ORDER-2015-58 : An Appropriation of $1,707,555.45 From Available Free Cash To Various Accounts as set forth within

Transcript (~1 h 20 min @ 26:52)

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

▶ 26:35 John N. Tramontozzi: motion for passage second seeing none there's a motion for passage motion for recommendation by alderman Medeiros seconded by alderman mortimer any further discussion seeing none on the motion all in favor all right thank you any opposed seeing none thank you uh attorney van campen um also i see uh superintendent taymor and members of the school committee present they said we will take order number two 2015 that 58 an appropriation of one million seven hundred and seven thousand five hundred and fifty five dollars and forty five cents from available free cash to various accounts as set forth herein uh joining uh superintendent taymor uh is um the

▶ 27:16 John N. Tramontozzi: the auditor, Mr. DellaRusso.

▶ 27:21 Speaker 1: Good evening.

▶ 27:26 Speaker 2: You want to give us a moment? Good evening. Yeah, I'll stop, thank you.

▶ 27:33 Speaker 2: The order before you is for the amount of 1,000,707,555.45 and it's derived from the available free cash that was certified by the Department of Revenue for this fiscal year before us. The total amount was $3,183,025.

▶ 28:01 Speaker 2: And I'd like for the chair, I could walk through the request and identify each individual item and the reason for the request for the appropriation this evening, if that's the board's will.

▶ 28:16 Speaker 5: Yes.

▶ 28:20 Speaker 2: The first item is the $300,000 relative to Medicaid, and that's an annual appropriation that we've been making year after year.

▶ 28:32 Speaker 2: The school department, as you're aware, is responsible for the Medicaid reimbursement. What the city does is, at the end of the year, at this time, we appropriate the $300,000 to the school department. It's part of the regular budget. It's not new money. It's money that we've given them each and every year that I can recall in the past.

▶ 28:59 Speaker 2: The next item is $600,000, $640,000, relative to what we call other financing sources, contractual.

▶ 29:18 Speaker 2: and just let me get this last sheet here and that too is made up and that's made

▶ 29:33 Speaker 2: up of two items the first is the $600,000 that we spoke of in the spring when we passed the FY 15 budget so 600 out of that 640 is exactly that it is not new money it's money they've gotten at least the last three years towards their operating budget the forty thousand dollars the that which is really the increase over last year's request but it's really relative to two items one is approximately fifteen thousand dollars for the acquisition of what's called munis requisitions it's an it's a munis module module, which will be used in the school department, ultimately by the city. It was recommended by Powers and Sullivan, and Sullivan and Rogers actually is the next module outside of purchase order that we really need to have internal control. I think last time I was before you, we spoke of the city's request, which was granted for module upgrade for munis the actual software application this is the next step and once this is put in place and integrated it's going to apply to both the city and the school equally there's also $25,000 in this request relative for training and I'm going to ask the superintendent to spend a moment on that that as part of a recent agreement contract that was made on the teacher's

▶ 31:10 Speaker 3: side thank you as you all know the school system has a student management system called Aspen Aspen is for the state what is referred to as an SIF agent a school interoperability framework agent we are now required by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to have our computers talk directly to their computers on an ongoing daily basis it's been an interesting journey to say the least as anything with technology and computers is but a large part of that is eventually we will submit to the state all our grades all our course selections all our teacher evaluations we already submit all student information and all teachers professional and personal information additionally to do that the staff have to be adept at using Aspen entering their grades communicating with parents keeping up-to-date student records as this becomes more demanding and more sophisticated we have agreed with the union in our last contract negotiation that if we require it then we are obligated to train them so we've undertaken a series of training last spring that we would like to continue this year we would also like to bring in some Aspen technicians to address some of the challenges we are having with the program as we have to add more and more data the thank you the next item is

▶ 32:56 Speaker 2: relative to capital outlay for a pine banks ball field number two sixty five thousand six sixty two seventy eight and if you look on then skip a line you'll see capital outlay pine banks ball field number one fifty thousand when the pine Bank's budget was passed this year it included the capital item which are these two ball fields one and two this is again something you saw last year the year before that and the year before that this is simply our payment for our share of the obligation period the next item if I may use the old pep trust fund $50,000. When I was here before last year, for those that were here, I had asked that we set up what's called an Other Post-Employment Benefits. That's what it stands for fund. It was recommended by the outside auditors and quite frankly has been getting more and more attention from all the rating agencies because it has a potential to have a very negative impact on our fund balance for every city and town in the Commonwealth. I have made a commitment through my office that part of my policy, not unlike that of the regular stabilization fund, which this board has adopted, is that I'm going to strive to put $50,000 per year into the fund, that when it was originally established, the objective and it needs to be understood is to demonstrate to the rating agencies and to the community that we take it very seriously. It pertains actually to long-term health benefits and the like, no different than the pension schedule that we have. And what's happening now in the Commonwealth as well as, as I said, every city and town, there's a recognition that Not only do we have to identify that, but we also have to have a plan on how we're going to fund it at some point. They have not mandated it be funded. I want to be real clear with that. There is no mandate as I'm sitting here that it be funded. However, they have made no mistake about it by two things that they've done to really push the envelope here. They require that every two years we have a study done to identify what that liability is for the city. On top of that, they're asking for a plan on how we would consider funding at a level that is unprecedented in today's time. What I mean by that is the application of what we would require to fund, and I have

▶ 36:03 Speaker 2: an update here of a draft report, would ask that we fund approximately, for example, this year, $11.6 million, our obligation, and they would literally count $4.4 million as part of the contribution we're already making through the regular process, and they would be looking for another $7.2 million on top of that on an annual basis. That appropriation is approximately $2 million more than what we currently make for the pension appropriation. However, it does make a difference in not only the numbers but in the recognition from Standard and Poor's that we have set up the fund, number one, that we fund it, number two, and that we take it into deep consideration going forward that this is out there and it's a liability. And ultimately, I believe you will see additional mandates coming down from this Commonwealth and regarding funding. I think that's the very next step. I've seen this in the past and I don't see this taking a different route.

