Budget Review Committee

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 23, 2015 A meeting of the Budget Review Committee was held Monday, February 23, 2015, at 7:05 p.m. in the Aldermanic Chamber. Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane, Chair, presided. Chairman Deane Alderman Siegel is participating by telephone and under the terms of the state law, he needs to explain why he can’t attend, if he can hear us, and who he is with, if anyone. Alderman Siegel stated the reason he could not attend, confirmed that he could hear the proceedings and stated that he was alone. Chairman Deane Acknowledged that those present could hear Alderman Siegel and that all votes needed to be recorded by roll call. Chairman Deane Alderwoman Brown asked that I read this. I am out of town due to a family illness. Please state this when you announce my absence. Thank you. Members of Committee present: Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire, Vice Chair Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman Ken Siegel Alderman David Schoneman Alderman Michael Soucy Members not in Attendance: Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Also in Attendance: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman June M. Caron Mr. Tom Galligani, Economic Development Director Mr. Mark Conrad, Superintendent of Schools Mr. George Farrington, President, Board of Education PUBLIC COMMENT COMMUNICATIONS From: Thomas F. Galligani, Jr., Economic Development Director Re: Downtown Improvement Committee Budget  Referred to Cmte – 12/23/14 MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND RECOMMEND THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN, APPROVAL BY ROLL CALL, THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY2015 FOR THE SURPLUS DOWNTOWN PARKING FUNDS Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 2 ON THE QUESTION Alderman Wilshire I would just like to say that I will support this. This is what we agreed to with the downtown folks and I think it’s reasonable and I am in favor of supporting this. Alderman Siegel I appreciate that we asked them for a budget and they have finally provided one, however I would note that if we approve this money as opposed to putting it towards the sidewalk project which is clearly a downtown improvement then that is money that we are spending on hanging flowers, decorative pole banners, holiday banners, and light enhancers that could otherwise go to teachers so I would seriously ask anyone who is approving this if they think that it is more important to pay for these things and under normal circumstances may by desirable or would you like to keep teachers. Alderman McCarthy I think that characterization is somewhat unfair given that the ordinance actually calls for getting recommendations from the Downtown Improvement Committee and this is enhanced revenue from the parking. We didn’t raise the parking fees so we could give more money to the school department, we raised the parking fees so we could make downtown more attractive and successful. I think these things are important. The sign package, when I was at the BIDA meeting last week, some of the local real estate guys who deal with downtown have said that is one of the issues that we have with downtown. The street signage is not conducive to anybody being downtown and they would like some potential solution to it. The Art & Horticultural Program is in fact part of the sidewalk program because this is funding in part the ability to maintain the planter boxes that were put in as part of the sidewalk project. Likewise with the hanging flowers, the brackets for those were put up as part of the general beautification as the pole banners and the light enhancers. I would say that all the content of this budget is related to the sidewalk program. Alderman Schoneman I have some questions about the five elements and the amounts. What is the mechanism for getting this money spent when the time comes? Will each item have to go to the Finance Committee? Mr. Tom Galligani, Economic Development Director We would have to follow the same processes that any city department would have to follow to procure any services. Most of these would have to go before the Finance Committee but some of these would cost less than $10,000. For instance, we might buy one season’s worth of banners and that would likely cost less than $10,000. We would still have to get three quotes and likely choose the lowest bidder. The horticultural project will definitely appear before the Finance Committee. Alderman Schoneman This is a very difficult year budget wise. If you were to prioritize these five things, how would you rank them? Mr. Gailligani We haven’t prioritized them. We feel like it is one comprehensive package from the 2013 calendar year. Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 3 Unidentified Speaker I think the sign package is extremely important but they off of bounce right off of each other. Mr. Lannan, Downtown Improvement Committee This was a few years’ worth of a lot of meetings and there was a lot of input from a lot of other people, not just us; citizens, property owners and business owners. When the parking revenues were increased, we kind of so called guaranteed the people that we were doing this and the parking meter fees were going up, and in turn those people deserve something in return and that’s how this package came about. I think a lot of citizens and the business community is looking for something in return. There is no priority it is a whole package. Alderman Siegel I appreciate those arguments and I am in favor of at least having the parking garages marked along Main Street. However, again, I disagree with Alderman McCarthy’s characterizations. I believe that there are a lot of things that are part of the sidewalk improvements but just because they are part of the sidewalk improvements; we’ve put millions of dollars into that. That is a huge improvement and right now we are literally at the point where we are saying these are nice to have but we are going to lose teachers because of expenditures that we are making this year. I understand the process very well and I’ve also been looking at the budget in extreme detail. There is no wiggle room. We’ve spent millions of dollars downtown and to me, to say okay we’ve got this parking revenue of $104,000 and it’s all ours to do whatever we want at our discretion because we this ordinance; well, to the extent that we are paying for downtown improvements it would be nice if that parking revenue contributed to some of those funds but offset the possible losses in personnel that we are going to have to critical services and that’s a big concern of mine. Under normal circumstances I would be fine with it but there are not normal circumstances this year. Alderman Schoneman I agree with many of those comments. The reason I asked for the prioritization is because I concur, I think the downtown sign package is key but we are facing this challenge this year and any money that has come in has to be spread so thinly, I just don’t know if we have it and I’m not sure that it would be wise to spend on these things at this time. A prioritization of these would be good and I would like to see us take our time on the expenditures of these monies. I can’t advocate it right now because of the difficulties that we are facing. A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Deane; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Dowd 3 Nay: Alderman Siegel; Alderman Schoneman; Alderman Soucy 3 MOTION FAILED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DEANE TO ACCEPT, PLACE ON FILE AND SEND TO THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN, APPROVAL BY ROLL CALL, THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FY2015 FOR THE SURPLUS DOWNTOWN PARKING FUNDS WITH NO RECOMMENDATION Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 4 A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Deane; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Dowd; Alderman Siegel; Alderman Schoneman; Alderman Soucy 6 Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS – None NEW BUSINESS – RESOLUTIONS R-15-105 Endorsers: Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja APPROVING THE COST ITEMS OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NASHUA BOARD OF EDUCATION AND THE NASHUA ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS FROM JULY 1, 2014 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2016 AND AUTHORIZING RELATED TRANSFERS MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE BY ROLL CALL ON THE QUESTION Mr. Mark Conrad, Superintendent of Schools This is an inaugural contract with our principals and assistant principals. They were unionized until I think 2004 or 2005 and then they voluntarily disbanded their union and since then they have been unaffiliated but last spring they held an election and decided to re-unionize as a local association so the contract you have in front of you; typically you would see a red line contract and we would be talking about what’s different from the current contract but this is an inaugural contract. In a broad sense, from a standpoint of working conditions, this contract is very similar to the current working conditions. Their concerns I think were more with salary and benefits than it was with working conditions so in essence, in most instances they have adopted the policies that the Board of Education had approved when they were non-affiliated employees. In instances where we needed boiler plate for the first time we worked with Attorney Bennett and that was placed in the contract largely intact in the way that he had recommended it. There are a couple of areas where there are either new features to the contract that weren’t part of our non-affiliated policies or we mutually agreed that it made sense to restructure some positions. For example, we do not have in our non-affiliated employee’s handbook a reduction in force policy and we do have a reduction in force policy here. The interesting thing about this was the language from the earlier 2005 contract was pretty advanced for its time in terms of looking at multiple criteria for reduction in force not simply looking at seniority so the language includes level of performance as determined by recent evaluations, lifetime experience and needs of the district, prior administrative experience outside of the district and voluntary contributions to the district so it’s a broad range of criteria