ORDER-2015-157 : Order to Place General Override Question on the November 3, 2015 Biennial Election Ballot

Transcript (~59 min @ 1:26:53)

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

▶ 1:26:50 Speaker 5: I've known you since you were a little kid, sorry.

▶ 1:27:00 Peter D. Mortimer: That's true, that's all right, we're good. All in favor of the motion to close public participation, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, public participation is now closed.

▶ 1:27:13 Peter D. Mortimer: The first order we have before us is order 2015-157. Order to place general override question on the November 3rd, 2015 biennial election ballot.

▶ 1:27:28 Speaker 3: Motion to recommend.

▶ 1:27:29 Peter D. Mortimer: We have a motion to recommend for passage by Alderman Inferna. Second. Duly seconded by Alderman Lemmerman, by a hair, McAteer-Margolis. On discussion.

▶ 1:27:43 Speaker 3: Motion to suspend the rules to hear from the administration relative to the proposed override. Second.

▶ 1:27:48 Peter D. Mortimer: We have a motion to suspend the rules to hear from the appropriate city officials by President Kahn, duly seconded by Alderman Forbes. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, we will hear from the appropriate city officials.

▶ 1:28:05 Speaker 13: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Members of the committee. I'm joined this evening by Chris Wilcock, the city's chief assessor. His office, my office, and the chief financial officer's office have been coordinating the mechanics of placing an override ballot question on the biennial election ballot on November 3rd of this year. At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I just want to inform the members that the question before the committee this evening is not about the merits of the question, but about the question itself. So I want to point that out, understanding there will probably be some debate about the merits of the question this evening. The process, Mr. Chairman, for placing an override question on the ballot is a rigid statutory process. The question itself is a creature of statute. There's no flexibility. There's no pride of authorship. We have no ability to revise what the question looks like. The question that is before you attach to the order is embedded in the statute. The one thing I would point out, Mr. Chairman, the only thing that there is some flexibility on is the purpose of the question itself, and that purpose has been vetted through the Department of Revenue's Division of Local Services and they have approved the form of the purpose that is contained within this question so also want to point out for members there have been questions raised that the ballot question itself given that it's being placed on the city's election ballot and not the state election ballot only requires approval of this board to place it on the ballot there's no jurisdictional authority or approval authority by the secretary of state's elections division so it's exclusively the purview of this board notifying the city clerk to place this on the municipal election ballot thank you thank you

▶ 1:30:08 Peter D. Mortimer: city solicitor van campen do you have any comments okay that covers it all are there any questions or comments from members of the board president khan please yeah i just

▶ 1:30:20 Speaker 3: have a question for mr van campen my understanding is that in order to place this on the ballot we could vote now we could vote at our july meeting or we could potentially even vote in our august meeting is that correct correct so there's no procedural time crunch that we're

▶ 1:30:38 Speaker 13: under here in terms of the only procedural time crunch that you're under um is that the ballot question be forwarded to the city clerk within 35 days of the municipal election okay so this This was a state, just not to cut you off, but if this was a state election ballot, the deadline for that would be the first Wednesday in August.

▶ 1:30:53 Speaker 3: Yeah, I understand that. So we have quite a bit of time if we want to avail ourselves of it to discuss this order. That's the only question I had for this gentleman.

▶ 1:31:03 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, President Khan. Any other aldermen wishing to be heard? Alderman Medeiros, please.

▶ 1:31:11 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. First, I would like to, well, we had received a memorandum or email from the mayor's office in regard to the purpose of the use of the override funds back on May 19th and I'd like to move that this get added to the body of the order in IQM2.

▶ 1:31:36 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman Medeiros has made a motion regarding a memo that was sent to us by May 19th, on May 19th, regarding the purpose of the memo. She has made a motion that this be included in the official record on IQ, excuse me, M2.

▶ 1:31:54 Speaker 3: Second.

▶ 1:31:55 Peter D. Mortimer: Second the motion. That motion is seconded by President Kahn.

▶ 1:32:01 Peter D. Mortimer: On discussion, seeing none, all in favor of the motion to add that memorandum to the official record, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, hearing none, That memorandum is added to the official record. You still have the floor, do you have more?

▶ 1:32:13 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you, yes, I was just hoping Mr. Wilcox could discuss the method that's been used to calculate what this amount means.

▶ 1:32:25 Speaker 9: The Department of Revenue has on their website a financial calculator for estimating the property tax impact of any override or debt exclusion. I've used their form and that's how I arrived at the numbers.

▶ 1:32:41 Speaker 7: and can you explain what what that is sure I actually have a copy and I'll

▶ 1:32:46 Speaker 9: send it to everyone after the meeting basically you go in and you choose your community it backs into the last tax rates that were approved this was our fiscal 2015 tax rates what it does is it increases the levy amount uses the same shift that we voted on and it backs into what the increase is for the residential

▶ 1:33:10 Monica C. Medeiros: and for the commercial tax rate and does that include both the average anticipated

▶ 1:33:16 Speaker 7: increase that we're going to see when we set the tax rate in November that's just

▶ 1:33:24 Speaker 9: for what we are in this year and at this currently we do not have the values for fiscal 2016 nothing's approved from the Department of Revenue the only values that we have available at this time of 2015 so it's just using those values

▶ 1:33:40 Monica C. Medeiros: right now okay and will this how is this actually collected from the residents is this collected all over the course of 12 months or is this my understanding is that when if this were to pass and go into effect that the increase would be actually collected over six months is that correct

▶ 1:33:57 Speaker 9: we have a quarterly billing system this increase would be taken out of the third and fourth quarter it would be split in half just just like any other increase thank you thank you alderman Medeiros

▶ 1:34:18 Peter D. Mortimer: any other alderman wishing to be heard seeing none we have a motion on the floor made by alderman ferner to recommend this order for passage to the full board it was duly seconded by alderman

▶ 1:34:29 Robert A. Boisselle: Do we have any other public officials that want to, administrative, to talk?

