Legal & Legislative Committee — 2024-06-10

Legal & Legislative Committee Meeting

This meeting starts at 0:01 in a recording that covers several meetings.

Attendance

Maya Jamaleddine absent; Leila Migliorelli late, 8:22 PM · President, Ex Oficio; John Obremski present; Devin Romanul present · Vice Chair; Kimberly Vandiver present; Ryan Williams present · Chair

Agenda

Minutes

CITY OF MELROSE LEGAL & LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE CALENDAR● JUNE 10, 2024 Council Chamber, First Floor, Melrose City Hall Committee Meeting 7:07 PM 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 The public should take notice that the Melrose City Council may, on certain occasions, have a quorum in attendance due to standing committees of the City Council 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 Ryan Williams Chair Present Devin Romanul Vice Chair Present Kimberly Vandiver Present Maya Jamaleddine Absent John Obremski Present Leila Migliorelli President, Ex Oficio Late 8:22 PM Non voting members present include: Councilor Garipay, Councilor Karamcheti, Councilor Stewart, Councilor Finocchiaro, and Councilor Hamilton.

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

ORDER-2024-39 Amending Revised Ordinances Amending Chapter 228 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Melrose Water, Sewers, and Drains Recommend as Amended City Council City of Melrose Page 1 7/16/2024 12:05 PM

Transcript

▶ 0:01 Ryan Williams: Probably I wouldn't know. Good evening everybody. Today is Monday, June 10th, 2024, and this is a meeting of the Legal and Legislative Committee of the City Council of Melrose. I'm the chair of the committee, Ryan Williams, and I'm joined by voting members councilors, Devin Ramal, counselor John Abramsky, and counselor Kim Vandiver. Uh, and this serves as a notice of a quorum for the record in accordance with Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. Tonight's meeting is being recorded and being broadcast to be our partners at MTV and live streamed on their website@mmtvthree.org. At this time, I will motion by unanimous consent to open public comment and seeing no objections. Public comment is now open for anyone who wants

▶ 0:43 Ryan Williams: to speak from the public. Do we have anybody online? Not At this time. All right. We got nobody in the room, uh, from the general public, so, so a motion by unanimous consent to close public comment. And I see no objections to that. So public comment is now closed. Okay. So we have, uh, two, we have an ordinance in an order before us tonight. Um, they are about amending the, uh, trash ordinance and the, uh, drain ordinance. The first is ordinance 2024 dash four, amending melrose's Revised ordinances, chapter 1 98, section 1 98 dash two, dumping obstructing sidewalks, placement of refuse containers, and section 1 98 dash three ashes and rubbish yard waste metal goods and collection fees. Uh, a motion by unanimous consent to suspend Rule 37 B

▶ 1:39 so we can hear from city representatives no objections. Rule 37 B is suspended, so please go ahead. Good, good evening. Thank you very much for having us here tonight. We're happy to present this proposal to the amend, the Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance, chapter 1 98. Uh, the memo in your packet is fairly self-explanatory and fairly straightforward for the most part. This is housekeeping, so that we will be compliant with the new trash contract, which requires the automated toters, which the city is providing to the residents, one of each 64 gallon, as well as, uh, the service that we are, uh, proposing as part of the new contract. This is, again, a housekeeping, uh, amendment to this ordinance so that we are compliant with the services

▶ 2:28 that we are delivering. Um, and also fear consideration is an alternative to the barrels and the waste. Currently, the ordinance only allows for litted receptacles. Uh, most of the feedback that we have gotten from residents has a, has been for a wish for them to have a alternative other than an additional barrel of trash and or recycling. Uh, so in front of you is a proposal for overflow bags, and here I have an example of the, an overflow bag. How this program would work is these bags would be available at designated retailers throughout the city, for the most part, whole Foods, CVS, Walgreens, some of the other, uh, small mom and pop stores throughout the city. They'd be available to the residents

▶ 3:19 and rolls typically of five, and they would probably come for approximate cost of about $10. The goal of this alternative is to provide, uh, far more economic opportunity, uh, for the residents to handle overflow trash for the most part. Uh, residents will see that they'll, uh, be sufficient room in their barrels for 64 gallon trash each week, and to avoid the additional cost for the barrels, which is $70 for the barrel, $150 a year for the service. This allows them to handle those one-offs, parties, holidays, things like that throughout the year that they may only need these a couple times a year. It's a far more economic option, and one that we will work to make sure that we're compliant not only with health regulations,

▶ 4:04 Kimberly Vandiver: but also compliant with the contract and the services that Cosella will be delivering. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for your time tonight. Okay. Thank you. Questions from voting members? Uh, Councillor Vandiver. Thank you. Uh, so at this section of the discussion is just about the proposed, We can, we can take the discussion in any direction that we want to. If you want to talk about the litted bag issue at the moment, we can start there. Okay. So, um, just around the, the extra bag issue, um, I guess two questions. Um, one, what's the proposed volume of those bags compared to the volume of a barrel? Sure. So, uh, on this will be something like the city seal, and there'll be instructions not

▶ 4:54 Kimberly Vandiver: to exceed 25 pounds for the bag. So there really is no volume. Uh, basically the cost of the bag is going to be one which covers our disposal. Coello will be stopping, and that cost is a fixed cost to stop at the residence. This is gonna help cover the cost of the disposing, the additional tonnage, uh, outside of that 64 gallon receptacle on a week to week basis. That makes sense. So the fixed cost of, of the stop, so I just did the math, um, and a tip, if we divide the trash fee out for the year, it's $8 per week to have the barrel. Um, but a approximately, but, um, but this would be $2 for one of these extra bags, but, but that's because we're already, this truck is already stopping and the additional, all we're paying

▶ 5:41 Kimberly Vandiver: for is the additional disposal as opposed to, um Right. The, the cost to dispose of the tonnage of that specific bag. Right. Okay. And, um, and then the second thing I just wanted to, to clarify that I, I read was in the proposal is that these bags due to issues with rodents or, or anything like that, the proposal, the language that you've given us is that, um, residents would need to wait until 5:00 AM the morning of trash pickup to put those bags out so that they wouldn't be Yeah, I, I think it's fair to say that we are looking for the counsel to guide us on amending to allow for these bags, and any language that would help with those type of issues is also will be well received and considered.