▶ 37:19 Gail Infurna: yes well the committee to maybe talk about each one we have the school department up there if we if there were any questions and they could sit down and each department come up you know not to vote on them separately I'm not looking to divide them but just to have each of that we have several department heads in there and and here's you know superintendent a more sitting there listening to the stuff that doesn't pertain to her so maybe if there were questions for the school department and then they can sit down and then the next one come up yeah

▶ 37:45 John N. Tramontozzi: fair enough that that seems reasonable so where we have you addressed all the school issues at this point yes so do we know president Kahn and then all them in

▶ 38:00 Speaker 2: the boys oh yeah we seem to have an inordinately large amount of free cash this year I don't ever remember us having in excess of three million dollars in free cash is that correct the minus in it's absolutely correct and I would like if you could to give me a summary of the free cash number for the last five years if that's possible is that something that's easily obtainable mr. del Russo I can get that to you absolutely and the reason I'm looking at that is because at budget time I was concerned about the way we're handling the school budget and and i continue to be concerned about it um you know i'm not an auditor and i don't even play one on tv but um i'm concerned about um balancing the school budget

▶ 38:54 Speaker 2: with uh free cash that's yet to be certified at the time that we set the budget I, in my layman's parlance, I think that that's one-time revenue. I don't think it's a permanent funding source, and you're going to tell me that we always have free cash. And I will come back to you and tell you that in 1991, when I was president of this body, we had negative free cash. So it is not a certainty that we will have free cash. This is a well-run community, and I believe that we will and should, but I'm concerned about that. I continue to be concerned about it, and my experience in this type of situation is no expenses go down, and if we're needing to fill $640,000 of a budget hole this year out of free cash, Maybe it's $850,000 next year if nothing is done, and maybe it's $1.2 million in two or three years if nothing is done, and I've sat here in many years when we didn't have $1.2 million in free cash. I'm concerned about this. I don't like it. I would like, hopefully, during the next six months or so before budget comes down to us, um that either on the revenue side or the expense side we do something to stop this because i think this is an unhealthy trend it dovetails into the board voting a year ago to bond for textbooks which i voted for but didn't think was an appropriate thing to do as well i'm probably off topic and if i was chairing the meeting i would probably rule myself out of order but but luckily I'm not.

▶ 40:50 Speaker 2: And obviously I said at budget time I was gonna support this appropriation. I'm gonna support it tonight. I'm very concerned about this trend and I'd like to see something done about it before we have larger problems down the line. And just one other question and then I'll let other people speak. Is the $300,000 Medicare money in the budget that we set, or is it in addition to the budget? Was it in your calculation?

▶ 41:22 Speaker 3: Yes, it's in my calculations.

▶ 41:23 Speaker 2: Okay, that's all I have for now, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 41:26 John N. Tramontozzi: Okay, very good. Alderman Boycelle.

▶ 41:28 Robert A. Boisselle: I won't really repeat President Khan's statement, but I have some concerns about that too. I understand the $640,000, almost $900,000 that you're getting, and the $40,000 that you accounted for in software and training, but could you refresh me again what the other $600,000 is for?

▶ 41:51 Speaker 3: I would not say it's for anything specific, Alderman Boisselle. When we calculate the budget and we work with the city side, we know we're going to get the $300,000 and when we calculate our budget, Mr. De La Rosa advises us that we will come in front of you and ask for the $600,000. I can't tell you that it's pinpointed for anything. It's part of my total budget calculation as to what the district needs when we do that. Now if we didn't

▶ 42:30 Robert A. Boisselle: have this money what would you do with the programs that you were accounting

▶ 42:34 Speaker 3: for for $600,000? It would have been a negative effect. I could not tell you at this time what I would have eliminated or I don't want to speculate. I'm fortunate that I did not have to make those decisions last spring but if we did not have that money that's what the choices would be in front of the school

▶ 42:53 Robert A. Boisselle: committee and in front of this board well as of last week are you doing any contingency plans for a mid-year budget cut we I mean right now the we know it

▶ 43:04 Robert A. Boisselle: governor Patrick is requesting this to help to the school school local and school accounts and the president membership within the House and Senate are disagreeing with the governor but we do have a new governor coming in within the next probably six to eight weeks and he may take it up because he's going to be walking into a 500 million dollar deficit according to figures generated last year so this could be even more than what you're looking for I mean this six hundred thousand dollars of this disappear we froze our budget a

▶ 43:37 Speaker 3: month ago in anticipation of the 9c cuts unfortunately this is a routine we have gone through almost every year right and we expect it in an anticipation that it would be coming again mr. Picon froze our budget okay and if it does go into

▶ 44:00 Speaker 2: effect with the new governor how much of an impact will that have would it be a a 10% reduction or say I'm sorry based on what I my understanding it would affect them including the unrestricted local aid it would be approximately 150 thousand dollar reduction to the city slash school funding and how would that impact programs and the majority being on the dub on our side so the The minimal amount will be on the school side. Minimum on the school side. All right. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

▶ 44:36 Speaker 1: Very good. Mr. Del Rosso.

▶ 44:38 Speaker 2: If I may, a couple of items, and if I could just have them that I'd like to respond to as far as

▶ 44:48 Speaker 2: the general fund position and the free cash, because as Alderman Kahn said, it's something that we need to pay attention to, and we are. I was here in 92, when the $2.9 million deficit we had in free cash. And we also had a $5 million budget that was out of balance. We had appropriation deficits, revenue deficits of every kind known to man. That's what I walked into. So, the position here is that we were able to turn that around and in such a way that those days are not with us we also have to come to an understanding of what this 600,000 represents because I I think there's some confusion and I want to be really clear about it we have taken a five million dollar hit since oh nine not two five million dollars three million in federal money that supported our schools 3.1 million pardon me 1.9 million dollars in in state aid a five million dollar hit and since oh nine so the six hundred thousand in comparison to where we could have been had the following actions not happen matters because what we did is we did a wage trees in FY 11 we capped the raises at 1% and don't forget the way trees was across the board we joined the GIC which it really was phenomenally a great savings over 1.5 million dollars we capped again a non-exempt debt at no more than 5% and thank God we've held to that we've never deviated we've We've established the in-house ambulance, ALS and BLS, that was almost a million dollars now in revenue we didn't have then, so it's eight men with the associated benefits. We actually restructured the entire Department of Public Works, privatized trash and then recycling pickup. We brought into the community an escrow program that paid for itself and designed to really save us some dollars as energy cost goes through the roof. We've also partnered with Hallmark Health, and I'm happy to say they're providing $35,000 a year now to the ambulance service. And we developed regional initiatives for both the health, veterans, and IT that we never had. These are, they were multi-million dollar decisions, multi-million, to address the $5 million shortfall. And today, the fact that we've been able to maintain approximately $600,000 a year, and I call them carryover funds, is remarkable, absolutely remarkable. And on top of that, I want to give everyone on this board credit. We do not have one deficit this year anywhere. We removed all deficits from snow and ice because the board was gracious enough to vote that liability down the last meeting on free cash. We have no revenue deficits, no appropriation deficits, and in both 2009 and 2011, we took a $500,000 to $600,000 hit mid-year in state aid, and not one person got laid off because we know what we're doing. I know how to balance these books. I can do this. I am not in favor of using carryover funds to accomplish objectives, however, but today as we work through it, and I couldn't agree more with Alderman Kahn, it's not the right way to fund a budget, however, for today as we're sitting here, that's what it is. We have three options, you raise more revenue, number one, you count on federal or state aid to come in and save the day which will not happen in my opinion or you cut you reduce it your expenditures period six hundred thousand there's no option D it's it's really not that complicated you can take the federal state and put them over here they're not going to help us and so we really are doing what we can with what we have and I think in a way that is admirable plus we have the highest bond rate in the history of the city with the highest free cash number so those are all positives that we're working with this is another challenge and and I I'll take it because we as a community and the alderman have been tremendously supportive of all these undertakings which could never happen without your support there's a very they were very challenging they were controversial but we did them and that's why we have the 3.1 and also for the record free cash is higher than last year by about almost a million dollars and I want to address that can start question in the past from all the mcconnell there's two big reasons for that the first is that we had about two-thirds of that we had initial permit fees over and above but we had last year period new development they paid fees to come into the community that's that's That's two-thirds of that increase. The second, which I take some credit for, which I normally don't, is we were able to reduce our deficits, they're called fund deficits, from last year by almost $300,000. So we ended up this year with the very smallest fund deficit, not generated by us, quite frankly. When we apply, and it's important, when we work with Chapter 90 for funding for our highways and roads or other grants, we expect payment before the end of the fiscal year. So what happens is if they hold that payment up, the Department of Revenue says, whoops, sorry, and they take it off. You have free cash. So you give a whole list of takeaways that had nothing to do with you, you know, as a community, just that the federal agency or the state whatever it was didn't pay us the reimbursement in time so we get charged with that this year like last year in the year before that we've been being more than aggressive more than aggressive to make sure that we knock on those doors and say wait a minute you did this two years ago we're still waiting you promised this money a year ago it hasn't happened so we've taken a very aggressive stance to ensure that we We minimize that shortcoming, that shortfall, not created by us, but by third parties that really impact the city of town. Those two things together are the driving force for this year's free cash number, which is higher than I think I've ever seen in the past, which is a good thing, because it's an effort. It's a combination of different things and all good things, by the way, new development and reduce your deficits caused by outside agencies, which is what it comes down to. So we do hear you and we will take that under advisement, obviously, and again, though, I want to stress the fact that we also have a reason to be proud that we've gone through a major storm, phenomenal storm, in the shape that we did. It just doesn't happen.