▶ 1:34:36 Peter D. Mortimer: If you have further discussion, if you have questions of other officials that you'd like to see, we can continue the discussion before we call for the vote. Do you have anyone who you'd like to question, Alderman Boisselle?

▶ 1:34:49 Speaker 6: Not tonight, Monday night I do, but.

▶ 1:34:51 Speaker 5: All right, then.

▶ 1:34:53 Speaker 3: President Kahn. Yeah, I have discussion.

▶ 1:34:56 Peter D. Mortimer: Very good, please continue.

▶ 1:34:57 Speaker 3: Yeah, before Mr. Wilcox leaves, we're all sitting here in this room and we all have a lot of information that we receive either as public officials or people who are involved in the ballot initiative. But people at home don't necessarily know this. Can you explain the impact that you think this would have on the residents if this were to pass?

▶ 1:35:22 Speaker 9: will have a handout or something on the website that explains the impact it actually goes by assessed value it has both tax rates I will make that available to everyone it's it's basically adding 57 cents on the residential tax rate and it's adding 83 cents on the commercial tax rate and if need be we will have a calculator that can calculate the impact for those

▶ 1:35:50 Speaker 3: increases okay what do we think the impact would be on this person who lived in the average yep I have a new home in Melrose based on the numbers that we

▶ 1:35:57 Speaker 9: have in front of us the impact is 244 dollars per year on the average assessed

▶ 1:36:05 Speaker 3: value and this is a this is a general override is my understanding is that

▶ 1:36:10 Speaker 13: correct mr. van camper it's actually referred to as a levy limit override

▶ 1:36:15 Speaker 3: okay but it is a general over so we've identified positions and things of that nature that we would like to see funded here but if this passes it's just general fund money 2.2 million dollars of general fund money will be raised is that correct yeah the point to be made

▶ 1:36:31 Speaker 13: is in the first year the funds have to be used for the stated purposes so if there is a menu of items i'll refer to as the funds in that first year would have to be expended on those items in ensuing fiscal years it would become a permanent part of the city's taxing authority to be used for

▶ 1:36:49 Speaker 3: other purposes yeah i have the dubious distinction of being probably the only one in the room here who's been a veteran of four three or four override campaigns so i've seen general overrides and specific purpose overrides and this is not money that's always going to be earmarked for a specific purpose it's it will in year one but thereafter it rolls into the general fund correct and essentially what happens is the increase may be 240 dollars in year one and then it's going to increased by the two and a half percent in each succeeding year is that not correct

▶ 1:37:23 Speaker 9: i believe the calculation actually would be separate um there's the the regular levy that would be adjusted by the two and a half percent by prop two and a half right and then this would be added in after i can send you a copy of the actual form and how it's taken out right but i

▶ 1:37:36 Speaker 3: think we can probably take notice of the fact since i started sitting here in 1990 and i've never seen us not go to the two and a half limit that whatever additional monies we raise are going to be increased by two and a half percent each year thereafter i i i think and i want the chief

▶ 1:37:51 Speaker 13: assessor to answer this but i think the i think the reality is the levy limit itself on the two and a half increases by two and a half but the the levy limit override that would be approved by the voters on november 3rd would not also be compounded by a two and a half percent increase

▶ 1:38:07 Speaker 3: in ensuing years well it would raise the amount of money by 2.2 million dollars on which the levy limit would be calculated each year so it would have a two and a half percent increase unless i'm wrong in my math and i have been before but that's my understanding the understanding

▶ 1:38:21 Speaker 9: of debt exclusions and overrides are after the two and a half percent um i can send you the form that that calculates that but is my understanding that it's separate not included

▶ 1:38:33 Speaker 3: in the two and a half above okay um thank you for that i do have some other commentary i didn't really think that we were going to go straight to a vote on this so um and with with respect to the

▶ 1:38:45 Speaker 3: city solicitor um i do think we have the ability and perhaps the responsibility to have some discussion about the merits of the override um and how this how this will unfold going forward