▶ 6:23 Kimberly Vandiver: Great. The draft language that we did put in the packet though, does include that 5:00 AM provision that you have to wait until that morning at five or after. Yeah, I, I'm glad to see that concern being addressed because there's certainly, you know, people do have, um, issues with rodents. Um, at the same time, you know, I'm not sure what the earliest time the truck would arrive is, but people would need to hit that window then between 5:00 AM and seven. Seven. Yeah. Um, so that might be a little bit tricky for people. Um, but um, as long as it's something they're doing a few times a year, maybe it wouldn't be a huge burden. So I see why you, um, structured that part that way. Yeah, And they also have the option

▶ 7:02 of purchasing a second barrel. So if it's somebody who thinks this is gonna be a routine problem, then they would be more probably geared toward the extra barrel. Whereas these are great for, you know, you're having a party or you have, you know, a short period of time when you have two kids in diapers and then your trash is maybe a little more than it was before, but that's only gonna be for a period of months or so. And then you don't wanna assume the whole fee and the extra barrel. Um, that's more the case that these come in handy. That makes sense. Thank you. Okay. Um, and I have Councillor PREMs cube, but I remembered that I neglected to mention the non-voting counselors that are joining us tonight, which are Councilor Mark Repe,

▶ 7:43 councilor Man, Carrum Chetty, councilor Kario, and Councilor Rob Stewart for the record. Thank you. Um, and now voting member counselor, John Kremsky. How mu how much of the bags gonna be a piece So that, that exact number will work out? Alright. It would probably be a roll of five available at the designated retailers Right. For about $10. Alright. And then, uh, how much is an additional barrel? Do, do we have that figured out yet? So The additional barrel will be a onetime cost to, uh, we, we are on, we're paying for the initial barrels. The additional barrels will be $70 and then that's a onetime charge. And then to cover the additional tonnage will be $150. That cost will show up on the, uh,

▶ 8:24 Devin Romanul: on the bills when they come to the Residence. 150 each year, right? Correct. Alright, thank you. Voting member Devin Ramu, council Ramu. Um, thanks so much for the proposal. And forgive me if this is a stupid question, but would it be possible, um, I'm just trying to see if we can circle the square of like leaving out a bag of trash when we have rodent problems. Could people theoretically use, purchase those bags but place them in already existing barrels that they have? Or would that just be confusing and create, you know, um, Honestly, it's already got one that would cause probably a little bit of confusion. Sure. 'cause it would go against our contractors picking up the city issued barrels.

▶ 9:01 Right. So if these are gonna be placed inside one that's not necessarily compliant with the contract, they're not gonna be able to see them. The intent here is to have clearly identifiable mark identifiable markings on the bag. So the contractor knows that these are city of Melrose, they're authorized to been purchased Yeah. And should be picked up at per the terms of their contract, Rather than popping it open and seeing surprise not a bag. Yeah. With the automated pickup, the idea is that the driver most of the time is not getting out of the truck. Right. And so if the driver has to get out every time there's a barrel to check what's in the barrel, see if it's one of these bags, I think that would add a lot of extra time

▶ 9:39 Cal Finocchiaro: and, and inconvenience. That's a fair point. Alright. Well, and, and just one other thing. I think it's fair to assume we'll see these bags, these bags will be seen out there, but they obviously will also be identifiable and allow for the hauler to get out of the truck and pick them up. Great. Okay. Uh, in queue. I have non-voting member counselor Occhio. Thank you. You're welcome. Um, thank you for putting this together. Um, I think the bags are important because I just, from hearing residents speaking, they're just concerned they don't wanna buy an extra barrel because they don't need it all the time. So I think this is a great way to go. I'm a little concerned that people aren't gonna pay

▶ 10:19 attention to the 5:00 AM rule. Um, and I know you guys have a, like a violation, like a fee. Is that something that the DPW will monitor? Like how is that gonna So, I mean, I don't, can't pick it up in terms in terms of, uh, violations. Um, we'd have to pretty much target the enforcement there. The DPW does not have the tools to write Right. Code enforcement tickets. So what we would have to do is we would've to identify locations, pass that on to, uh, health Mm-Hmm. Who would then, uh, write, write the Yeah. Would be the hell to run. Okay. Great. Well, like I said, I think this is a great idea and something, an option that we have to give, um, for people. Like, I know myself, parties, Christmas, stuff like that,

▶ 10:59 you'll even, even if you have two barrels, you know, so anyways. Well, thank you. Okay. Uh, non-voting member Councilor Repe. Thank you. Um, I think I answered my question. All right. As I was thinking through this, if we, we now have an opt out, right? That's gonna be in there. So if, if someone doesn't want to take advantage of our trash, um, they can opt out, but they can't just go buy bags. Correct. And how are we gonna enforce that? The bags would have to be with one of our barrels with, you know, with the Melrose emblem on them, one of our compliant barrels, meaning that they're somebody who's paying a fee. I fully recognize that someone could put a barrel out by their, a bag out by their neighbor's barrel.