under the reduction in force language. The one area where we have restructured how a position is carried is in the secondary system principals. Principals work a full year and they get four weeks of vacation and three weeks of sick leave and personal/bereavement leave. Elementary assistant principals are similar to a teacher’s contract. Teachers’ have a 183 contract, elementary assistant principals have 199 day contract so they get Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 5 sick leave, personal leave, and bereavement leave but they do not get holiday or vacation leave, it’s based on the school year. The secondary assistant principals have this strange convention under the non-affiliate policy that was in place when I came into the district and they never changed it where they had four weeks of paid vacation and then three weeks of unpaid vacation along with holidays so it was kind of a cross between a teachers’ contract and full year contract and it never worked well because we were constantly trying to figure out whether their day they were taking off was on one of the unpaid days or one of the paid days. At the end of this contract it sunsets so that similar to the elementary assistant principals they just go to a 214 day work year. For both elementary and secondary assistant principals there’s more flexible language around how that work year is determined with their supervisor. Now it’s been relatively fixed in terms of when assistant principals begin and end and sometimes we get into situations over the summer where we would like to have them working more flexible hours and this does provide for that. This is something that we mutually worked through because we felt it was in everyone’s best interest. There are no changes in benefits but we have to put in place a new salary schedule and we haven’t had a salary schedule or salary range so they have a nine step salary contract. There are nine steps, separate steps for principals at the three different levels and then elementary assistant principals and then secondary assistant principals. The intent was to largely reflect current salaries and then place people on the nearest step that was appropriate to them and when we did that we came in with an increase of 2.6% in the current year. That reflects generally speaking, increases have been about 2.7% this year and it’s what was set aside in our budget planning so we are actually at 1/10 of a percent under that. Next year, the fiscal year impact is limited to 1.5% and the way we do that is they get a 1% increase on July 1, 2015, and a 1% increase on July 1, 2016. It does not advance them on the steps, what it does is just move them up a percent on each of those two dates. There just wasn’t sufficient funding to enable them to move up a step and I think our Board recognized the financial constraints that we are facing in the coming year and negotiating that outcome. By the way, there are no differentials for advanced degrees or credit as there was in the prior salary scale years ago or as there is in the teachers’ contract so it’s just nine step salary scale. Mr. George Farrington, President, Board of Education I would add that in the previous contract that expired in 2005, there was a three step schedule and when going into negotiations one of the things that we were looking for was that we wanted to be able to extend it over a longer period of time to allow for growth and improvement and performance of the principals. The way their salaries had become distributed over the years since the contract had expired, it lended itself to a six step schedule and eventually ended up with a nine just to make it all work so we could people in where they currently are or where they had been placed. Alderman Dowd When we were in a previous financial tight spot and I don’t remember the year, the principals voluntarily took a zero increase in pay for that year and in addition they were the first group to step up and take the increased co-pays and insurance hits. Mr. Conrad That was fiscal year 2010. Every principal, assistant principal, director, superintendent, and assistant superintendent took no increase for one year. Chairman Deane What’s the average salary for those people; it’s not $42,000 is it? Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 6 Mr. Farrington No, the range on the proposed salary schedule for an elementary principal runs from $90,000 to $101,000; for middle school principal it’s $95,000 to $105,000; and for a high school principal it’s $102,000 to $111,000. For the assistant’s it runs from $73,000 to $83,000; secondary assistant’s is from $82,500 to $92,500. They are all over the place so I can’t really tell you what our average cost is for each one. Alderman Soucy While I really appreciate the hard work that these principals do every day, I am worried. I am worried about your budget more so than all of the other budgets right now. I am reading in the Telegraph that we are going to be laying people off, I’ve heard 12; I have heard 22. I’ve heard that we are going to be cutting the hockey programs and other athletic programs. I will ask the question that Alderman Deane always asks. “Is this really what you want to spend your money one?” How many jobs do anticipate