▶ 52:31 Speaker 2: Excuse me.

▶ 52:37 John N. Tramontozzi: Alderman Boisselle, do you still have the floor? Do you have a question? I have a question.

▶ 52:43 Robert A. Boisselle: One other question. On the $40,000, you mentioned a software package. Aspen?

▶ 52:49 Speaker 3: Aspen is not a software package. It's a licensing package. Again, it's our school interoperability framework. Every city and town, every school district is required to have one now in the state. there is a select group of vendors that have been approved by the state to be agents this is the one that Melrose signed on with for I think about right before I became employed maybe four years ago it charges per pupil and that

▶ 53:22 Robert A. Boisselle: and that's what that is it's but the information all stays within how in

▶ 53:26 Speaker 3: house no it doesn't unfortunately and that's a concern all superintendents have the information flows between us and the Department of Ed ongoing basis

▶ 53:35 Robert A. Boisselle: but you were saying that they were sending out personal personal

▶ 53:39 Speaker 3: information about students the state has every student's personal information every state and that every student that isn't registered in a public school system is a is given a sasset a state assigned student ID that number follows them forever so if you transfer your child from Melrose to say Stoneham that sassett follows him all his records for all his scores all his grades um follows him as well um

▶ 54:10 Robert A. Boisselle: no it's is that is that brother is here i was just going to say is that information secure or is

▶ 54:14 Speaker 3: there any they tell us that it's secure they're not supposed to share it with third-party vendors but as we all know uh i don't and as mr pesos will tell you there is no such thing as 100 security it is it's an ongoing concern for all of us you all do the parents know this yes they know

▶ 54:32 John N. Tramontozzi: this okay thank you very much well the macadamia goal has some questions go right ahead thank you

▶ 54:37 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: mr chairman um thank you mr de la rusa for the explanation on um the generous amount of the

▶ 54:49 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: increase in the free cash um i think the thing that concerns probably most of us is that But you can't really depend on that free cash, right? In a sense, you don't really know that your permits are going to increase, that you're going to be able to collect all that Chapter 90 money in a timely fashion. The things that you've been able to do are not always a guarantee that ... Is that kind

▶ 55:16 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: of accurate?

▶ 55:23 Speaker 2: Yes, but again, we do it in such a way that we try to minimize our exposure. We try to stay within the institutional frameworks of what should be released, what should be available and what should not, because the first thing you have to do is ensure that The parameters we set protect the assets of the city above all. Everything else is completely secondary. So once I draw that circle and say these are the parameters I have to live with so that we wake up in the morning and the lights go on, then I have, I feel that I can fund these items within that circle. The issue we have is, and you're absolutely correct, is that there is uncertainty with free cash. There's no question about it. It's not a guarantee. It's an annual event. It is permissible, 100% permissible, and the DOI regulations will cite that, to use it for next year's purposes if you plan properly and look at it properly. But, however, we're not at a point. We have lost that five, we have not, we're not at a point where we can put that in the regular taxation cycle. That's my question. And that's the issue. Given the limitations of two and a half, we cannot put that in the regular taxation where it truly would address this issue, period. And that's the concern that we have, and we can't do that right now, but your question is correct.

▶ 57:01 Speaker 3: So and I, I think back to my school committee days and I'm, I'm, I'm sure things have changed tremendously in terms of funding and whatnot, but it used to be that some of that kind of money was sort of like the one time money. Couldn't be used for like ongoing expenses. Is that different now or superintendent can you, do you, pretty much when you put that 600,000 in, when you're counting that in, in your budget cycle. I'm charging. You're counting it in for everything. I'm counting it in for everything. just one-time expenses right um exactly it's how we calculate the budget uh it's you know uh to alderman khan's uh point it is less than desirable we would much prefer to have it on the base and have it be dependent upon um it's uh uh it's a stressful way to build a budget um you know Mr. Picon and I are in constant conversations with Mr. De La Russo you know do you think you can meet this need or don't you and so it is it is a difficult way to build a budget and it would have a negative impact if it did not exist the other piece of it that you have to understand it also goes to our net school spending and if we don't make our net school spending there is a negative effect from the the state we can actually be penalized

▶ 58:20 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: um if we don't make net school spending so it's a way of also making sure that we meet that obligation so by including it in your budget you uh it helps you to meet the next the net school spending level that we need to meet right exactly so i mean really it's um as good as mr delarusso is and as fortunate as we are to be able to weather these storms we're really looking at that a serious structural imbalance, particularly in the school department. So it's not like you're taking this $600,000 and saying, okay, this is great, I can spend it on textbooks, I can spend it on technology. You're using it as basic operating money. Right, right. Our budget continues to be very tight.

▶ 59:08 Speaker 2: In addition, if I may, through the chair, we're still saddled with unfunded mandates. And those truly, truly hurt because it's no different than assessments that you can't enroll in other than to prove it. When the superintendent has mandates that we have to comply with, no different than the city side, and there's no funds that go with it. It creates another imbalance, again, not created by anyone here, just because they're changing the rules and regulations at the state level. causes more stress on an already settled situation and the one other thing I just

▶ 59:45 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: wanted to mention on the Medicare money now that's money that the school department basically goes after for reimbursement is that correct yes under special education law we are allowed to go after Medicaid reimbursement for certain services so that's a fairly I mean you can pretty much bank on that more or less that you're gonna get that much because you're seeking it out you're doing the filing and then it comes to the city and the city has always had an agreement with the school department to pass it through exactly that's correct right but I do understand you know alderman funds concern and and And my concern that we're really, we're kind of funding this large amount. I mean, it's a significant amount of your budget, sort of on a whim and a prayer that we're keeping our fingers crossed that everything's going to really fall into place to get to that amount for you. Mr. De La Rosa?