▶ 11:42 Mark Garipay: But I think, you know, if, I don't think we'd see a lot of that, and if we were concerned with that, we could always, you know, contact the homeowner and, and follow up and say that we have to start charging them a trash fee. Not looking to complicate this, but we've had a number of calls, uh, or I, I have, we've had, that's kind of the opt out, um, language that we, we, we, we did some research on, but if I worry about seniors, they have one bag of trash, they tough to navigate the whole barrel. So as this evolves, maybe down the road, maybe there's a solution that we can come up for seniors, um, that only produce one bag or half a bag, you know, Every week. Yeah. We're, we're also gonna look into, we,

▶ 12:28 we've told people that if they have a real hardship, um, you know, test out the 64 gallon toters, a lot of people end up finding them fairly manageable, more so than expected. But if they have a real hardship, once we really get going with the program, we will look into, can we provide a smaller barrel in a hardship case. Um, you know, we, we don't want anyone to not be able to get their trash out to the curb. So we're open to to that. If I could counselor, uh, I, I probably failed to, I probably glossed over it in terms of the ordinance language, but you brought up a great point that there is opt out language in here. So if the resident, uh, would like to opt out of the trash program, as long

▶ 13:08 as they meet certain requirements and prove that they are getting an alternative in terms of their trash pickup, they have the ability to opt out of this program. And that's in this ordinance, again, a matter of housekeeping, but one that we've not, uh, explored or proposed before. And just for clarification on the opt out, 'cause we've, I've had an, uh, quite a few residents that have called on that. Is it an annual thing, uh, once they opt out? Do they have to opt out every year? Or is it they're out for till they decide they want to come? It, it could go either way with that. Uh, I think we would want to verify, uh, every year, uh, to make sure that they certify that they continue to wanna opt out of this program.

▶ 13:48 Manjula Karamcheti: But a lot of that onus is gonna be on the homeowner, uh, to let us know that they would no longer like to opt out of there, that they'd like to resubscribe to, to this service. So a lot of the onus of that would fall on the homeowner, but it's something that we have the capacity to look up, similar to we do, uh, some of the water and sewer discounts that are available to people every year. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Non-voting member councilor Kim Chaney. Hi. How's it going? Um, very simple clarifying question. If I'm understanding correctly, the bags are in addition to if a resident wanted to buy another barrel. So really what you are proposing are a variety of options to meet the needs of the diversity

▶ 14:29 Robb Stewart: of our residents, correct? Correct. Okay. Correct. Great. Thank you. Non-voting member Councilor Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Mr. Chair. I think, um, there's been some good points brought up here. The, the, the one question that was brought to me was, uh, if a multifamily that has very few residents in it, uh, by default gets a barrel for each of the units in that multifamily and it's, uh, recognized that they really don't need that capacity, um, that that opt out program will be sufficient enough for them to return, uh, one set of the barrels. Um, so in, uh, Mr. Troupe's comment on whether we want to have that annually or, uh, continually, like once you opt out, I think it might make sense

▶ 15:26 Robb Stewart: that if there's a change in red in ownership, that by default they'll get barrels. And I'm sure there's a way to recognize that. But then if somebody opts out, they're opted out until they determine that they come back. That would be my suggestion, Mr. Chair. Hmm. Uh, the other comment that I wanted to bring to the floor and uh, is the question of the, the refuse bags. Um, I do have concern about the 5:00 AM um, for two reasons. One is I think for certain individuals it will be difficult 'cause, you know, people that, kids, they have work early, blah, blah, blah. Um, and the other is, uh, to, I believe it was cons, um, RA's point in that people will ignore it and they'll put out all their trash the night

▶ 16:18 Robb Stewart: before like they always had done, and they always will. So, uh, I think that's an area that we need to have flexibility on. Uh, and not maybe a hard and fast, uh, we can state this, but I think there needs to be an understanding that these situations are gonna occur. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sure. And I'd like to, um, anybody for the second time voting members, I'd like to ask for a motion by unanimous consent to suspend Rule 21 C so that I can ask some questions of my own. So moved. No, well you don't have to move it 'cause I asked by unanimous consent. Oh, apologies. Thank you for your apologies. Support. Apologies. I was still moved by your motion. Yeah, I appreciate, I appreciate it. I really appreciate it.

▶ 16:58 Ryan Williams: So, so I think that passes. Um, so I have a couple of points that I wanna run through. Um, first I just wanna acknowledge that this city council kind of really ran itself through the ringer about trash bags in the street a couple of years ago because everybody was talking about rats. Um, and, and you know, we put a big change on the residence for everybody to go pick up a trash barrel. Um, and now of course, we're asking them to get rid of their trash barrels, myself included. Um, and I understand that that's because the, the program's changed. Um, but, you know, to then go fully back to, okay, now buy a bag of trash and leave it on the ground, it's, it's, it's tricky for me. However, I also understand the, the problem

▶ 17:42 Ryan Williams: that we're trying to solve for the break point that I see with this is if you have basically more than two of these orange bags a week, it's more cost effective for you to buy a new trash barrel and have that, um, have that rolled out. And I hope that people see that not everybody will, some people will just go to the store and buy a bag of a pack of bags and dump 10 bags of trash on their sidewalk every, um, every week. But, you know, um, but I, but I can see it. But I just wanted to kinda give voice, voice to this because it feels in a weird way, like a step backwards. And I hope that the department and, and Sela will help us monitor this. You know, if the driver is seeing a household that's got 5, 6, 7 orange bags every single week,

▶ 18:23 Ryan Williams: like somebody needs to have a conversation with that resident about the cost they're incurring, um, to help them make a, make a good financial decision. Um, um, and, um, I also wanted to ask a question about the memo. Excuse me. The memo says the EBW has reached out to was Zero to discuss their ability to provide the bags waste Zero. Is this contractor that's also doing the cart assembly and rollout? No, That's a different company. Okay. This is a company that specializes in, uh, alternatives. Okay. And one of the alternatives is they have a list of customers throughout Massachusetts, throughout the comp country where they provide, uh, city specific town specific bags. So they're a vendor that provides the bags to the city.