cutting on this budget? Mr. Farrington What the Telegraph is writing about is the proposed budget that the administration brought forward to the Board. The way our process works is that he and the administration sit down and develop a proposal based on the needs of the district and the fiscal environment that we find ourselves in and then makes that recommendation. The Board will be starting, I think we have two motions that have been tabled regarding ways to deal with the hockey and the athletics and then other motions will be coming forth over the next three meetings to decide how the other pieces will work out. Nothing has been decided. There is a proposal to eliminate two elementary, six middle school teachers, two high school teachers, two social worker’s at the middle school, five special education para educator’s, a couple of secretaries, and two custodian’s. Alderman Soucy I’ll ask Mr. Conrad since he was the one quoted in the Telegraph, I heard the number was initially 12, is that about right? Mr. Conrad Mr. Farrington is correct in what he just cited. Alderman Soucy How many athletic programs are we looking at to possibly cut at this point? Mr. Conrad I had proposed to the Board for four sports based on either cost or low participation however there are two motion’s that have been put on the table and then taken off to increase athletic fees as a way of restoring at least three of those four programs. There will be a lot more of the conversation from our Board on the final disposition of that piece of the budget. Alderman Soucy I am really worried about the school’s budget and I think you mentioned something to the Telegraph that is an emergency year. My priorities are saving jobs over raises at this point, as much as I want to support these Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 7 principals and assistant principals, I have to look at if we can save a program or four jobs. Mr. Conrad I would note that although they are higher compensated employees, one of the reasons this group decided overwhelmingly to unionize was the fact that year after year they tend to receive less than our teachers to the point where if you were a teacher near the top of our scale and you became an elementary assistant principal you actually got less money per diem. There’s that encroachment piece where you can make $69,000 at the top of the teacher’s scale and then you can get a $3,000 increase for becoming an elementary school assistant principal working an additional 16 days a year and taking on the longer day and the additional responsibility. I would also note that in the teachers’, whether people agree with it or not, the increase teachers are seeing are 3% so I think we took the position that as long as the increase was at or below both the salary cap and the rate of inflation, that would be something we could live with and a negotiation is always a compromise and I think we’ve brought it in at 1.5% which is half of what teachers are receiving and within the spending cap. Alderman Soucy I would rather see the lower numbers on the first year and maybe a kick the can down the road a little bit with the higher number, maybe 2016. I think the Board of Education and you have some tough decisions to make. I don’t think I can support this right now. Mr. Farrington You have to keep in mind that this contract covers this year and next year so "the can down the road" is next year so we don’t have that kind of room to be able to do that sort of thing. If you look at this year you look at 2.7% increase for the teachers and a 2.6% increase for these folks but in fact, the teachers got a 3% on average increase in their salaries. It’s a 2.7% budgetary impact because of the delayed implementation of the increase this year. We are asking them to take 3/10% less in their salary increase this year which is about 1% less than the teachers are taking next year. There is nobody in the city that is more sensitive or aware of the difficult financial situation we have found ourselves in but we are trying to find a balance. Alderman Soucy Has an analysis been done on our principals as compared to Manchester, Portsmouth, Concord, or cities of similar size on compensation? Mr. Conrad In the past and it’s been a couple of years since the New Hampshire Principal’s Association have done a statewide survey but for principals and secondary assistant principal’s we are competitive meaning we are right in the middle of the pack for larger districts you would look at around the state you would look at around the state that we often compare ourselves to like Manchester or Salem. If you look at our elementary assistant principal’s we tend to be near the lower end. Alderman Siegel I have a little bit of a problem in comparing the principal’s contracts to the upper echelon of the teacher’s contracts because basically it says we did these contracts which we can’t support but because we already did Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 8 contracts that we can’t support we have to make sure we are fair and do other contracts which we can’t support. I am sensitive to the fairness issue but I am a little bit concerned about that. As I said to the Downtown Improvement Committee folks, this is a very tough year and if I