▶ 1:00:48 Speaker 2: May I have one last point? I mean, the fact of the matter is this year we ended up with, as of right now, 1.7% just about $170,000 in new state aid. And here they are proposing to cut $150,000, so they have again put us in a position of almost no win. And to turn around and feel confidence that we can fund other items outside of that, the money's not coming from them and I don't see it, I wish it would, but it's just not materializing. distressing in that sense well thank you for holding it all together as best you all can

▶ 1:01:31 Monica C. Medeiros: thank you thank you um i don't want to i just i do want to acknowledge that i think i think president khan summed up pretty well i do share many of those same concerns um Now, when we, assuming we pass this order and so on, what will that leave us in free cash? Will that leave us with anything?

▶ 1:01:55 Speaker 2: Yes. Yes, it will. Assuming we pass the order this evening, it will leave with $772,815.60.

▶ 1:02:12 Monica C. Medeiros: point sixty and have you kind of got that already earmarked in your head as

▶ 1:02:21 Speaker 3: absolutely right down to every penny yeah and I'm sure you know we touched a

▶ 1:02:24 Monica C. Medeiros: little bit on the deficit that we learned about from the state that the governor's office has released I think it was November 6th a couple of days

▶ 1:02:41 Monica C. Medeiros: after the election and part of that deficit they've been talking about the state not getting back as much of the reimbursements that they had expected and I believe that they've mentioned Medicaid does that put the city of Melrose in an additional jeopardy or are we facing some of these same kind of

▶ 1:03:00 Speaker 2: I don't see that challenge for us.

▶ 1:03:04 Speaker 1: The only thing that affected us was a circuit breaker, and there was another transportation line that would have affected the schools.

▶ 1:03:10 Monica C. Medeiros: Yeah, so the governor has and does not need 9C approval, and he's already indicated that he wants to cut transportation and the charter school reimbursement, which can directly affect us. So are we-

▶ 1:03:27 Speaker 2: It will directly affect us, the charter school reimbursement.

▶ 1:03:34 Monica C. Medeiros: Yeah, yeah, so do we have a plan in place to handle those cuts? We know those are probably definitely coming. Will it involve some of this free cash that is available?

▶ 1:03:46 Speaker 2: Well, what will happen through the chair is we will absorb the hit like we did in past years. And I will account for it, and it'll mean less revenue coming into the city for the fiscal year. But we will not have to have any layoffs or anything of that nature, period, it will not happen.

▶ 1:04:08 Monica C. Medeiros: So is it fair to say that if, just in rough numbers, let's just say we were going to get back a million dollars in free cash,

▶ 1:04:21 Speaker 3: we kind of anticipated, now we might only be getting back 850.

▶ 1:04:24 Speaker 2: Absolutely, that could easily, absolutely, because it's simply less revenue coming into the community that we're counting on to fund our budget. And it causes more distress as we look forward, quite honestly, to FY16, the year coming ahead, this coming July, in a few months we'll be talking about that budget. And now here we are talking about a mid-year cut. And that's not promising, particularly when Anyone around this table knows that costs go up, contractual costs go up. And now you have the potential of working with the state aid figure that I think at best we'll get it level funded, we'll be doing good. And I think if we count on more than that, it might be a little bit concerning, given what we see today. It's going to be a very, very challenging FY16.

▶ 1:05:20 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you, Mr. De La Rosa, I'm sure we may have some more questions later.

▶ 1:05:24 Speaker 1: Well, I'll let Mortimer have some. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, for the record,

▶ 1:05:31 Peter D. Mortimer: the schools are doing a very good job for everything I've seen, and Aspen is a problem, and in spite of the kind of invasive nature of it that's been mentioned here, I have to say my daughter is at sixth grade at The Melrose Veterans Memorial Middle School, and she's starting, it's a tough year of transition. And although there are problems with every mechanical and technological advancement we've had through history, from beginning with fire on down, they can all be used for good or for evil, the Aspen is a very helpful device. When she gets homework, we can see what her homework is, my wife and I. She can see what her homework is, she can take a test one day and often times that evening we can see how well she did on the test. So it's got its drawbacks and as the words you used aptly, big brother, there's a bit of that. But some of the investments we've made in our schools have paid off. At the Boston Business Journal, Newsweek, many financial magazines have rated the city of Melrose and the schools of Melrose very highly. And I think they serve each other. You get good kids from a good community. We retain many of the character kids for that reason. That people don't need to spend $30,000 to send their kids to a private institution. They can stay here in Melrose and get a great education. And the new school that we started in 2003, many members of this board. It was completed in 2007, the middle school.

▶ 1:07:27 Peter D. Mortimer: And the smart boards, because first we had a nice building to teach in. Then we gave the teachers the tools that they can use to do it. The smart boards and many other technological advances. And the Aspen seems to be one more step in that direction. And good schools mean a good city, and it means higher property values for everyone. I think because of the work of the school committee, because of the work of the superintendent of schools and her staff, and certainly Mr. Della Russo. The administration and this Board of Aldermen, I do not think it's an exaggeration to say that every homeowner in Melrose, this property has been increased by $50,000 in value. And that reflects in the school and the tough work. And I commend Mr. Della Russo for the moves that he has to make, playing the financial game of chess that he has to play dealing with the federal government. And his work in no small measure has contributed to the success of the Melrose schools and the city of Melrose in general.

▶ 1:08:29 Speaker 2: Thank you.

▶ 1:08:30 John N. Tramontozzi: Very good. any any further discussion from the board just on the school matters

▶ 1:08:37 Jaclyn L. Bird: alderman bird Thank You mr. chairman and thanks to the other members of the board for conveying some of the concerns that I had to and mr. de la Rousseau I first want to start by saying I appreciate the rundown that you gave us on the background of the last several well since what 1992 of what's happened in the city of Melrose and how far we've come and I think that's in huge part to work that you do and the other department heads that we see here tonight that i know continue to do so much with very tight budgets and and i appreciate that and i know that our discussion of this 640 000 must be a little bit frustrating when you're looking at the total picture all the time and seeing that there's no other way reasonably maybe to do this right now and i get that and at the same time as as a parent i get that you need this money to do your job superintendent and i understand that what that would look like to cut six hundred thousand dollars out of the schools every year i think the thing that that i'm happy about hearing tonight is a little bit of clarity as we have this conversation um i think there was a a budget forum held at the roosevelt school last year and i think it was talked about that we would never use anticipated revenues towards the next fiscal year and am i wrong you know that's what we're do you want to

▶ 1:09:53 Speaker 2: interrupt sorry no we've no we've done that what's that we do that well that was what i sort of went