▶ 19:07 Ryan Williams: Okay. Alright. So we buy the bags from them and then they go into like Shaw's or wherever city hall. Yeah. It's actually a zero cost for the city. Yeah. Because the, uh, designated retailer would pay for the bags and, uh, yeah. We, we would not be writing purchase orders for that. Okay. Um, now I also wanted to, uh, have a discussion about two other areas of the ordinance, uh, with, with my fellow counselors here. Um, the first is that I would seek to make a really simple line item amendment of this language where, uh, there are frequent references to placing trash on the sidewalk. Uh, the ordinance is very clear in section 1 98 dash two that in section A it says, no person shall put or place

▶ 19:58 Ryan Williams: or cost to be put or placed in street lane alley or any other place, public or private. Ashes dirt refuse. Uh, it goes on to say no person shall place on any sidewalk, foot walk or crosswalk any object that interferes with a convenient use by people traveling there. On this basically says, don't put your trash barrels on the sidewalk if you don't have to, if you can help it. Right. That's fair. Um, the proposed amendment in ordinance, uh, 2024 dash four in one B of the agenda, um, makes a couple of, uh, makes a couple of statements in the language about the, uh, about placing these things on the sidewalk. And if you excuse me, I just gotta grab my email here. Um, And so I would entertain a motion

▶ 20:59 Ryan Williams: by a counselor to revise section E of 1 98 dash two to say, refuse receptacles placed on the sidewalk shall be placed in a way that does not obstruct or interfere with use by pedestrians, if applicable, otherwise shall be placed on the edge of the public way in front of the household's property. This is language that I've, uh, passed through the city solicitor, and we feel that it strikes a good compromise with not overburdening the ordinance language. Uh, to be potentially red is allowing for garbage barrels to be placed on the sidewalk. It basically says that you should put it, if you do have to put it on the sidewalk, you should put it in a place that doesn't interfere with the use by pedestrians.

▶ 21:56 Ryan Williams: Would you mind just repeating that Sure. Amendment one more time? Yep. So it is in section 1 98 dash two, section revised section E, which is in the, um, it's one of the revisions that's being suggested here. Um, to amend that to say, refuse receptacles placed on the sidewalk shall be placed in a way that does not obstruct or interfere with use by pedestrians, if applicable, otherwise shall be placed if applicable, meaning if you have a sidewalk, otherwise shall be placed on the edge of the public way in front of the household's property. So it says, if you have to put it on the sidewalk, put it somewhere where it's not in the way of pedestrians. If you don't have a sidewalk, put it in the street as close

▶ 22:52 Kimberly Vandiver: to the edge of your property as possible. So it's not to be in the road. Can you clarify, um, compared to what I see in e now, in, uh, in our meeting agenda, I see the original text. I see the red line text is what you are proposing. Is this a replacement for the entire or replacement for the red line or an addition? I am just double checking the, uh, the, um, the ordinance. It's just the red. Um, so, so for example, right now in the red line, it mentions in accordance with the requirements of the hauler for automated pickup. I don't, is that something we're keeping? Yes, you're correct. Yeah. Thank you. Language. Yeah. So in addition to, in addition to the text that's currently in the, um, requested amendment for

▶ 23:59 Ryan Williams: three B, which is refuse receptacles placed on the curb by 7:00 AM um, we're gonna, we're gonna do this, we're gonna strike, um, shall be removed from the sidewalk, and we're just going to, we're just gonna say shall be removed, we're gonna strike from the sidewalk. And, um, in between collection and receptacles, we're gonna introduce the language. Refuse receptacles placed on the sidewalk shall be placed in a way that does not obstruct or interfere with use by pedestrians, if applicable, otherwise shall be placed on the edge of the public way in front of the household's property. Okay. Understood. Uh, I would like to make the motion to, uh, revise the language as you've described. Second. And, okay. May I ask a,

▶ 24:57 Ryan Williams: So we have a motion to revise the language as described, and I'm gonna work with Mr. Gabriel to make sure that we have this right, um, and that it follows the intended intention of the amendment. Um, we have a, uh, amendment motion by Councilor Vandiver, seconded by Counselor Ramal. And may I ask a question Before I Yeah. On discussion. Oh, thank you. Um, I just wanted to get a sense of how you feel about that amendment, about how the implications for implementation with the vendor. Um, just wanna make sure we're not complicating your lives unnecessarily. My only question about it is the, the language that Councillor Williams read at the beginning is still incorporated in the ordinance. We're not changing it. So we have no person shall place

▶ 25:48 or cause to be placed on any sidewalk, foot walk or crosswalk, any object whatsoever, so as to interfere with the convenient use of same by any person traveling there on this shall not apply to building materials placed by permission of the city engineer. Um, so I guess I don't entirely understand what this does that that doesn't already do, but short of that, I'm not sure that I, I don't think it changes anything really, so I don't have a problem with it. If it's not in conflict with B, there's no issue at all. Okay. Good. You wanna ask a question? Is can I ask a question? Sure. On discussion. So I feel like what I'm looking at is that language is different from what I'm reading Under E that language is under B item B Oh,

▶ 26:36 Sorry. Mm-Hmm. You were reading under B. Okay. Yeah. In the same, in 1 1 98 dash two item B. And I guess the one thing I would add that I can see that, that Councilor Williams, uh, or Chair Williams' change does do is the shall be removed from the sidewalk. You know, maybe isn't good wording could just be shall be removed or, yeah. Um, so I, that is, I guess one thing that it does definitively change, but, um, otherwise it seems to have the same intent as B. Okay. If there are no other questions on discussion, uh, let's take a roll call. Vote ordinance. Amend. This is the amendment. We're not finished with the trash ordinance. It's just this one Amendment. Vice chair. Ramal? Yes. Councillor Brosky. Yes.