▶ 1:39:04 Speaker 3: and this this is the way i would look at the proposal mr chairman and not that this is the correct way and again with respect to mr ditmer i don't i've sat here for a long time but i don't think i have any wisdom uh that's beyond anybody else out in the public i don't think sitting here is alderman we necessarily know more or less or or wiser than anyone else here but um number one the threshold decision we have to make is whether we're going to put this question on the ballot And it seems like an easy question and that we should put everything on the ballot that's put before us. But I do think we have to make some kind of baseline analysis to determine whether this is a question that rises to the level that we should put it on the ballot. And I would agree that this is a serious proposal. I think that it's something that needs to go before the voters. With respect to the mayor, I would not blindly put anything that he sent down onto the ballot. There could be things that I think that I would not vote to support, but it seems to me that this is an issue that does deserve to go forward. In terms of the merits of the order, as a voter, How I would be looking at this order is, have we identified specific problems or issues that we're trying to address here, if we've done that in a systematic way? Are we putting forward a solution here that's going to address the problems that we've identified? Do we anticipate that this money and these funds are going to achieve the results and solve the problems that we've issued? That's the way I would analyze this. I don't think we want to be in a position where we're just raising money and expending it unless we've answered those questions. So those are the questions that I would have to answer as a voter as this goes forward. The other thing that I would ask the administration to do is to make sure that this issue was presented in a way in which everybody in Melrose, not just the people who were members of groups who were involved in the support of the override, They're not necessarily people who you think will support the override. But I think what we need to do here is we need to make sure that everybody out there who understands and is interested knows the issues, knows what we're asking them to do, and understands the process here. And I get a little bit concerned, and you guys are tired of hearing me talk about what an old gray beard I am and how long I've been sitting here. But what happens in a lot of these override situations is the people who are excited about the issues and are working on the issues are very involved and there's no outreach or explanation to people who might be in the middle or might be opposed. And I would suggest that the responsible thing to do here is to make sure if this goes forward and it does in fact get on to the ballot, that that information is put forward so that everybody who's interested can make an informed decision relative to this override. And I would also suggest if that's what we do, then you'll have a less acrimonious discussion and debate here. If everybody understands what's going on, if everybody understands the facts, then people can evaluate this proposal and decide whether they're for or against it. But what I don't want to see is have a captive group who has the information and is not engaging with people who might not be in favor of this, who might be opposed with this. I think the healthiest thing that we could do and the best thing that we could do for this community is have a large outreach, have large meetings in places like Memorial Hall where people on both sides can come forward and discuss this. That's my take on this issue. I believe that it needs to go on the ballot. I'm not going to do anything to frustrate this going on the ballot, but that's what I would like to see as this goes forward. I've seen several overrides that were very acrimonious. Don't really want to see those again. I don't think there's a need to have things go that way. And I would hope that as this proceeds, that's the rubric that we follow.

▶ 1:44:03 Speaker 13: Mr. Chairman, if I could just, to President Conn point, it's a good point, just so the folks on the board understand and the public understands, any information relative to the override that originates from City Hall will be of a nonpolitical variety is what I'm trying to say, understanding politics as it is. It would be totally inappropriate for the city website to produce information that slants the data, the question, or the information. So to the extent there's a broader discussion in the community, President Kahn, I suspect that would occur as part of a more organized political campaign. But I'm not a party to that. The folks at City Hall are not a party to that. So just so everyone understands, and I've instructed city employees as to the do's and don'ts both under the campaign finance laws and the state ethics laws is what they can and cannot do in terms of political activism but information that comes from City Hall from the chief assessor from the chief financial officer would be entirely non-political and would be in its rawest form yeah and

▶ 1:45:15 Speaker 3: I'm not I'm not throwing stones at this point in time but since we're everybody's discussing their wish lists I'm discussing my wish list as to how I how I would like to see the discussion of these issues go forward. Of course. That's all for now. Thank you.

▶ 1:45:30 Speaker 5: Thank you, President Kahn.

▶ 1:45:32 Peter D. Mortimer: Any other aldermen wishing to be heard? I'm seeing, oh, Alderman Bird, please.

▶ 1:45:38 Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 1:45:41 Jaclyn L. Bird: The hesitation to speak was actually, I'm just digesting all the information that we heard from the public tonight. And I am going to support putting this on the ballot. I think the right thing to do is to let the residents be heard. I understand that some may think that is the easy way out. I don't feel that way at all, actually. But I think what I'm very optimistic about tonight is the exchange of ideas that we heard here, and I hope that's what we hear over the next several months. What I hear is a lot of common ground, and a lot of overlap with what people are looking for, whether or not they're necessarily for or against this when they get in the voting booth. And I think people made really good points. I'm happy to vote to further that, to put it before the residents. I hope we do have a very civil discussion. You know, Ms. Shattuck that talked about Lexington, I understand how these can take sort of an ugly turn. And I don't think that benefits anyone in the community. So I hope that we're careful about that and that we're all mindful of that, both in large conversations and in small conversations. where we don't we might question someone's ideas but we don't question their motives i think we all want you know what's best for the community there so um i'm going to support tonight putting it on the ballot and um that's all i have to say thank you mr chairman thank you alderman bird alderman

▶ 1:47:05 Robert A. Boisselle: boyce hell please back to the question concerning the the calculation so forth now you mentioned an average of $244 total is that the total number you're talking about or $244 per

▶ 1:47:18 Speaker 9: quarter the the number is based off of the average single-family assessed value 428 thousand is the assessed value it's $244 increased over the year so the

▶ 1:47:30 Robert A. Boisselle: first and second quarter they're going to get a tax rate of another $200 there In third quarter, they're going to get 200 plus $244 for a total of 400?

▶ 1:47:44 Speaker 9: The mechanics of the tax bills, the first two quarters are based off the last year. Historically, there's no adjustment in those first two bills. Any adjustments from Prop 2 1⁄2, debt exclusions, or overrides would be in just the third and fourth quarter on the first year when we vote on a new tax rate.