▶ 1:09:57 Jaclyn L. Bird: wait a minute i think we are already doing that i think the more that we can get this out to the community as to this is why what we're doing and why we're doing it this is the revenue that we're that we've lost this is how we're budgeting it to replace it um i don't i understand that we're sort of sounding the alarm bell but i think we need to do that and get that information out to people and not necessarily hold that too close i think we have to be very open about it i think ultimately we all have the same goal at the end of the day so i appreciate the background i share the same concerns about kind of is this trend going to be going up and can we really count on those funds i get that it's a small you know fairly small percentage of what our free cash was this year but that this was also an outlier year so i would also appreciate seeing that kind of five-year look back as to what our free cash has been absolutely and i hope that the conversation um for the administration continues on what are we going to do going forward you know that this is a short-term solution for the last two years and we really need to have a broader conversation about how we're going to handle this so um i don't want to go any further into that but i oh actually i'm sorry take that back i had one other question are other communities doing something similar like this the communities right around us that we look at for comparison are they doing this other revenue sources of free cash to fund their yeah other communities to the level they do it

▶ 1:11:17 Speaker 2: it though and for the justification of the reason as to why they do it I don't know I do know that the reason it surfaces with me is I I look I'm trying to look for patents and what I see is patents and when you see a patent a multiple year three years now patent developing that through all the efforts of the board and through the community that it you know it was still there he You, through all the good and the bad, you have a patent now, so you have to address the cause of that patent. More importantly, you have to address, because I think we know what the cause is pretty clearly. The issue is, how do we now go forward and resolve it? Because that seems to still be there, that same concern, and quite frankly, that same amount, seems to still be there, and the best that we do, it's still there. So we have to acknowledge it, which I think you're absolutely correct. We have to discuss it because no one here has anything to apologize for. It should be five or six times that, as I said previously. And I think now that we acknowledge that, and I accept the fact that we're not going to get relief from the state or the federal government, that it's really on our shoulders collectively, i.e. here in the city. Then let's go from there and say, what's the next step? acknowledging that um it's probably not going to go away on its own and it's probably not something that um at least uh for the short term it's gonna decrease by any amount i just don't see that

▶ 1:12:57 Speaker 3: thank you and um for the superintendent uh this is just a quick question on the aspen the 25 000 that's um being appropriated for the aspen training is that um i might have missed if you said this is this for elementary middle and high school and let me clarify that alderman bird 13 15 000 of that is to buy a module from munis when we originally the city originally bought munis we did not buy the requisition piece when we had our review last two years ago when i first came aboard and i we had the review and then when we had our audit by our auditing firm They both recommended that we tighten up requisitions. We spent a lot of time laying the groundwork for that. Mr. Picone has laid out all the permissions, who would have the permissions, the levels of the permissions, when principal's signature would be needed, when his signature would be needed, when my signature would be needed. So we're ready to go. We just don't have the piece of munis that we need. so we need to buy that piece of equipment plus train staff in the use of that as well and we're hoping that will help us control our budget somewhat better and so so it's basically two things in the technology money Munis and Aspen and then Aspen will be for all the teachers oh it's always yes yeah yes and that will be something that's ongoing so would you if you have we as I said we've done a fair amount of training in-house but there's only so much you can stretch your people your in-house people so we need to intensify that effort and bring in some support or run some sessions that would that would cost us some funding to run so that's what we're looking to do okay thank you very much

▶ 1:14:51 John N. Tramontozzi: thank you Mr. Chairman very good I've seen no further discussion relative to the school budget issues i want to thank superintendent her administration and the members of the school committee present for coming in support of that budget item i don't think there's anything further that's on the agenda this evening relative to the schools and we can let you go i just want to say congratulations to the football team we're very excited for their victory over texbury look forward to their victory at gillette stadium it's six o'clock saturday

▶ 1:15:24 John N. Tramontozzi: night december 6th december 6th do we know who they were playing um oh very good well good luck to them i hope it's going to be a victory we still got a thanksgiving day uh a game with wakefield though yes we do members all members of the public invited if you buy your tickets now all the

▶ 1:15:39 Speaker 3: proceeds go to melrose high if you buy them at the gate we have to split them with wakefield oh buy

▶ 1:15:46 Speaker 1: I am now, I am now.

▶ 1:15:46 Speaker 2: And I don't like sharing. Very good, thank you. I am now. Thank you.

▶ 1:15:54 John N. Tramontozzi: Mr. Del Rosso, do you want to proceed with the next item on this particular order?

▶ 1:15:59 Speaker 2: Thank you to the board.

▶ 1:16:00 John N. Tramontozzi: Invite any members of the administration who wish to speak on behalf of it as well to come forward.

▶ 1:16:07 Speaker 2: The next item, if I may, the 506,000 relative to police salary and waiters, I think Rob Van Kampen is here.

▶ 1:16:19 Speaker 4: Welcome back, Mr. Van Kampen. Thank you, members. So the sum that is in front of you this evening represents a retroactive funding for both police unions going back to July 1st, 2012. So after almost two years of negotiations with both of our police unions, we achieved a deal prior to the beginning of this fiscal year that results in what we feel is a very fair contract for the citizens of Melrose as well as for our law enforcement personnel. Just a couple of highlights for members of the committee. For the first time in Melrose history, our police officers will be equipped with nasal Narcan, which is, as some know, a device that reverses the effects, if I understand that of heroin in the body that is a good thing for the community for the first time in our history all of our members will be certified to use defibrillators and chief Lyle has a plan to equip our patrol vehicles with defibrillators on the patrol side the city has made a commitment which mayor Dolan fully supports to ensure minimum of three patrol sectors on the streets of Melrose at all times 24 hours a day seven days week 365 days a year so the sum of five hundred and six thousand dollars funds the first second and I believe the current fiscal year of both of those contracts and we will be renegotiating with the police unions at some point next year probably in the spring is there any members of the board have any

▶ 1:17:59 John N. Tramontozzi: questions relative to this particular item I think that's the way world is if If it's okay with the board, we'll approach it that way, all of them in the right.

▶ 1:18:09 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Thank you, thank you, Mr. Van Campen. Patrick, do we have a salary stabilization fund that we're not, any type of fund where we could look to that, where we would be accumulating money in anticipation of settling this type of contract, so that when the contract is actually settled, don't need to go into free cash for half a million dollars we can reach into that account and and apply it to retro under a new contract I'm to the chair to all

▶ 1:18:42 Speaker 2: about absolutely correct we have a contract stabilization fund that has an excess of two hundred thousand and upon the understanding of this amount and

▶ 1:19:02 Speaker 2: this award, and given the fact that we're currently in negotiations right now with FIRE, which timing obviously has not been determined for the settlement. It was more prudent, in my opinion, that we draw this from the free cash and retain the balance in the contract stabilization fund, because that, I believe, will settle then. We could apply that to the first year of the FIRE contract. That was the only reason, I just didn't do an in and out swap or whatever.

▶ 1:19:33 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, so you didn't want to deplete the contract, you said salary, I meant to say contract.

▶ 1:19:38 Francis X. Wright Jr.: So you didn't want to deplete that fund based on the fact that we're not even halfway through the fiscal year and we have other contracts coming.

▶ 1:19:44 Speaker 2: Absolutely. Great question, yes, we will.