▶ 27:31 Ryan Williams: Councillor Vandiver. Yes. And Chair Williams? Yes. That motion passes unanimously. Okay. Um, so we passed that amendment. Um, the other amendment that is requested is contained in section. Just make sure I got this exactly right here. Aha. In the agenda, it's in item one C and the requested. So I would seek a motion to amend 1 98 2. Let's take this in order. I'll seek a motion to amend 1 98 2 and three as presented in the, um, agenda packet, which reads 1 98 dash two C will say, in addition to city issued receptacles, residents may also use approved overflow bags in accordance with the guidelines of the solid waste and recycling program. Such overflow bags will be made available for purchase at designated retailers

▶ 28:31 Ryan Williams: and locations throughout the city. And, excuse me. And as defined and published on the city website, residents are not permitted to place any items in any items for curbside pickup in bags. Aside from the approved overflow bags. Overflow bags shall not be placed curbside until after 5:00 AM on the scheduled pickup day 1 98 dash 2D, after which may be placed curbside and before under city sponsored source add in approved overflow bags, or this is very kind of belabored, but it, I wanna read it into the record. Um, 1 98 dash three B replace city issued receptacles only with only city issued receptacles or approved overflow bags. So we have, um, the amendments presented by the city that seek to introduce the overflow bag program

▶ 29:21 Ryan Williams: and make small alterations to the, um, ordinance in a few places so that the language doesn't conflict with that intention. So the motion on the floor, uh, that I would be seeking is a motion to amend ordinance 1 92, I'm sorry, 1 98 dash two CDNB as presented in the, um, public agenda Item one C. Can we ask a question of the, uh, I guess absolutely. Ask a similar question of mine one Before Council Councilor Ruminal? Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um, would love your opinion, how you feel like it changed implementation, or it's just a helpful clarification to your initial This, this, this request allows for overflow banks. It's one that was not considered as part of the initial order, and one

▶ 30:11 that we're seeking your guidance as an alternative to offer to our residents. We are in, we are in full support of, uh, a counselor making this motion and to add this to the ordinance. Great. Alright. So moved. Okay. Uh, motion, uh, introduced by Councilor Romanul. I'll second it. I I'll second it. Okay. Second it by Councillor Vandiver, Vice Chair Romanul? Yes. Councillor Broski. Yes. Councillor Vandiver. Yes. And Chair Williams? Yes. This Motion passes unanimously as well. Okay. So we've got two amendments to this ordinance under wraps. Are there any other discussion items or questions from counselors? Councillor Vandiver? Um, so I wanted to address also within, um, this area, although not, um, part of the proposals, uh,

▶ 31:07 Kimberly Vandiver: the line item changes proposed to us so far. Um, when we look at me, scroll back to the correct place. Uh, so in, uh, 1 98 dash three, um, and I believe we're under H as it I currently exists, uh, in the red line. Um, and section three, the section is, uh, called discount and it addresses different cases in which, um, somebody may exclude it, be excluded from part or all of the trash and recycling fee. Um, right now we're, we're looking at, um, approximately doubling the amount that residents need to pay for their trash and recycling program. Um, and looking back in the record, we have not revised the hardship rates for the past nine years. Um, and this is something that's also been discussed, um,

▶ 32:12 Kimberly Vandiver: throughout, at least the past six months, um, since we've been talking about this new trash and recycling program. Um, that, you know, the, the increased fees alongside other increasing costs may present a real challenge for certain residents. Um, and so I would like to pro propose an amendment to this section. Um, I, I would also in the future like to, to see this fully reconciled with other town in the area reconciled with the water program, um, further adjusted to, to be better. But I think that we can make some adjustments right now that are a good first step, um, and that will, uh, help people out going into this new program who are at that, those lower limits. Um, so with that said, the proposals,

▶ 33:06 Kimberly Vandiver: the specific proposals I would like to make, um, are, uh, in, in that same section in part A, uh, there's a 50% discount on the fee that's only applicable to senior citizens with an income of 65,870 for a single or 75,280 for married couples. Um, I'd like to remove the language, senior CI citizen and, uh, 65 years or older and replace with resident of Melrose. The reason that I think this would be a good change is that for any non-senior citizen who meets those income thresholds, this would effectively keep their fee unchanged because the fee is doubling. They would get the 50% discount. Um, and this would at least provide some mitigation of that for them. Um, and then on the next section, section B hardship cases.

▶ 34:12 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, I would like to revise the language, uh, and, uh, I'll, I'll just read what I think the, the final version would be because it's a number of deletions and additions. Um, but the, the intent of this one would be to, over the course of two years, increase the threshold there, um, which will give us time to have a first step forward if things seem to be going well, allow that further increase to take place. And if not, um, or if another more comprehensive process takes place within the last, the next year, we could, we could revise this again. Um, so what I would like that section about the 100% trash discount to read is effective July 1st, 2024. Any resident of Melrose who owns and occupies a single family home

▶ 35:03 Kimberly Vandiver: or condominium with an income of 60, uh, sorry, with a, uh, with an income of $45,000 or less for a single person, $50,000 or less for married couples will be eligible for a 100% discount for this fee. And effective July 1st, 2025, any resident of Melrose who owns an occupies a single family home or condominium with an income of 55,000 or less for a single person, 65,000 or less remarried couples will be eligible for 100% discount on this fee. Um, and the last thing I would mention, uh, with respect to those amendments is that we should keep in mind that when we're talking about these income limits, we're talking about non-senior homeowners in Melrose. And so, I, I really don't think that there are very many

▶ 35:49 Kimberly Vandiver: of these people who are able to afford a home in Melrose and live in Melrose and make, you know, essentially approximately, um, in the neighborhood of a little over minimum wage depending on which, which threshold we're talking about and if they're married or not. Um, I, you know, I think this is going to be relatively few people that we'll see impacted by the change, but that for those people, it would make a big difference. So, uh, happy to repeat any of that, because that was a lot of detail, but that is my proposal for amendments to both A and B. Thank you Councillor Vandiver. Um, right now as a point of order, we have to open the finance committee meeting because it's almost at the half hour limit from seven 15.