▶ 1:48:01 Robert A. Boisselle: but even though the comment here concerns the money assessed will be used for fiscal year beginning July 1st 2015 so really you're catching up what you missed in in the first and second quarter said historically we've always

▶ 1:48:15 Speaker 9: done that any increase is only in the third and fourth but this third quarter

▶ 1:48:19 Robert A. Boisselle: is going to be a bigger chunk than what you've seen in the first and second

▶ 1:48:25 Speaker 9: quarter that's correct if it's an increase over the regular two and a half percent every year yes it would be larger than the first and second quarter

▶ 1:48:33 Speaker 5: okay thank you very much Thank You alderman for selling seeing no further

▶ 1:48:37 Peter D. Mortimer: alderman wishing alderman Medeiros please yes thank you I I too I guess I

▶ 1:48:41 Monica C. Medeiros: didn't think we would move along with this so quickly you know this is probably one of the most serious votes that I feel like I've been faced with since we've been in this in this chamber and you know i know respectfully this has been submitted to us on may 11th but this is the first opportunity that we've had to discuss it and i did hope that we could have a discussion because i mean to me before i vote i kind of feel like this is part of our responsibility as alderman to put something on a ballot that puts us above the legally allowable limit to raise taxes and ask the voters for more that I you know thought we would have a little bit more I guess discussion I just mr. van camp and so what you're saying is that this question which simply says shall the city of Melrose be allowed to assess an additional two million two hundred fifty thousand dollars in real estate and personal property taxes for the purpose of funding two additional police officers and supplementing the operational budget of the public schools for which the monies from this assessment will be used for the fiscal year beginning July 1st 2015 so so

▶ 1:50:06 Monica C. Medeiros: that's it so even in the the proposed use of override funds that the mayor has set forth and that the school committee has said that that's what they'd like to do with it if this question passes are we even required to do exactly what's in

▶ 1:50:26 Monica C. Medeiros: that memorandum or just use some money for two police officers additional and

▶ 1:50:32 Monica C. Medeiros: and the rest towards the school operating budget doesn't matter what we

▶ 1:50:36 Speaker 13: do with it well I think you if I understand correctly you have a memorandum that you've received that identifies a list of positions in the school department as well as two additional police officer positions in the police department in the in the first fiscal year assuming a majority of the residents of Melrose vote in the affirmative on this ballot question the funds in that first fiscal year would be would have to be utilized for the specific purpose of those two additional police officers and to as this question is stated to supplement the operating budget of the school department which I assume includes all of those itemized positions that the aldermen have received in which i'm sure the public will be made aware of as the ensuing months unfold before

▶ 1:51:17 Monica C. Medeiros: november 3rd okay and so you're saying that any uh motions to say adjust the amount that's being

▶ 1:51:25 Speaker 13: asked for would be out of order i don't think i said that at all i just my point is that the purpose of tonight is to vote whether to place the question on the ballot that has been submitted to the alderman this evening the separate question of whether the alderman can amend the amount contained within the question is within the discretion of this body of this body okay um

▶ 1:51:50 Monica C. Medeiros: i wanted to ask for some clarification on one of the items because a couple of people who i respect very much i think found it to mean something different than i thought it meant The very last page, the mayor has referred to $750,000 to be allocated towards budget stabilization, which is, quote, adding sufficient funding to the school budget base in order to minimize the use of one-time revenues for ongoing operating expenses, which weakens the city's financial position. This will ensure funding necessary for the programs and services to provide additional flexibility for all city departments, and this will also compensate for the continuous loss of federal and state aid. Is this $750,000, this is not a separate stabilization fund?

▶ 1:52:38 Speaker 13: I'm going to defer to the Chief Financial Officer on that question.

▶ 1:52:56 Speaker 5: Thank you for coming ladies.

▶ 1:53:06 Speaker 6: Thank you.

▶ 1:53:10 Speaker 6: No, it is not a separate budget stabilization fund. The $750,000 will go directly to the bottom line of the operating budget of the school department, period.

▶ 1:53:23 Monica C. Medeiros: is this the funds that so the the budget that we will probably see next monday in the school department is this already budgeted and included in that budget no no okay and are we going to be expected to allocate free cash in order to balance that budget yes but it's not this is not to to adjust, my understanding with this money was to make it so we won't be using free cash in the future to balance that budget.

▶ 1:53:56 Speaker 6: If I may, through the chair, there's two components here. The first is the annual reimbursement for the Medicaid, which is $300,000 per year. That has historically been done through this board from free cash, and that will stay intact. Number two is that we have found ourselves since the loss of almost, actually it's over $5 million of state and federal aid since 09. And what we have found is that we have been unable to close that gap. And we have therefore had to reserve to free cash in the fall to make up for that loss of revenue. past years it's been between 600 uh almost 640 000 per year as it was last year and i anticipate at least 640 probably um 750 000 this fall based on what i know tonight and

▶ 1:55:02 Monica C. Medeiros: will we anticipate doing that moving forward if this goes through no as an ongoing basis

▶ 1:55:10 Speaker 6: no if in fact through the chair if in fact this override does pass if it is successful that allocation of free cash for part two not the medicaid reimbursement would not happen and

▶ 1:55:31 Monica C. Medeiros: you know and i just i find this this timing a little awkward because so much of this has to do with the schools and we haven't seen the school budget yet and had that discussion uh but how does