▶ 1:19:47 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 1:19:48 John N. Tramontozzi: Very good. Any further discussion?

▶ 1:19:51 Speaker 3: Just a quick question to Mr. Van Campen.

▶ 1:19:55 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: The, this will take us to July 1st, did you say 2015?

▶ 1:20:01 Speaker 4: The contract you're funding this evening will take us through June 30th, 2015.

▶ 1:20:09 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: And that's the funding, is that when the contract then expires as well? Correct.

▶ 1:20:13 Speaker 4: It has to renegotiate. Correct. And our objective is always to try to settle contracts as quickly before they expire or shortly after they expire as possible, but as Alderman Kahn and Alderman Wright may know sometimes it's difficult to achieve that goal given the climate we live in today so fire contract is currently open we're negotiating it expired July 1st and we're hoping to get an agreement with the fire union much quicker than we were able to with the patrol and superior officers but we

▶ 1:20:47 John N. Tramontozzi: don't know thank you any further discussion on this particular item

▶ 1:20:51 Speaker 2: although I mean mr. again I'll been all right we have it the balance in the fund is two hundred seven thousand twelve six thirteen so that's what the actual balance in the contract stabilization fund is as of today thank you all right very good thank you we'll move on to the

▶ 1:21:13 Speaker 2: next second thank you thank you thank you if i made the next item is uh capital outlay uh public works vehicle and equipment twenty three thousand i think uh mr shenna do you want to come forward

▶ 1:21:36 Speaker 1: good evening again this appropriation is i believe last week you were presented the details with an electric vehicle grant that melrose was awarded that electric vehicle grant creates a charging station for two vehicles in the back it also offers a 7 500 credit for the purchase of two vehicles 7 500 per each vehicle One vehicle is going to be purchased with rebates that the planning office has seen through their various projects. This funds the second vehicle. This order will fund the second electric vehicle that we'll implement into our fleet. So we hope that within the next 60 days, we'll have an electric charging station funded through the grant and two vehicles behind City Hall that will be used day-to-day inspections.

▶ 1:22:34 John N. Tramontozzi: Before we go to questions, I think there's another couple of DPW things. You want to just finish that up, and then we'll ask questions about.

▶ 1:22:42 Speaker 2: Playground repairs, that noise, 10,000.

▶ 1:22:45 Speaker 1: Yeah, the $10,000 towards playground repairs is the second payment at the Horace Mann, the partnership with the Horace Mann School for their playground upgrades. The school voted a $10,000 commitment last fiscal year, and This is the second of our two $10,000 commitments to that playground. That playground is complete, the kids are using it today. It was a $84,000 playground, which the city paid $20,000 in funding. DPW provided labor for various other activities throughout the project, from demo to pouring foundations to mulching, but it was $20,000 of the $84,000.

▶ 1:23:33 Speaker 1: there are one two three aye there are five old project accounts some dating as far back as believe 0506 with converse lane these are old projects that we closed out at the end of

▶ 1:23:49 Speaker 1: fiscal year these five project accounts finished in a deficit it most of the majority of the deficits are caused by reimburse reimbursements and the projects that never materialized whether it was things as simple as tax on an item or other things that whether it was the state or fema or chapter 90 didn't see as eligible expenses but um the auditor wanted to

▶ 1:24:16 Speaker 2: clean these accounts yeah and if i get a bit earlier to what i spoke to these are these five items amount to ten thousand seven thirty seven forty seven and uh this is exactly the kind of item that if we don't uh take care of it the dor has told us they'll take it out off our free cash next year so we basically we clean it up and as john said reimbursements um that you know always hopeful that you get the full amount etc but when they don't materialize the full reimbursement then you're holding the bag there essentially to make up the difference so that would clean those up

▶ 1:24:57 John N. Tramontozzi: that would be a call all right we'll proceed to questions relative to those items um alderman

▶ 1:25:02 Francis X. Wright Jr.: wright thank you mr chairman uh john thank you for your presentation um with regards to the charging stations for those who may not have been watching or aware of what was presented to us at a previous meeting it's my understanding that the city will be purchasing two electric vehicles and they will replace two existing vehicles that are going out of service that we otherwise would have replaced and um those vehicles that are being replaced and would have otherwise been replaced with gas or diesel as from fossil fuel burning vehicle and that the city is taking advantage of grants and rebates that are available and you know we like to be at or ahead of the curve and we're going to step out and try electric vehicles which will be smaller vehicles we're buying off of a state list is this correct okay so and these will be driven they won't be dpw vehicles for plowing or anything they'll be inspector vehicles these would be inspector type vehicles so they don't need suvs they don't need crown vex they these will be vehicles that allow people to travel within the boundaries of the city um to various locations and and it gives the city an opportunity to take advantage of some financial um incentives that are being offered and um and to try a new

▶ 1:26:38 Speaker 1: technology no it's absolutely correct it's thirty thousand dollars i know you heard it last week but there's thirty thousand dollars in grant opportunity here um and that's aside from the maintenance i mean i'm looking at statistics here i just want to get it right so i want to check my notes but the uh annual fuel cost the average annual fuel cost for a regular vehicle is about 600 a year and we're projecting 150. i mean it's not a lot of money but it's money it's money on a budget and um a regular a regular car costs about 14 cents a mile if you look at our maintenance costs these inspector type vehicles and i and that with the electric vehicle that's going to go down to about two cents a mile so there's savings in making the switch and it's a good opportunity for for us to look at electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles in our fleet and how we can use them and see if we can materialize these type of savings and minerals

▶ 1:27:40 Francis X. Wright Jr.: great thank you i mean i think it's a great idea and um i look forward to seeing how they work out

▶ 1:27:47 John N. Tramontozzi: thank you very much thank you mr chairman very good any further discussion on those items

▶ 1:27:55 Speaker 2: seeing none i think we can proceed to the next items thank you thank you um the next one is uh GEO, TMS, AP, FY14, inspection services, and IT, $17,255.20. I think Mr. Pesos is here this evening. This is a prior year bill. That's why it is before it's a prior year bill. Oh, prior year. So it requires special attention by the board. Thank you.