▶ 40:13 Kimberly Vandiver: and a hundred percent discount. They're already allowed to participate in the a hundred percent discount and to raise the income thresholds roughly, Uh, To what Councilor Vanderberg To raise the income thresholds, uh, for the 100% discount, um, this year from 35,000 to 45,000 for a single person and from 40,000 to 50,000 for married couples. So an increase of 10,000 to each of those rates. Um, and then in the following year, unless we, uh, make any other decision before that, um, to 55,060 5,000, um, so another 10,000 for single and 15,000 for, um, married couples. And that would bring, um, that would slowly over two years bring our rates up to what is currently considered the very low income threshold according to hud.

▶ 41:16 Kimberly Vandiver: So, um, that would bring us, in my mind, closer to where we'd like to be after not raising these, um, limits for the last nine years. I'd like to second that motion. Well, she hasn't made a motion yet. Oh, I thought she phrased it in the form of a motion you would want. I'm really on the ball tonight. The format is you will motion to amend the ordinance and then you wanna read the section in the text. Okay. I, I, uh, I motion to amend, um, 1 98 dash two H three, um, A and B, um, such that they read section A effective July 1st, 2024. Any resident of Melrose who owns and occupies a single family home or condominium with an income of $65,870 or less for a single person, $75,000, $280 or less for married couples will be eligible

▶ 42:15 Kimberly Vandiver: for a 50% discount for this fee. Uh, section B effective July 1st, 2024. Any resident of Melrose who owns and occupies a single family home or condominium with an income of $45,000 or less for a single person, $50,000 or less for married couples will be eligible for a 100% discount for this fee effective July 1st, 2025. Any resident of Melrose who owns and occupies a single family home or condominium with an income of $55,000 or less for a single person, $65,000 or less for married couples will be eligible for a 100% discount for this fee. Okay. The motion introduced to amend as discussed by Councillor Vandiver second. Okay. Seconded by Councillor Ryan. Um, and on discussion I want to ask administration couple questions.

▶ 43:03 Ryan Williams: The folks from DPW, how many people are currently using the low income and the Senior Citizen Trash discount program in Melrose? So we did include in the packet a summary sheet. We have, uh, 97 households receiving the a hundred percent discount. So that's, um, income based, not necessarily senior citizen, but can be senior citizen. We have another 107 households that are, could they qualify for the 50% discount where you have to be a senior citizen? Okay. Um, so what we are, Oh, excuse me. Three additional who are not senior citizens who qualify for the a hundred percent. So 207 total. Sorry. Okay. Um, so it's fair to say that increasing the income thresholds for this will add some people into the program, correct?

▶ 43:56 Ryan Williams: We don't know how many Correct. We can amend the ordinance again if we want to, if we suddenly find that it's, IM balancing the, the, the rate, Well, we have to set a fee that, you know, now that we're going, now that we've gone toward an enterprise fund for the solid waste recycling for the curbside program, we have to set a fee now that will allow that fund to operate in the black for fiscal 25. So, um, yes, we could amend and amend again, but we don't wanna keep changing the fee on people. And sure, we do have to start assessing that fee starting in the August bills. So we could, we could assess the fee and if we get into a position where we start to see the revenue dipping, we could do, um,

▶ 44:50 Ryan Williams: we could either do a cash transfer if it exists, or, um, we could at that time recommend the ordinance to bring, um, the program into alignment or discuss at that time what the rate might look like. It might go up five, $10 a person, it might go up more. We just, we don't know. Yes. Yeah. What that might be. Um, okay. Um, Alright. I'm inclined to support the amendment, um, with the caution that I know that you'll be watching it very carefully and if there seems to be, um, a real concern with regard to the management of the program with additional, um, users brought in for the fee. I heard counselor repay and others talking about people wanting to opt out of the trash program entirely with the cost increase.

▶ 45:46 Ryan Williams: And I find it to be kind of a lesser of two evils from the management perspective, um, of the enterprise funds to have people take a discount rather than try to opt out. Um, and I also know that as the, you know, representatives of the community who knock on all the doors that, you know, this is a, this is an issue that people are asking us about. Um, and there's a number of people that I've heard from where they almost meet the income thresholds, but not quite. Um, and I think when you look at inflation, the dollar amounts proposed are, are reasonable. So I, I do wanna point out that the current levels are also matching the levels in our water and sewer discount programs. And so administratively we've, you know,

▶ 46:33 we've been evaluating for these levels to be equivalent for many years. It's a lot of administrative work for our water and sewer billing administrator. Um, it would be very challenging to change the levels in one program and leave them the same in the other program. And I would just caution that the same impact we just discussed to the, uh, trash fee would be an even greater impact to the, to the way the water and sewer model is run. And so we would be left with either two separate fee, two separate discount programs for the two programs, or water and sewer fees that we've just, um, approved at a recent meeting not being sufficient to fully fund the water and sewer enterprise funds. Okay. I think it's a valid concern.

▶ 47:22 Ryan Williams: Let's check in on it, as you know, as we continue in these discussions and throughout the year. Okay. Roll Vice chair Romanul. Yes. Councillor Bruski. Yes. Councillor Vandiver. Yes. And Chair Williams? Yes. That motion passes. Um, okay. So we have passed three amendments. We've changed the discount program, we've added the BAG program, and we have made a very minor change to the language around sidewalks. Um, lemme just look at this agenda and make sure, um, now we should vote. I'll entertain a motion to move this to the full counsel with a recommendation for passage as amended. So move Second. Okay. That motion is introduced by Councilor Romanul and seconded by Councilor Van Devin. Full roll please.