▶ 1:55:42 Monica C. Medeiros: does this work this is for the ballot for the fiscal year that begins July 1st but we're not going to vote on it until November 1st and there's many new positions included I think 15 new positions in total the police the two police officers not doesn't necessarily matter so much when we hire them but in terms of school positions I mean usually we want to have you know classrooms set and and people hired in September usually when you're getting the best candidates that aren't willing to lose that you know leave their jobs in the middle of the year and so forth are we hiring for these positions in September

▶ 1:56:22 Speaker 6: before this passes I defer to the superintendent on the procedures to be

▶ 1:56:29 Monica C. Medeiros: utilized I think that's sort of important to understand how this how this works and when this would actually be you know impacted into the classrooms

▶ 1:56:42 Monica C. Medeiros: or not can we have the superintendent come up please

▶ 1:56:48 Peter D. Mortimer: madam superintendent you join us please this is superintendent Cynthia Taymore our superintendent of schools for people in the gallery and people listening at

▶ 1:57:00 Peter D. Mortimer: home thank you you're welcome and you heard Alderman Medeiros question from your chair back there in the gallery that's an excellent question not all

▶ 1:57:08 Speaker 10: All these positions will be able to be filled immediately, and we will have to wait until the following school year to get the best candidates. However, there are a number of positions here who are not classroom positions that we believe we can fill. Some of them may come up from within our own ranks, and those positions may have to be replaced. But again, what I would focus you on is an LICSW, for those of you who are in the business, it's often available. The Director of Instructional Technology, which is tied to our technology plan that Mr. Pezos will be coming forward with in a little while. That is not a teaching position. The instructional coach, again, it could be a teacher, it could be somebody from outside looking for a job change. But the other pieces of this that are very, very important to us, are the pieces around the technology, the special education, the curriculum resources, and the professional development. Those are services for our staff and students that are not dependent on hiring a classroom teacher. Obviously, the professional development is usually consultants or our own people receiving stipends for providing PD or covering the cost of substitutes for professional development. The curriculum resource line, we have two, we have actually three needs facing us. As the alderman Welch know, you generously bonded $480,000 two years ago to help the district bring its textbook stock up to current standards. At that time, I did not promise you that it would be 100% sufficient. But what I did say to you, we would try to fund it going forward in our budget. We're finding that the current ability to budget that is still inadequate. So let me give you an example. We need a total K through five new reading series. Our series is no longer aligned with the frameworks. It's no longer current. It's no longer considered best practice. The purchase cost of that new series is $250,000. We're facing new science standards. They have delayed them for six months, but we know they are inevitable. We don't know what the cost of those series would be. Currently, the district engages in a rotating program review. We spent two years studying every content area. We have finished social studies. We're halfway through foreign language. social studies will be presenting to the school committee on Tuesday. And they are predicting that we will need to make significant purchases of textbooks. We have students in this district who have textbooks from 2000, and as you know, if you have a country in a textbook from 2000, it most likely doesn't exist anymore. So those type of purchases are very well needed. The technology line increase, part of our audit and plan is to separate the technology hardware from the rising costs of digital subscriptions whether they're for programs digital books or for memberships that is a rising cost currently it is budgeted at forty thousand it was budgeted at forty thousand dollars in last year's budget our current subscriptions cost us eighty four thousand so those things will be needed almost immediately so those are some of the costs that will be be able to be expended upon receipt of this passes and as I said some positions may be filled

▶ 2:00:54 Monica C. Medeiros: some will have to wait I will there be any kind of assessments or anything to see you know if this is actually having the desired outcomes of improving we

▶ 2:01:04 Speaker 10: have ongoing assessments of our impact all the time if you go on to our website you'll see that we have a data dashboard for every classroom and for the district we are constantly collecting and measuring our impact of what we do the Melrose Public Schools recently participated in a study that from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education that was conducted by the American Institute for Research a well-known nonprofit in which they came in a and they examined our professional development and the impact it's having the classroom i'm pleased to say that we've now considered an exemplar for the state but if you do read that report it will say in that report that melrose has done as much as it can with the limited resources it has including using all our in-house people as trainers we do surveys every year to understand from our staff how effective they find it and what they think of the pd and one of the messages they have sent us back is we love you but we're tired of hearing you please bring in somebody else's voice and we want to do that for our staff you also know that one of the things I have said repeatedly in the three years I've been here that the most important thing we do for staff and students is professional development above all else it's training our staff to be the best they can be and provide the most current instruction and the second most important thing we do is then give them the resources so they can

▶ 2:02:34 Monica C. Medeiros: Are, are the, the teachers and other staff required to do community, continuing education for their licenses and.

▶ 2:02:42 Speaker 10: In order to be licensed, you have to be re-licensed every five years. You have to do 150 PDPs, professional development points. The majority of those PDPs, your 120 have to be in your content area. The remaining 30 have to be in pedagogy or methodologies that are related to what you do. And I say that because starting in 2016, all licensed educators must do 15 hours in special ed and must do 15 hours in English as a second language.

▶ 2:03:13 Monica C. Medeiros: And are we contractually obligated to provide those hours of professional development?