▶ 1:28:24 Speaker 1: Good evening. Thank you. So the prior year bill, as Mr. Tilleruso mentioned, we budget about $25,000 a year for JLTMS. There were some issues we were working through with the billing for last year. And through a clerical error, we did not encumber that money. So while we budgeted $25,000 last year and spent about $9,000, the 17 needs to be made whole so that we can pay for those prior year bills for

▶ 1:28:58 John N. Tramontozzi: this product is that all for you mr. pesos I'm sorry is that all for you for this evening mr. pays also that is all for me any any discussion on that particular item okay seeing none your office mr. mr. de la Rosa do you want to

▶ 1:29:12 Speaker 2: proceed thank you absolutely thank you thank you joy next one is item relative to professional services city solicitor 15,000 mr. van Kampen is here thank you

▶ 1:29:29 John N. Tramontozzi: I thought we got rid of you I guess you're back that's all right happy to be

▶ 1:29:30 Speaker 4: here all right good the members of the committee understand this year my office employed a statutory mechanism to in an effort to clean up some blighted properties here in Melrose and they're called municipal receiverships and we retained the services of a law firm by the name of D'Ambrosio Brown which is a which is a specialist in these municipal receiverships and I know you've done some work on the other side at some point we've met great success and using this statutory process and Alderman Mortimer can attest to this in the area that he represents there was a blighted property that we have begun the process of cleaning up and it is to the benefit of the neighborhood it's to the benefit the entire community and the beauty of it is once the receiver is appointed on one of these parcels all of the expenses associated with the cleanup and bringing the property into compliance are essentially passed through a forced sale of the property so it's all intended at the end of the day to clean up these problem properties thankfully in melrose we don't have too many of them but a few are showing up on the radar and this fifteen thousand dollar request this evening is to continue that work to use the services of that firm to employ these receiverships as a way to clean properties and bring them into compliance in a way that we otherwise would not be able to so that's what this appropriation request is for this evening any any discussion on this

▶ 1:31:04 Speaker 2: matter president yeah this might seem like a small matter but it's an important issue this is money well spent properties that fall into disrepair and I have no visible owner need to be cleaned up. And this is a small amount of money to spend to protect the community from properties of this nature. I fully support this expenditure.

▶ 1:31:28 Speaker 4: And I think important to note for the committee, Mr. Chairman, as well as on one of the properties we've actually dealt with on this issue. There were $33,000 in unpaid fines through the building department on that property. through the receivership process the city will actually recover those fines in a way that we typically wouldn't in the district court for example so that is offsetting any of the monies that are appropriated for the services of Dan brosier Brown an example is the case up at Mount Hood we incurred about seven thousand dollars in legal fees to coordinate that receivership but will ultimately recoup $33,000 in unpaid fines so the hope and mr. de la russa and I have talked about this superficially is that long term we can create a revolving account so that I would never have to come back for appropriations in

▶ 1:32:24 John N. Tramontozzi: order to do this type of work well this at this point in time that the funds get could go back into the general funds yes yes general yes great thank you I think I think I'll move back to my goals, and then I'll move there, sure.

▶ 1:32:34 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: Thank you. I just wondered, does that represent one property, or would that be a fee for handling several properties?

▶ 1:32:42 Speaker 4: The 15,000 that's in front of you, that is, just off the top of my head, that is probably two or three properties that we would be seeking appointment of a receiver on. In addition to the one I mentioned earlier.

▶ 1:32:57 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: And so any fines or liens that are outstanding, we then collect at the end of the process when the house is sold.

▶ 1:33:04 Speaker 3: Correct. We don't get the revenue from the sale of the house.

▶ 1:33:07 Speaker 4: Correct. The owner of record would still receive whatever equity is left after the city's real estate, water and sewer, fines, receivers fees, mortgages, anything left over after that, the owner of the property would recover.

▶ 1:33:25 Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 1:33:28 Monica C. Medeiros: I think you answered my question. My question was about how many properties are we looking at? And so, are you talking about three or four properties, or is it larger than that, that we're looking at?

▶ 1:33:41 Speaker 4: I'm not sure how many are out there right now. In my office, I know there are two or three on the radar for this mechanism. There may be others that the health department or the building department bring forward. But at this point, we're going to, because it's a new process, we're taking it somewhat slowly. If a property is a major problem in a neighborhood, and there was one in ward six. I will tell you there's one in Alderman Forbes ward that is a long standing problem. There is one commercial property that has been a problem in this community for a number of years. Those properties are on the radar in my office. There may be others, residential and non-residential, but right now, Alderman, I'd say between three and four.

▶ 1:34:21 Monica C. Medeiros: And this is a new process, you say, because something that the city of Mellon was just engaged in? Has there been a change in the law?

▶ 1:34:28 Speaker 4: No, the receivership statute is under Chapter 111 of the Mass General Laws. It's been in effect for several years, but this is the first time we've used the tool to our advantage. So we've seen some results, as we did at Mount Hood. We're going to keep using it.

▶ 1:34:43 Speaker 3: Thank you very much. Thank you.

▶ 1:34:45 Speaker 1: Alderman Wright and then Alderman Mortimer.

▶ 1:34:47 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question, Rob. Do we take advantage of the Attorney General's program for these properties and what they offer to us? Because I know they have a team that will work statewide on these types of properties. Correct. We've been in contact with them. One of the reasons why we've used Ambrosio Brown is because my office had been working on some labor matters and I just couldn't devote much time to this effort and we wanted to move rather quickly on some of these properties, so that's why we're sort of handling it the way we are currently. Great, great, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 1:35:21 Peter D. Mortimer: Very good, Alderman Mortimer. Thank you very much, and I want to recognize the innovation that you were able to achieve on this in the past. It has been a long, drawn out, attenuated process. To very little avail, fines weren't collected, people were let off the hook. And working together, Mr. Van Campen and I went to court. We were able to achieve some results in that court, and then go further, and I think it is trailblazing work. And once again, excuse me for being repetitive, but I don't think it can be repeated enough. I'm making sure that the communities are kept in good stead, protects everyone's property values. And for most people, most tax payers in this city, that's their biggest asset, is their home. And this whole administration is doing good work to make sure that people's biggest asset keeps its value. And this was one giant step that you had. And sometimes a little thinking outside the legal box does the trick, and you did it. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Alderman Boisselle?

▶ 1:36:32 Robert A. Boisselle: These situations, are they started by lifestyle or abandonment of, or walking away from the ownership of the home, or foreclosures, or just?

▶ 1:36:44 Speaker 4: My experience has been, and I would defer to the health director or the building commissioner on this, but my experience has been that it runs the gambit. It can be someone who is a hoarder, which is essentially considered a mental health issue. someone who has, in the case at Mount Hood Terrace, who just abandoned their property for years and thumbed their nose at the city. It could be folks that are just delinquent taxpayers and can't get out from under it. It's just a number of different things, Alderman, that cause these problems.

▶ 1:37:16 Robert A. Boisselle: Well, when you say abandoning the property to the point that they walked away from the mortgage and so forth, is the bank the primary owner now or the final owner?

▶ 1:37:25 Speaker 4: Well, the bank has an interest in the real estate, and the bank becomes, in the case of these receiverships, the bank becomes a party in interest. So the bank, so the receivership does a number of things. It either forces the issue by physically making improvements to the property through a receiver, or it forces the bank to take the steps that are necessary to bring the property into compliance.

▶ 1:37:46 Robert A. Boisselle: Have the banks been doing that in these particular cases?

▶ 1:37:49 Speaker 4: Banks have been responsive, but depending on the size of the mortgage, it directly correlates with the amount of motivation the bank has to do anything.

▶ 1:37:58 Robert A. Boisselle: So if you sell the home, why should they get any money?

▶ 1:38:02 Speaker 4: Because they have a secured interest in it. They've got a mortgage.

▶ 1:38:04 Speaker 2: But they're not doing anything.

▶ 1:38:05 Speaker 4: But the law recognizes their secured interest. They have, if they have a $50,000 mortgage on the parcel, they're gonna get paid that secured interest.

