Session 4
(Since virtually no-one’s taking advantage of being able to comment article-by-article, I’m switching back to the older style).
Preliminaries
- Meeting called to order at 20:03.
- While reminding us of our power of the purse, the Moderator noted that the Town Meeting of Stoneham just eliminated Selectmen’s salaries after their BOS imposed a trash fee.
- Mr. Schlichtman announced a delegation from our Japanese sister city has been in town and was in attendance tonight.
- Ms. Howard announced that one week from Saturday is phase two of the Spy Pond trails rebuild project. People will be building trails to the pond and doing cleanup from 09:30 to 15:30. You can show up at any time.
- Motion made and approved that when we adjourn we adjourn to 8 May at 20:00.
Article 2 – Committee Reports
- Removed from table at 20:16.
- Supplemental report of BOS received.
- Tabled at 20:17.
Article 45 – Appropriation/Town Celebrations
- Brought up at 20:17.
- Mr. Tosti moved to reconsider Article 45 since FinComm had forgotten to put the magic “said sum to be raised by the general tax” words in the vote.
- Reconsidered
- Mr. Tosti moved to amend the previous vote by adding the words.
- Mr. Daly asked what the appropriation is for the Patriots’ Day parade. Mr. Tosti said the $5,667 parade appropriation covered all the parades. Mr. Daly moved to increase the parade appropriation to $10,667.
- Mr. Tosti asked for the defeat of the amendment, saying the organizers had the chance to argue their case before FinComm and did not choose to do so. He said he would appreciate groups going through the usual budget channels rather than trying to change things at the last minute.
- Mr. Carman said FinComm spends a lot of time on the budgets and that the Town needs to prioritize expenses. He asked if a parade is really a core service and noted that FinComm voted down a number of things that were nice things but did not have high enough priorities.
- Mr. Deyst said the COA nurse is being reduced to less than half-time to eliminate her health benefits. Given that we are in a situation like that, he felt an extra $5,000 on parades is not appropriate.
- Ms. Mahon said she felt “Mr. Daly’s pain” and noted that it has been getting harder and harder for the Town Day Committee to keep Town Day totally self-sufficient even with raising $30,000-$40,000 for it.
- Ms. Fiore supported the amendment, saying she was disappointed at the parade and that Patriots’ Day is our history.
- Mr. Greeley (as a TMM) supported the amendment.
- Mr. Sweeney (? – I couldn’t hear the name clearly) supported the amendment and said there was flexibility to find the $5,000.
- Mr. Ford moved the previous question – debate terminated.
- Tosti amendment approved.
- Daly amendment defeated on voice vote, challenged, and defeated 69-106. Mr. Daly called for a roll-call vote, but far fewer than the 30 needed joined him.
- FinComm recommendation as amendment approved at 20:43.
Article 41 – Town Budgets
- Begun 20:43.
- FinComm recommendation as set forth in its report.
- Mr. Jamieson moved to table sub-budgets 1-22 in order to take up the insurance budget. He said that since insurance had increased over the target amount and therefore caused other budgets to be lower than they would otherwise have been, it should be taken first.
- Motion to table defeated.
- Sub-budget 1 approved unanimously.
- Mr. McElhoe asked why sub-budget 2 was so much higher. Mr. Tosti said that elections come under that budget and there are three elections in the next fiscal year.
- Sub-budget 2 approved unanimously.
- Mr. Jamieson asked about something not in sub-budget 3. The Moderator shot him down for not being germane.
- Mr. Judd asked for an explanation of why coalition bargaining was not used. Mr. Tosti said the BOS makes the decision and to take it up with them at one of their meetings. The Moderator said that if the question was germane at all, it would be under sub-budget 23.
- Sub-budget 3 approved.
- Mr. Jenkins asked why money comes into sub-budget 4 from the water & sewer enterprise fund. Mr. Tosti said the enterprise funds are like separate businesses and that Town departments which do work for the fund bill the fund for that work, which is we see the expense offsets from the fund.
- Sub-budget 4 approved unanimously.
- Sub-budget 5 approved unanimously.
- Sub-budget 6 approved unanimously.
- Sub-budget 7 approved unanimously.
- Sub-budget 8 approved.
- Mr. Ruderman asked for a breakdown of “legal expenses”. Mr. Maher replied that the BOS want to intervene in the CSO lawsuit and that the extra $31,000 was needed to hire outside specialized environmental counsel.
- Sub-budget 9 approved.
- Sub-budget 10 approved.
- Sub-budget 11 approved unanimously.
- Sub-budget 12 approved.
- Sub-budget 13 approved.
- Mr. Cleinman asked what the new expenses were for the Gibbs, etc. Mr. Tosti said FinComm decided to break out a single line item into more detail, so the expenses weren’t actually new.
- Mr. Starr asked what the revenue was from the rented buildings. Mr. Tosti said total rental income (for those plus the Mt. Gilboa house and some other properties) was $721,000 and that the Manager’s financial plan booklet had a breakdown.
- Sub-budget 14 approved unanimously.