▶ 2:03:18 Speaker 10: Are we contractually obligated? That's an interesting question, Ms. Medeiros. They are legally obligated to renew their license. I think if we want the best teachers we have an obligation to provide at least a certain level of PD I will tell you we run an extensive PD Institute all winter and we run two sessions in the summer We also support our staff in pursuing PD outside of what we provide by contract We must set aside thirty thousand dollars every year to reimburse Staff who take college level courses and are you saying there are some of these positions?

▶ 2:03:57 Monica C. Medeiros: I see that you know sort of talk about instructional coaches and academic facilitators sort of it sounds like they're kind of helping teach the teachers how to teach these considered to be would these these individuals be providing those those units of training yes they do so for currently we have two

▶ 2:04:18 Speaker 10: instructional coaches outstanding if I do say so myself and they one of the things that we're required to do by law is to provide an intensive two-year induction program for all new teachers you cannot get your initial license as a teacher excuse me your professional level license as a teacher until you have completed a two-year induction program and have acquired your masters they do a lot of that after school they provide a lot of that but one of the most effective means of professional development you have is when somebody comes into your classroom and helps you they watch you teach that you need coaches model the coaches help problem-solve we've instituted a large system of peer-to-peer observations we do learning walkthroughs we do lesson studies we do release time for teachers to watch other teachers and to visit teachers in other districts and that is very effective but when they bring back to that classroom their new knowledge it helps to have somebody in the room coaching them helping them problem-solve our am I being effective am I doing the

▶ 2:05:28 Monica C. Medeiros: best job I can do and one of our speakers tonight mentioned regionalization I know when I was on the school committee one of the things that we did was do some regional professional development have you explored this we

▶ 2:05:39 Speaker 10: don't explore it we do it and we do what we do a lot of it would seem collaborative be seen collaborative under Kathy Lawson's directorship has has grown tremendously to be a general education support, not just a special education support. Currently, we have groups of teachers writing curriculum together. We do PD together, we share resources, we send our people to the different districts PD, we take their people in for our PD, we do a lot of that. We're also doing other regionalization to seem collaborative. There are positions that we all need, but we don't have the ability to support a 1.0, so STEAM Collaborative will hire a physician, an inclusion facilitator, a behavior specialist, a recreational therapist, and we'll buy pieces of that person. That's one of the things they're doing. They're also organizing some training for us in math, ESL, and WIDA, which stands for world-class instructional design and assessment. That is the new methodology for teaching ESL students, and they're driving a lot of that. We have reached out to other districts for regionalization. Mr. Picone has explored what's seen collaborative using their transportation, because they provide transportation for other districts. Actually, for us, it's a $100,000 loss to regionalize on that. We have reached out to Wakefield Public Schools. We have our post-graduate population ebbs and flows. We happen to be at a low point next year. We reached out to Wakefield to see if they wanted to share a programming approach. They're in their own turmoil and they were not interested at this time. But we are very open to whatever regionalization we can do that is reasonable and cost effective.

▶ 2:07:42 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. Thank you. I did have a question for the Chief of Police, just related to the two positions.

▶ 2:07:51 Peter D. Mortimer: That was pretty quick. Thank you very much, Superintendent Taymor.

▶ 2:07:56 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you. Alderman Medeiros has indicated that she has some questions for the Chief of Police. The override order proposed to be on the ballot tonight has two police officers included in the order as well. Good evening, Chief Lyle.

▶ 2:08:10 Speaker 1: Good evening.

▶ 2:08:12 Monica C. Medeiros: Thank you. Chief Lyle, you, after our budget meeting, you sent an email out on June 3rd, kind of with the staffing levels in the police department. And at the bottom you had mentioned that we've got the FY15 and FY15 staffing levels show 31 patrolmen, eight sergeants, four lieutenants, one chief. See in the FY16, the department will promote the ninth sergeant position vacant for over ten years. Three officers will graduate the police academy in early August. One will replace the sergeant with promotion, one tentative retirement. And the department will pick up one patrol officer to 32. Are those positions in the current budget, or are these positions with the anticipated-

▶ 2:09:03 Speaker 1: The officers in the academy, is that what we're talking about? Yes, they are in our budget for next year.

▶ 2:09:07 Monica C. Medeiros: They are in our budget for next year. So after the retirement and with the officers in the academy, we'll be at 31 patrolmen in the FY50?

▶ 2:09:18 Speaker 1: We'll be up one from what we are today.

▶ 2:09:23 Monica C. Medeiros: At the 16th, sorry, we'll be up one, and that's included in our regular budget. So if we added the two additional police officers and the proposed in the override, that would bring us to 34.

▶ 2:09:40 Monica C. Medeiros: No, 32 in the FY16 budget, or 32 in the-

▶ 2:09:44 Speaker 1: If we're talking about the override, if the override was to pass, we would have 32 patrolmen.