▶ 1:38:13 Robert A. Boisselle: So we're doing all the, the city's doing all the work, and investing and upgrading the home, and then we're selling it, and they're getting a good portion of it.

▶ 1:38:22 Speaker 4: But the difference is when the city, through the receivership process, is doing it, We are controlling this process in these neighborhoods, so we know what's going to happen in these buildings, how they're going to be brought into compliance. The building commissioner is actively involved in crafting the scope of work that the receiver has to do so that we know and sort of maintain some consistency with our collective vision of what our neighborhoods should continue to be.

▶ 1:38:46 Robert A. Boisselle: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Tierney.

▶ 1:38:49 Speaker 1: Very good. Alderman Wright.

▶ 1:38:52 Francis X. Wright Jr.: Just briefly, just to touch on Alderman Boisselle point, I can tell you from, and Rob, you can probably comment on this from years of experience that relying on banks to do this work is frustrating at best, that you're much better off to let the cities come in, step in, because the banks will drag their feet. I mean, their goal is to spend as little as possible to protect their interest, because ultimately all they want to do is make sure that the the property is kept in a condition that's sufficient that when it's sold they will be able to recover that which they have invested in it so I can appreciate your concern and I can appreciate frustration but I think that the city is doing it the correct way which is to get out there and restore the property to the point where it's not a blighted property that has a negative

▶ 1:39:49 John N. Tramontozzi: impact on the neighborhood thank you very good all right seeing no further discussion I think that concludes this order no uh-huh if I make to the chair

▶ 1:39:59 Speaker 2: you're welcome to go ahead one item City Clerk election office has three components okay and I believe thank you it has to do with the $1,500 for the

▶ 1:40:12 Speaker 2: Can you vote maintenance? Yeah, sure, right. And the election, part time, selling your wages, as well as professional services of 8400, that's all embedded in the order.

▶ 1:40:27 Peter D. Mortimer: Good evening, Ms. O'Shea. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I had a discussion with Mrs. O'Shea. And on the fourth item from the bottom, on packet page six, I'd like to make a friendly amendment to change, it's in the packet as well on the next page, on packet page seven. To change that item that's fourth in the bottom, 8400, to be split into account number 011612-52900. City clerk professional services, $4,945.20. and account number zero one one six one one dash five one one zero zero zero city clerk salaries and wages three thousand four hundred and fifty four dollars and eighty cents it's it's on packet page seven uh and it's just a breakdown of the fourth item it's the same amount of money no change in the money just a little more specificity as required by mr delarusso so we can do that

▶ 1:41:38 John N. Tramontozzi: correctly okay very good everybody get that mr. Clark did you get that okay okay so on that amendment there's a that amendment as stated by alderman Mortimer we have a second to that amendment by alderman bird any further discussion on that particular amendment seeing none all in favor any opposed great so we So we have that split into two, 49, 40, 520, and 34, 50, 480, something like that. Is that right?

▶ 1:42:10 Speaker 1: Ms. O'Shea.

▶ 1:42:11 Speaker 2: So in the letter that I submitted to you, I explained why we needed these funds. And it's to pay for temporary help in our office. Well, it's commencing in January. Susan will be going on medical leave. this is just an estimate because i have no idea how long she will be out okay but i'm anticipating

▶ 1:42:42 Speaker 2: close to three months okay and okay let me see what else we've got here now i do see i do see

▶ 1:42:45 John N. Tramontozzi: that memorandum in the packet thank you for bringing it to our attention all of them in one

▶ 1:42:57 Speaker 2: and then um the next item election salary part-time salaries and wages

▶ 1:43:08 Speaker 2: um i need the sum of ten thousand dollars to cover a deficit that we have from two elections from the primary in the november election you mean the state didn't pay us wasn't the state supposed

▶ 1:43:19 Speaker 2: to pay us for that no no um actually um we should have received a check for eleven thousand dollars from them and they sent us a check for 8 000 and i've been in touch with them to see if they'll

▶ 1:43:32 Speaker 2: make an adjustment and give us the 3 000 that the shortfall and i'm still working on it we haven't

▶ 1:43:46 Speaker 2: been successful but um that's so that's part of the 10 000 deficit that we have and the reason why um there's been additional charges for the police the dpw and for bill muse for the past two

▶ 1:44:06 Speaker 2: elections um well i'll explain a part of this to you police details have gone up and the dpw um

▶ 1:44:17 Speaker 2: okay so election day um there was no school and so we were told by the department of public works that we have to pay for the custodians for the full day instead of just the overtime hours that normally we just pay for the overtime because the schools will be open so now we have to pay for the extra pay for the whole day for the custodians um and bill muse that sets up for

▶ 1:44:43 Speaker 2: the polling he likes to go in on a thursday and friday and the schools allowed him to but now they won't let him go in on thursdays and fridays so he has to go in sunday to set up for the polling at the schools and um he has to bring someone from dpw to help him and he gets paid overtime so

▶ 1:45:08 Speaker 2: with all said and done um this is why we have a deficit of ten thousand any uh discussion on that

▶ 1:45:17 John N. Tramontozzi: that matter, seeing none, thank you for bringing that to our attention. Thank you. Very good. And keep after the state, was that through the Secretary of State's office?

▶ 1:45:31 Speaker 1: Secretary Galvin's office?

▶ 1:45:32 Speaker 2: The Department of Local Mandates. I'm sorry? The Department of Local Mandates. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. That's a great name.

▶ 1:45:39 Speaker 1: Keep taking. The last order, but a good cast.

▶ 1:45:46 Speaker 2: i'm sorry pat that was the last item it was all right seeing no further discussion on this uh that

▶ 1:45:50 John N. Tramontozzi: particular order what it's going to recommend for passing second all right we have amended as amended as amended motion to recommend as um as amended uh but parliament maderos i don't think

▶ 1:46:05 Monica C. Medeiros: we spoke about uh mr chairman about the uh election expense active vote maintenance fifteen

▶ 1:46:13 Speaker 2: I mentioned that when she went, that was one of the three items. And I was waiting for any questions on it, but I think she might still be here.

▶ 1:46:24 John N. Tramontozzi: I'm sorry. So at the last election- Lay that one up for a minute. I'll hold the motion. I'll hold the motion.

▶ 1:46:31 Speaker 2: At the last election, we rented two backup voting machines in case one failed, because we've been having problems with the voting machines.

▶ 1:46:46 Speaker 3: that we actually did use one of them and are we looking into getting new machines

▶ 1:46:53 Speaker 2: yeah yeah the package together in the spring will probably be approaching you

▶ 1:47:00 John N. Tramontozzi: thank you thank you very good I will resubmit the motion then now we have a motion to recommend as amended by Alderman Mortimer second by Alderman Any further discussion, seeing none, on that motion, all in favor? Aye. The opposed, great. So that will be moved to the full board as recommended. So we will then proceed to backtrack to order 2015-57, appropriate $50,000 from ambulance retained earnings, certified free cash to ambulance reserve retained earnings.