- Ms. Fiore complained about the ZBA listing the successful completion of its first 40B development as a goal in the Manager’s financial plan booklet.
- Sub-budget 15 approved.
- Mr. Jamieson asked how the Manager was controlling overtime spending. The Moderator shot down the general question and limited it to sub-budget 16. Mr. Sanchez said that most DPW OT work is emergency OT. Mr. Jamieson asked why the snow deficit was not less than it was given how much less snow we had. Mr. Sanchez said the deficit for the previous year showed in the report as artificially low due to transfers from reserves, federal money, and other revenues. Mr. Jamieson complained about the grafitti and asked how much it would cost to fix the problem. Mr. Sanchez said it would take two man two weeks to clean the current grafitti and then a two-FTE patrol to keep up with it, which there was no money to do. Mr. Jamieson asked what a single man would cost and was told $35,000. He then moved to increase the DPW budget by $35,000.
- Mr. Greeley urged the amendment be defeated, saying the BOS is meeting with others to determine a policy and will come back next year with recommendations about what to do and how much to spend.
- Mr. Tosti agreed with Mr. Greeley and said the money wasn’t there. He suggested the BOS ask hardware stores to not sell spray paint to under-18s and that we pass a by-law next year prohibiting such sales.
- Mr. Rehrig said he liked the expense details for prior years’ trash and recycling but wanted similar detail for the appropriation. Mr. Tosti said that wasn’t available.
- Mr. Judd alluded to Giuliani’s anti-”broken windows” plan and said the graffitti must be cleaned up and the offenders prosecuted to the fullest extent. He supported the amendment.
- Mr. Schlichtman said that when the BOS says they can handle something with current resources, they should be given the chance. He urged defeat of the amendment but thanked Mr. Jamieson for bringing it up.
- Mr. Greeley clarified that the BOS is going to study the problem and then recommend what level of resources are needed.
- Mr. Burke said the grafitti needed to be addressed in schools, with students and their parents being educated on responsibility and that students should have to help clean it up.
- Mr. Cleinman said he did not want to hear the message that nothing could be done about the problem.
- Recess from 21:38 to 21:43.
- Mr. Tosti moved to amend sub-budget 16 to add the magic “the DPW director is authorized to transfer funds between line items” words that FinComm forgot to put in the report.
- Mr. Abbott moved the previous question on sub-budget 16 – debate terminated.
- Jamieson amendment defeated.
- Tosti amendment approved.
- Sub-budget 16 as amended approved.
- Tabled at 21:47.
- At this point we spent 21:47 through 22:17 on Article 45 (see below).
- Removed from table at 22:17.
- Mr. Tosti moved to table sub-budgets 17 and 18 to get to 19 (Education) so that the Superintendant did not have to come back another night.
- Motion to table approved.
- Ms. Sheffler said it was a very clear budget and that SchoolComm was impressed with it.
- Mr. Levinson said the budget had good news — compliant with the 5-year plan, only a 3% increase, and more resources for students (see the report for the deltas vs. last year). He said there was also bad news — restructuring and cuts in administration. He said grants are being used for core items instead of nice-to-haves because core items have to come first. He noted that this was a zero-based budget and was worked up from scratch by examining 18 months of invoices.
- Mr. Carreiro asked if SchoolComm had taken control of four revolving funds. Mr. Levinson said it had and that all the money coming into the funds was being spent. Mr. Carreiro suggested that a report on those funds be included in subsequent budget documents.
- Mr. Berkowitz asked if a grantwriter was on staff. Mr. Levinson said there were a number of people who fulfilled the research and writing function. Mr. Berkowitz asked if any adjustments could be made to seek grants more aggressively. Mr. Levinson said grants were aggressively sought but that more and more grants are being targed at low income and poor-performing schools. Mr. Berkowitz asked if suggestions from the public were welcome and Mr. Levinson answered that they were.
- Ms. Mahon asked if the $15,000 athletics grant had been received. Mr. Levinson said that no grants have been received but reasonable estimates have been made and a $250,000 reserve has been set aside to cover expected grants that aren’t won. Ms. Mahon asked about the 0.25 FTE reduction in a nurse’s administrative time. Mr. Levinson said this reflected a shift from that person doing 50/50 nursing/admin to 75/25 nursing/admin.
- Mr. Lewiton noted that $64,000 for 6.4 FTEs of counseling is very low. Mr. Levinson said all adjustment counselors were eliminated a couple of years ago and to try to make up for it there has been a pilot program with grad school interns (who are assigned to schools and do not float) being supervised by more experienced counselors. He said the feedback was positive and that while he’d rather have real counselors, they’d be too expensive. He said there was not much counseling at the high school aside from guidance counselors and IEP counseling and wished there were more. Mr. Lewiton said more mental health counselors are needed.
- Mr. Tully complained that the budget document was only handed out today. Mr. Levinson apologized, saying it has been available on-line for weeks and that he didn’t think to print it up earlier since he didn’t expect TM to get to it so quickly.