▶ 48:23 Ryan Williams: Vice Chair Romanul? Yes. Councillor Brosky. Yes. Councillor Ver. Yes. Chair Williams? Yes. Uh, motion passes unanimously. Okay. Um, what do we have left? How many minutes do we have? We have four minutes. Four minutes. Okay. Um, we are gonna have to recess and go into the, uh, the finance, the finance committee meeting, Finance, and the well, A and l ions. We have to do finance first, don't we? Well, we'll have to go to a and O first for public comment. Okay. And then come back. All right. Okay. Alright. All right. Motion to recess. Out of legal legislative, uh, I will entertain a motion to recess, move legislative. Second. Thank you. Uh, motion made by Councilor Vandiver, seconded by Councillor Romanul.

▶ 1:12:52 Ryan Williams: counselor Cal fro and, uh, Councillor Mark Repe. Okay. So we have one more item on the legal and Legislative Committee meeting, which is order 2024 dash 39 amending chapter 2 28 of the revised ordinances of the City of Melrose Water Sewers and Drains. As a reminder, we're still operating under suspension of Rule 37 B and 21 CAKA, allowing free discussion between, um, attendees and the council, and also allowing the chair to speak on, uh, matters. Um, take it away. Thank you. Um, so in your packet, you have a memo from the, uh, water and Sewer Rate Committee. Um, Uh, let's see. Just making sure I'm in the right memo here. So, along with the water and sewer rates that we discussed at the, um, meeting,

▶ 1:13:50 the rate hearing last Monday, uh, the water and Sewer rate Committee had, uh, recommendations for ordinance changes in chapter 2 28, which is the water, sewer and drain section of the ordinance. Um, there were three recommended changes. The first is, uh, to change the low income water and sewer discount thresholds from 15,020 3000, single and married, um, gross income to 35,000 and 40,000 respectively with annual water consumption not to exceed 6,250 cubic feet for consistency with the threshold for the 100% trash fee. Um, there are presently no households that qualify for these extraordinarily low, uh, low income thresholds. These are the, the only non senior program under the water and sewer discounts had these thresholds of 15,000

▶ 1:14:44 for single and 23,000 for married household income, uh, gross income. And so we were recommending bumping those up to 35,000 and 40,000. Um, the second change is allowing for the, we have a condo discount right now that we allow for people, for senior citizens who live in a condo who wouldn't otherwise be eligible for the, um, ordinary senior discount. We have a method of calculation for them so that they can also get a discount. We're recommending extending this to, um, two family property owners who are senior citizen owner occupied. And if the, the two family divided their usage divided by two meets, the 6,250 threshold, they would be able to get the condo discount, which is a set number each year based on the average

▶ 1:15:38 discount that the other seniors are getting. Um, so we'd like to extend that. Right now, the program is only allowed for, for two families if the whole property uses less than 62 50, um, which is our threshold for the other seniors. So this is a more fair way of, of allocating that. Um, and then the third item is just a change in our, the way we charge for meters. So the city provides five eighths inch meters, and we provide replacement meters when the meters break and when they are old and need to be replaced. Um, we've been supplying three quarter and one inch meters for free as well, but we found that new development tends to want one inch meters when there's really not a need for them. And they actually do have a, the,

▶ 1:16:26 the cost differential has been going up over the years, so we've been paying that cost differential. We don't think the city should be subsidizing that. Um, additional meter size. So where the ordinance language allows for the city to charge the difference between the 5 8 8 inch meter and the threequarter or the one inch meter. If someone's requesting a larger size, we'll still pay for the cost of the five eights and then they have to pay the difference. Um, larger meters have to be supplied by the, uh, developer owner anyway. So that's a non-issue. It's just this in between sizes of and one inch that have this present issue. So that pretty much summarizes the changes to the ordinance language.

▶ 1:17:05 Kimberly Vandiver: Um, happy to take any questions. Okay. Any questions from the council? Councilor Vanderberg. Thank you. Um, thank you for being here again. Uh, overall I'm, I, I'm supportive of all of these changes. I have, um, two, uh, two questions. The first, uh, the first is about the, uh, senior citizens occupying two family homes. Uh, do you have a projection of how many, uh, once the change is made to, uh, a six here, do you have a projection of how many additional households may qualify for the, we Think it's only gonna be a handful. This is based on Lisa Patterson. Our water and sewer billing administrator has fielded questions from folks in this situation for a number of years, and they're a handful who, um,

▶ 1:17:56 Kimberly Vandiver: you know, have repeatedly asked. And so we don't expect it to be any major change. Okay. Great. And then, um, the other, uh, point here is that in our previous agenda item, um, I proposed, uh, and we voted to recommend a, an amendment increasing the, the, um, trash, uh, the eligibility for the trash fee for the a hundred percent exclusion, um, from 35,040, uh, 35 and 40 to 45 and 50. Um, and, uh, and you had commented that, you know, this, this one had was just moving up to meet the previous one. Um, and it may cause complexity for them to be different. Um, so, and, and the goal with this one, we would move up from currently zero households qualifying to probably three households, qualifying.