▶ 2:09:51 Monica C. Medeiros: 32 patrolmen and nine sergeants? sergeants yes full lieutenant so the the numbers in this uh email are actually assuming that the

▶ 2:10:06 Speaker 1: override passes at the bottom currently today um we we have 29 patrolmen we promoted sergeant ladner

▶ 2:10:17 Speaker 1: earlier this week effective june 29th so he his spot becomes vacant we're filling that with one of the academy officers we had a transfer this year that would be one more position what would put us up one officer from what we currently have today if the override was to pass we would pick up two more additional officers to give us 32 patrolmen i don't have that email in front of

▶ 2:10:38 Speaker 1: me so i really can't comment on i'm sorry i didn't realize that it's thanks uh well it looks like

▶ 2:10:49 Monica C. Medeiros: this is moving along so I better take this opportunity to make my comments here you know my comments are as I said earlier that this is this is probably one of the most serious you know votes that we've taken I I would hope that we would have more discussion on it I hope there are opportunities for as President Kahn mentioned you know big opportunities for public discussion open to both sides of this and how this works and affects a lot of people to some people in Melrose this is not that big of a deal in terms of how much money it is but some other people in Melrose make make no doubt that this will really impact some people and some people will leave because they can't afford to stay here anymore because it's not just this it's the other tax increases and you You know, I'm glad that we have the, the diversity and richness of many different economic groups here in Melrose. But not everybody's in the same boat. You know, I feel like part of my due diligence is to not come to somebody and ask them to, you know, give us more than the legally allowable limit of taxes. saying we did absolutely everything that we can do I know I don't want to get too off-topic but I hope to talk with the chief and maybe this board in the future about looking again at the special police ordinance and maybe seeing if we can revise it to make it more effective so that we can maybe use them to attack some of the overtime that we have in the budget and but I recognize that this may not be the appropriate place to discuss that today that being said you know i am very loathed to do this because i think that this will be very divisive in our community and i'm very proud that we've been a very unified community that's been you know moving up and been you know on the hottest list and great place to raise a family today and we've made a lot of strides to bring bring people together with so many more community events, and I hope that this doesn't tear things apart. But ultimately, I do think that there are enough people that do want to see this on the ballot,

▶ 2:13:19 Speaker 7: so I'll be voting to move it forward, thank you.

▶ 2:13:21 Peter D. Mortimer: Very good, thank you, Alderman Medeiros. President Kahn, please.

▶ 2:13:26 Speaker 3: So Chief, the net effect of this override, if it passes, is you're going to be up one patrol officer, is that correct?

▶ 2:13:32 Speaker 1: From today's standards, we would be up three.

▶ 2:13:34 Speaker 3: Okay, so you're going to be up three.

▶ 2:13:35 Speaker 1: An additional two, excuse me, an additional two.

▶ 2:13:37 Speaker 3: An additional two, and it's projected that that's going to cost us $150,000 with benefits and salary. Do you believe two additional offices are going to allow you to save more than $150,000 on overtime?

▶ 2:13:51 Speaker 1: I don't think so.

▶ 2:13:57 Speaker 3: Just one or two quick points, Mr. Chairman, because sometimes I just get the impression that some of the things that are important get lost.

▶ 2:14:07 Speaker 3: this is a general override i understand the city solicitor has indicated that if the purposes stated in the override if it passes that during the first year the expenditures need to go to the uh to the earmarked items in the second year and every year thereafter

▶ 2:14:31 Speaker 3: it's general fund money everybody should understand that it's general fund money whatever additional monies are raised go into the general fund i don't say that pejoratively but it's just that's what's going to happen they're going to go into the general fund and you know i think we're all in agreement that um this this question should go forward and go on to the ballot um just as to one thing that alderman medeiros said um i don't think by putting this on the ballot we're asking anybody to do anything i mean this is going to be the people who are going to decide what they want to do so um you know as this moves forward it becomes uh it goes into the public domain and we all become voters thank you president khan

▶ 2:15:26 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: alderman mcintyre my goal is please um i do just want to thank um counselor van campen uh in his assurance that what comes forth on the city website is going to be impartial and informational and I think that's really important in keeping the discussion above board and in civil many years ago when we when we had an override that I think didn't pass that when I was on the school committee and

▶ 2:15:52 Mary Beth McAteer-Margolis: the hardest vote I ever took was to quote close to schools I don't view this anywhere near as difficult as that and a couple of police fire stations which I think Alderman Khan had to do we we made a real effort to keep the conversation civil and I think that this community can continue to do that in a respectful manner and not pit neighbor against neighbor and I don't think that putting this on the ballot or bringing it to the voters even if it passes or it doesn't doesn't pass and and there is a possibility I mean there's people concerned that we will lose members of our community if this passes I think we could possibly lose members of our community if this doesn't pass so I don't want to see that happen to any group and I would encourage people to work together as Alderman Byrd has has mentioned for you know the good of the community I think the fact that this would eventually go to the to the general fund is not a bad thing we have certainly been spending a lot of free cash that we have been supplementing departments with and that money could be freed up to go to other things like some of our municipal buildings that need to be repaired and this money could be budgeted by this board or future boards to address the needs of the community I'm a very very strong believer in giving people the right to vote in my mind it's a sacred right it's a treasured right and I think every person in this community deserves that opportunity and I hope that by letting us put this up by us putting this on the ballot I hope we get a great turnout and I hope we get a lot of people who who who support it for whatever their issue is, yes or no. And as long as I think we continue to have this discussion in a civil manner, I don't think we're going to negatively impact our community, and I will work towards that personally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

▶ 2:18:07 Peter D. Mortimer: Thank you, Alderman McAteer-Margolis. Seeing no further, Alderman Boycelle.

▶ 2:18:14 Speaker 6: Could I have the superintendent back?

▶ 2:18:16 Peter D. Mortimer: You certainly may. Discussion? Superintendent Taymor, would you join us once again, please?