- Ms. Phelps said the admin cuts were “disastrous”. She noted there are 9 schools but only 8.8 FTEs of principal and asked if every school had a full-time principal. Mr. Levinson said every school does have one, but since the AHS principal also teaches history, 20% of his salary shows up in teaching expenses, not admin expenses.
- Mr. Trembly asked for more detail of the grants. Mr. Levinson said the ones starting with “Title” were various NCLB Act grants. Mr. Trembly asked what is being done with the “Title 4/Safe Schools” grant. Mr. Levinson said half was being used for teen mental health and half for health & safety programs in the elementary and middle schools.
- Mr. Tosti said FinComm was very impressed with the SchoolComm presentation to FinComm, congratulated Mr. Levinson on being willing to make changes and put priorities on things, and said FinComm unanimously supported the SchoolComm budget.
- Mr. Judd noted that approximately $8,000,000 of the budget is SPED-related expenses and that the state does not send the aid they should. He asked if any lobbying was being done. Mr. Levinson said the expense should not be begrudged, that he’s not optimistic about getting more from the state, but will continue to lobby. He said the school system needs to figure out how to service SPED students better at lower cost.
- Mr. Trembly asked if the Title 4 grant included any sex ed or sexual awareness programs. Mr. Levinson said he couldn’t answer until the grant applications were in.
- Mr. Cleinman corrected “student’s” to “students” in the report. He asked about the out-of-district SPED co-ordinator position. Mr. Levinson said the current position is a 10-month position and focuses on placing students out of the district while the new position is a 12-month position and will do both that plus figuring out how to serve more students in-district. He noted that if three students are in an OOD program at $50,000 each, sending another student to it will cost another $50,000, while if the program was in-house, the marginal cost would be far less. Disclosing that one of his children was in an OOD program, Mr. Cleinman asked what would happen o such students. Mr. Levinson said that if in-district services were not appropriate for a child, they would still go OOD. Mr. Cleinman asked if the current co-ordinator would have ot re-apply. Mr. Levinson said the position changed enough that a re-application was required under the contracted rules.
- Mr. Carreiro moved the previous question on sub-budget 19 — debate terminated.
- Sub-budget 19 approved at 22:57.
- Adjourned to 20:00 on 8 May at 22:59.
Article 44 – Appropriation/Minuteman
- Begun 21:47.
- FinComm recommendation as set forth in its report.
- Ms. Morrisette, Arlington’s rep to the MM SchoolComm, introduced Mr. Callahan, the MM Superintendant.
- Mr. Callahan said the overall MM budget increased by 2.8%, but the part of the revenues that had to come from members towns increased by 5.7%. He noted there were big increases in transportation and employee benefits costs.
- Ms. LaCourt asked why our assessment went up by 12% when our enrollment only increased by 6%. Mr. Callahan said it was driven by the state-mandated local minimum contribution. Ms. LaCourt asked why there was such a variation in per-pupil costs between the member towns. Mr. Callahan said it was because of the differences in those local minimums.
- Mr. Carreiro noted that the MM handout said the requested number was not final and asked what happened if we voted the number and it turned out to be different. Mr. Callahan said MM would come back to the towns if the assessments had to be increased.
- Mr. Jamieson asked why Lexington’s per-pupil cost was so much lower than Arlington’s. Mr. Callahan said the assessment is determined by first applying every town’s mandatory minimum to what must be raised by assessment and then dividing the rest equally per student. Mr. DeCoursey said Arlington’s required minimum increased 20%. Mr. Jamieson noted benefits costs increased 20% and asked what employees contribute to their health benefits. Mr. Callahan said employees contribute 25% and MM contributes 75%.
- Mr. Schlichtman said one can go to the DOE website for more information on the calculations and that the reason for the per-pupil variance is Chapter 70 aid. He asked which aid number MM is using. Mr. Callahan said the House 2 number is being used. Mr. Schlichtman asked what happens if the aid ends up being higher. Mr. Callahan said it is up to the MM SchoolComm to keep the extra or return it to the towns. He also noted that the part of assessments above the minimum varies with the percentage of all MM students a member town has, not the percentage change in a town’s MM enrollment.
- Mr. Dunn said the average per-pupil number is meaningless because it counts all students equally, even though not all students cost the same. He said there are regular HS students, part-time middle school students, and post-grad students and the latter two are much cheaper than the first. So towns with a high number of the latter two relative to the first show low per-pupil numbers. But that’s only because a higher proportion of their enrollment is “cheap” students, not because they are paying less for their students than other towns.
- Mr. Phillips asked what the per-pupil costs for regular HS students is at MM and in Arlington. Mr. Callahan said the MM number was $13,746 and Ms. Sheffler said the Arlington number was around $9,000. Mr. Phillips said it was unreasonable for MM to be that much more expensive and that MM students should not get more. Mr. Callahan said it is recognized even by the state that vocational education is more expensive. Mr. Phillips said he’d rather see more of the money go to AHS.
- Mr. Abbott moved the previous question – debate terminated.
- FinComm recommendation approved at 22:17.