▶ 1:18:51 Kimberly Vandiver: And, and if we moved up to that again, higher level, we have an unknown number that would meet that additional income threshold. Um, so I, I was curious if you, if you wanted to comment on, in your estimation, would it be better to leave this one at, uh, your current proposal of 35 and 40, or to raise it to 45 and 50 in alignment with the other proposal? Um, I could see an argument both ways. I think my inclination, given the complexity of the water and sewer rate modeling process, um, would be to keep this one the way it is. I think it'd be unfortunate to have them be misaligned for this first year. But we're hopeful that we're gonna be looking at this whole program, the whole discount program, um, in advance

▶ 1:19:39 of our fiscal 26 rate setting process, so we could make a final adjustment at that time. I think the, um, you know, with the, with the trash fee, it is literally a simple calculation of what is our projected total cost of the program divided by, you know, subtracting out the a hundred percent people altogether and then subtracting out half the number of the 50% people dividing by what's left and coming up with a number. The water and sewer modeling process as Councillor Hamilton is now well aware of being on our committee is extraordinarily involved, and to not reflect a possible change in the offset column of senior or discounts the discount program, um, I would fear that our rates wouldn't have been properly set

▶ 1:20:23 Kimberly Vandiver: to match that change. So I guess I would recommend not changing the water and sewer at this time. Okay. Um, thank you. I, uh, I would be interested to, I guess to hear discussion from other counselors about if they'd prefer to make a change there or not. Um, but I, you know, I can see arguments both ways and I, I feel stronger about the trash and, um, recycling discount because we're increasing the cost of that program. And that's a big change right now. So, um, you know, I'd be happy to make or not make an additional adjustment here. Um, I don't know if Councilor Hamilton would like to speak to that one. Are there any other voting members of the legal and legislative committee that have questions?

▶ 1:21:09 Devin Romanul: Yes. You Okay. So thank you. In, um, I'm sorry, point of order. Councilor Romanul, did you have a question? 'cause you looked like, sorry. No, no. I just, uh, uh, through the chair responding to my colleague just to say, um, thank you so much and in, in approval of, uh, the amendments that you proposed and would love to work with you in the coming year to make sure that we can bring all of our discount programs in alignment. Um, you know, uh, not to cause too much, uh, challenge for you with the differential between the trash and everything else, but, uh, but really excited to look at a holistic view of all city programs and how we can best support you doing that. But, uh, I'm, I'm, uh, with my colleague

▶ 1:21:46 Ward Hamilton: and, um, trying to support people, uh, uh, to pay their bills appropriately. But, um, but yeah, I, I wouldn't want to shift with the calculus right now. Thank You. Thank you. And with my apologies to Councillor Hamilton, please go ahead. Thank You. I thought you were looking at me General direction. Yeah, thanks. Thank you. And through the chair. Thank you, um, Elena, for being here and, and I know I missed most of, most of the discussion, but one of the things we talked about over the last few months was, um, having consistency in, um, how we set discounts and make them and, and make them based on need. And also making them something meaningful. It's no sense in having discounts, nobody qualifies for,

▶ 1:22:28 Ward Hamilton: or, you know, painfully small number of people to, um, Elena's point. The, uh, the model is very complicated. And so I think there is, on our committee, there's a strong desire to, uh, create a structure, um, for water and sewer, which then would probably align with trash and recycling. And we want, we want to do something that makes sense that's consistent across the board. And we didn't want to just arbitrarily come up with numbers. We wanted to find some standard to point to. So, um, I would certainly defer to, uh, this committee and what you all decide. I, um, but that's something that we're gonna work on in the next year. Thank you President Elli. Thank you, chair Williams. Um, thank you for being here.

▶ 1:23:15 Leila Migliorelli: And although I wasn't part of the trash conversation, um, the rate increased conversation for this order, it sounds like it makes sense. Like you are already proposing, um, an increased threshold, um, for, for receiving Yeah. Or decrease threshold for receiving a discount. And I think, uh, it makes sense to that you've, because you've had a committee sort of weighing in on how it happens. And like you said, the calculation is a little bit more nuanced than just the trash fee. Um, I think it makes sense to go forward with this. I think if, obviously it's an ordinance change, so at any point, if, you know, six months down the road we're seeing some kind of situation in which people are in more need of the help

▶ 1:23:58 Ryan Williams: or whatnot, we could act on it then. But, um, I'm inclined to support this as amended, um, per your recommendations, given the background work that's gone into this, this piece. Thank you. Any other counselors have questions? Counselor, uh, Ramal, vice chair, Ramal motion. I forget what committee we're in a motion to recommend. Sure. Okay. Alright. Um, on discussion, I agree with my, with my colleagues. The, um, we're talking here about a 20% discount for, for water. So it's not like the trash discount where you get the whole thing for free if you qualify. So, um, while it's a little bit less of an impact, um, you've already brought it up to 35,000, which is great. You know, the, the, the discussion point floating

▶ 1:24:44 Ryan Williams: around is whether to go just a little bit higher. I would love to see, um, a really robust discussion about, you know, the impact on the model as well as, um, what the estimated number of residents in Melrose would be that would meet this threshold. Because I think we all have to challenge ourselves on what is and is not a lot or a little bit of money given the last few years have really upended, um, costs for a lot of people. Um, so I'm really excited for that discussion to, to move forward and would love to be a part of it. Um, and definitely we will, um, we'll, um, support these amendments as proposed. Thank you. So we need a second on Councillor Also motion. Second. Okay. So motion to, um, amend chapter 2 28

▶ 1:25:31 Ryan Williams: of revised ordinances as proposed in the agenda by Councilor Romanul, seconded by Councillor Vandiver. And can we call the role Vice Chair Romanul? Yes. Councillor Reky. Yes. Councillor Vandiver. Yes. Uh, Chair Williams? Yes. And President Elli? Yes. Uh, that's unanimous. Okay. Uh, we have nothing on the agendas full motion by unanimous consent to adjourn and seeing no objections. We are adjourned from legal and legislative. I turn around real quick. No, sorry. A little loopy. Okay. All right. Yeah. Now we're gonna, okay. Uh, everybody good? Everybody good? Council bra? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Okay. Okay, everybody, we are here at the Appropriations and Oversight Committee of the City Council of Melrose.

Legal & Legislative Committee — 2024-06-10

Attendance

Agenda

Minutes

Transcript

Original documents