▶ 2:18:25 Speaker 5: Why does everyone wait until April to go further along?

▶ 2:18:29 Robert A. Boisselle: Makes it look like- In your opening discussion, you talked about the funds that we've given the schools for purchasing the books and so forth, 480,000 I think we talked about. And you said that wasn't enough?

▶ 2:18:46 Speaker 10: At the time that we made the purchases, we prioritized which textbooks, which departments had the greatest need. And we managed to work around what we still kept. So for example, with the reading series, what we've done is we've reorganized chapters and units and curriculum so that it matches the alignment, so that it's aligned with the state standards. However, it's a very difficult way to work. It does not include enough nonfiction. It's phonics unit is weak and we need better materials. We were very clear about that at that time. The need to replace curriculum is ongoing, excuse me, textbooks is ongoing. The span used to be seven to 10 years. It's shortened to about five to seven years. We talked about that at the time of the bonding. I remember Alderman asking me, could we stretch it to seven years? And I said, yes, we would make everything we bought work for seven years.

▶ 2:19:52 Robert A. Boisselle: Now, out of that $480,000, did you purchase any e-books operations?

▶ 2:19:57 Speaker 10: Everything we now purchase must have digital resources as well, must have digital versions. But they don't come separately. They come as part of the hard copies.

▶ 2:20:09 Robert A. Boisselle: Welch, are you just considering going away from hard copies?

▶ 2:20:12 Speaker 10: We've had this conversation, Altamont and Boisselle. You always need hard copies.

▶ 2:20:16 Robert A. Boisselle: Since then, a lot of documentation has come out, especially from the Association of American Publishers. The e-book sales have continued to rise steadily, almost 45% from 20 to 11 with the school systems. And that's part of the five educational tech issues that have school entered the present buying cycle. And what they're finding is schools are adopting budgets to address the e-book classroom and finding their e-books save money in the long run. And that money they're saving, they're actually buying the devices to do the e-book readings. And what they're finding is that it's easier to download updates of history, sciences, and other categories that can be done very quickly and very efficiently. You're still buying textbooks that are going to be outdated within-

▶ 2:21:09 Speaker 10: No, and we're buying e-books too. And many of the publishing companies we work with offer updates as new materials come out. That's part of what the publishing business is.

▶ 2:21:20 Robert A. Boisselle: Electronically or hard copy?

▶ 2:21:21 Speaker 10: Both.

▶ 2:21:26 Speaker 10: So, again, so there's a lot of overlapping issues here. So part of the problem with buying digital copies of books is we do not have the hardware or the Wi-Fi connections we need for kids to access them. It's a little bit of a catch-22.

▶ 2:21:46 Robert A. Boisselle: Welch, that catch 22 is going to be taken care of in the coming budget.

▶ 2:21:49 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman Boycelle, a little less argumentative, please. When she's speaking, please let her finish her old speech.

▶ 2:21:55 Robert A. Boisselle: I'm not trying to be argumentative, the point is that we spent $480,000 to upgrade the school system.

▶ 2:22:02 Peter D. Mortimer: Alderman Boycelle, when I'm speaking, please don't speak. You're being a little bit argumentative towards her. I'm telling you this for your own good. you ask a question please let her complete her entire answer and then proceed to your next question let's not turn this into an argument one person speaks at a time please superintendent

▶ 2:22:27 Speaker 10: taymor please continue thank you mr chairman so it's a little bit of a catch-22 we need to upgrade all our technology we need to upgrade our wi-fi we have been piloting ebooks and we have been piloting using chromebooks throughout the district what mr pesos can tell you i don't know if he's still in the room is we've had some issues because of access access going forward as the as we roll out the five-year plan and we get stronger in our use of technology and our our equipment we can add more ebooks however i was recently invited to be one of 20 superintendents who met with mcgraw-hill's research and development division and we talked about ebooks and they talk very candidly about the limits of e-books at this point in time they are still very expensive often as expensive as a textbook and they are still working around ways that books can be device neutral often the books are not device neutral we have a lot of work to do before we get to that point in time nobody here has said they are opposed to that but you cannot jump into something like this without making sure you have the equipment the teachers who are trained and reliable resources so what we have done is we have taken an approach where in some incidences we have digital copies for every book some children use the digital copies some children use the textbooks almost every new textbook we have bought families can access online from home every child has a password among the other things that we have done in anticipation of the technology upgrades is we have converted to Google Google ed every student in this district will have a Google ID for the fall all the high school in the middle school students currently have it and that will be the way they will access anything that is digitally available in the district the new librarian at the high school as you know from when he spoke has been busy culling the library removing textbooks that are out of date or resources that are out of date he is expanding his digital resources but as he spoke and as Alderman Margolis spoke to the need for hard copy is never going to go away and I personally hope it never does go away

▶ 2:24:58 Robert A. Boisselle: thank you very much and i apologize but i was argumentative

▶ 2:25:05 Peter D. Mortimer: thank you superintendent thank you alderman boycell any other alderman wishing to be heard

▶ 2:25:15 Peter D. Mortimer: this time i mean it when i call for the vote somebody don't raise their hand again make it look like i'm trying to rush it because i'm not we've had a full discussion here tonight um All in favor of order 2015-157, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, the order passes and will be recommended to the full board for passage.