thank you. Alderman Forbes. Thank you, you said that that was the rounding resulted in a 30,000 to $50,000 potential gap. One five, 15,000 to 30,000. 15,000 to 30,000. That's correct. 15,000 to $30,000 may not sound like a lot of money, but as of two years ago, we couldn't fund Narcan in our budget, which was $1,000. We just funded a commission on women with a budget, think of about two thousand dollars or twenty five hundred dollars i believe that was the number

▶ 1:02:35 Scott M. Forbes: every year there's going to be something that comes up where we're going to need an extra five hundred thousand two thousand dollars in the whole grand scheme of a 75 million dollar budget thirty to fifty thousand dollars is a rounding issue but thirty fifty thousand dollars can do so much in our community downtown is thriving business is doing well people are coming from all different communities to come and shop here we are a destination community I think the shift in that gap doesn't seem like a burden on businesses that are thriving downtown. Whatever the will of the board votes, I respect the dialogue. I think it was a good conversation tonight, and I yield back. Thank you. All right. Alderman Boisselle.

▶ 1:03:23 Robert A. Boisselle: It's interesting that we're talking about money that we don't have. But each year, for five years, starting with $1.5 million to $2.8 million, we had free cash. And we're going to be doing more of this free cash this evening. So for $30,000, I like to keep the small mom and pop shops within Melrose so they can survive too. I mean, it's been a tough year for them. you go door-to-door especially over this holiday fair that we just had they're saying they're just breaking even and this is December of this year so I'm trying to help these people as much as I can so they can stay in Melrose and we can be happy that these shops are here and we can shop at these shops thank you any further discussion seeing none we have now a motion to make a residential

▶ 1:04:27 Gail Infurna: factor of Alderman Medeiros just for clarification this needs eight votes to pass six so we have the minimal residential factor of one point five to five with a no on the space discount no on the residential exemption and no on commercial exemption that was made by alderman mortimer seconded by alderman Boisselle uh seeing no further discussion roll call alderman Boisselle yes yes alderman forbes no no alderman Lemmerman yes yes alderman macatima gomez yes yes alderman Medeiros no no alderman mortimer yes yes alderman Tramontozzi yes yes arvin zirko no no um president tampin ferner yes yes six years let's hear that that order passes thank you very much mr wilcox are coming before us this evening for 2017-42 an appropriation of two million seven hundred forty five thousand six hundred

▶ 1:05:46 forty six dollars forty six cents from available free cash to various accounts is set forth within this order comes from the committee with um recommendation motion for passage matter president program second alderman mortimer makes a motion for passage seconded by alderman Boisselle on discussion seeing none this is a roll call madam clerk alderman roselle yes yes alderman forbes yes yes alderman lemmerman yes he is alderman makati margolis yes he is alderman Medeiros yes he is alderman mortimer yes he is alderman Tramontozzi yes he is alderman Zwirko yes yes and president pro temp inferno yes yes nine years nine years is that order passes voted 2017-41 in appropriation from the ambulance reserve for retained earnings account in the

▶ 1:06:41 amount of sixty eight thousand eight hundred forty eight dollars thirty two cents to ambulance salaried wages and overtime for the recent settlement of the fiscal year 15 and fiscal year 16 contract this order came from the appropriation committee with the recommendation of passage motion for passage alderman mortimer makes a motion for passage second by alderman Boisselle on discussion seeing none roll call madam yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes nine years nine years this motion passes This order passes. Order 2017-40, an appropriation from the ambulance retained earnings account in the amount of $52,610.18 to ambulance salary and wages for the settlement of the fiscal year 17 contract.

▶ 1:07:50 This order comes recommended from the appropriation committee. Motion for passage. Alderman Mortimer makes a motion to pass it, seconded by Alderman Boisselle on discussion. Seeing none, this is a roll call. clerk alderman Boisselle yes yes alderman forbes yes yes alderman lemmerman yes yes alderman makatima goes yes yes alderman Medeiros yes yes alderman watermark yes yes alderman Tramontozzi yes yes alderman Zwirko yes yes president pro temp inferno yes yes nine years nine yeses this orders passed order 2017-39 and appropriation from the contract stabilization account and the amount of 369 520.22 to fire salary and wages and overtime for the settlement of the fiscal year 15 and fiscal year 16 fire contract this order comes from the appropriation committee

▶ 1:08:44 Gail Infurna: with the recommendation of passage motion for passage alderman mortimer makes a motion for passage second by alderman forbes on discussion seeing none madam clerk the roll call alderman Boisselle yes yes alderman forbes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes president pro temp inferno yes yes nine years nine years is that order passes order 2017-50 acceptance of pedestrian access easement at stone ridge heights subdivision off dexter road this order comes from the appropriation committee with the recommendation of passage motion for passage alderman mortimer makes a motion for passage second by alderman Boisselle on discussion see you none madam clerk alderman Boisselle yes yes alderman forbes yes yes

▶ 1:09:42 Gail Infurna: alderman lemmerman yes yes alderman Razi-Thomas gollis yes yes all the medeiros yes yes Solomon Mortimer. Yes. Yes. Solomon Tramatozzi. Yes. Yes. Solomon Zricco. Yes. Yes. President Pro Temp Conferna. Yes. Yes. Nine yes. Nine yeses. That order passes. Order 2017-51, Appointment of Brian M. Donovan, 9 Morgan Street, to the Human Rights Commission to fill the unexpired term of Matthew Hellman, said term to expire on the last day of February 2019. And this order comes from the appropriation committee with a recommendation for passage motion for passage alderman mortimer makes a motion for passage second by alderman Tramontozzi on discussion seeing none um all those in favor all right all those opposed that order passes and mr donovan is

▶ 1:10:35 Gail Infurna: um appointed to the human rights commission motion adjourned madam president all the men mortimer makes a motion to uh adjourn second by alderman's work oh all those in favor adjournment say aye aye all those opposed the board of aldermen on monday december 5th has now adjourned

City Council — 2016-12-05

Attendance

Agenda

Minutes

Transcript

Original documents