am going to have a problem with signage in the downtown, I am certainly going to have a problem where we have personnel making six figures on average including a tremendous benefits and vacation package, and saying they still need a raise which will cost teacher positions. Alderman Dowd The 2.6% that they are talking about right now is this years’ budget that has already been approved and is being spent as we go through 2015. The 1.5% is the overall impact in the 2016 budget which is the critical budget. The principals probably could have asked for a lot more but they knew the impact as well to their schools and were trying to keep the increase reasonable. They have fallen behind over the past number of years which is why they reestablished their union. I think they are trying to be fair. Alderman Schoneman I appreciate the arguments on both sides. The 1.5% for FY 16’, if this were the first contract for FY 16’ I’d say we are right where we are supposed to be but the 1.5% has already been spent elsewhere and my concern is that if we do this now, even though it meets the spending cap, we’ve already gone through the spending cap. I don’t think I can support this now either. I think that the money that went to the teachers in this case, didn’t go to the principals and was that fair, no but right now we don’t have the money. We would have to take money from somewhere else in budget to do this because the money is already gone. Chairman Deane Mr. Conrad, you are going to be adding an additional $142,000 to your 16’ budget to cover this cost? Mr. Conrad Well, the budget already includes the 2.6% increase so in essence you are going… Chairman Deane That’s in 15’ but when you go into 16’ it’s reoccurring so you have to take that; you can’t forget about that $89,000. You have to kick that into 16’ and on top of that, you have to add in $53,000 so you are at almost $143,000 you have to add. Mr. Conrad I was only indicating that the $89,000 is part of our budget base moving forward so the new spending for next year would be the $53,000. Chairman Deane That would be the new spending but the $89,000 is an escrow now? Mr. Conrad It’s in our existing budget base. Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 9 A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Dowd 1 Nay: Alderman Deane; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Siegel; 5 Alderman Schoneman; Alderman Soucy MOTION FAILED MOTION BY ALDERMAN DOWD TO SEND R-15-105 TO THE FULL BOARD OF ALDERMAN WITH NO RECOMMEDATION FROM THE BUDGET COMMITTEE ON THE QUESTION Alderman Siegel Do we have an option of recommending that this not pass or is this just the standard thing that we do, just pretend that we didn’t actually take a fairly overwhelming no vote here? Chairman Deane Well, Alderman Dowd has made a motion to send it forward for the full Board to take action on it. We can make a further motion. What’s going to have to be done at the full Board outside of this is that this one doesn’t really reflect any action to be taken so it would need to be for final passage, indefinite postponement, or to table it. This just moves it out of here. Alderman Schoneman I will vote no on the no recommendation because we do have an overwhelming vote. If we want to keep it here we can keep it here or if we want to send it forward then I think we need acknowledge that and depending on what happens with Alderman Dowd’s motion, if it’s still here then I would make a motion for indefinite postponement. Alderman Wilshire I am going to support moving it forward. I too am concerned with cuts and layoffs. Alderman Soucy Although I voted no today I think this issue is far too important not to hear from everybody on the Board. Alderman Siegel Just to be clear, I would certainly like to see it come out of committee; it’s just a question of what our recommendation is. Alderman Dowd I think either way when it goes to the full Board, I am sure that someone is going to mention what the vote was. Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 10 Chairman Deane I would imagine that would happen. A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Deane; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Dowd; 4 Alderman Soucy Nay: Alderman Siegel; Alderman Schoneman 2 MOTION CARRIED R-15-112 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy Alderman Richard A. Dowd Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderman June M. Caron AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY TREASURER TO ISSUE ADDITIONAL BONDS NOT TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,500,000) FOR ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SUNSET HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOTION BY ALDERMAN SCHONEMAN TO RECOMMEND FINAL PASSAGE BY ROLL CALL ON THE QUESTION Alderman Caron I am supporting this because I think the school board and the joint committee took some of the ideas from the residents when they had their public hearing, especially concerning the traffic problem for the buses and the cards. Not that we are looking to add to costs but there a lot of safety concerns at Sunset Heights and I think it’s important that we took those suggestions and ideas that were brought up from the neighbors and I appreciate that. Chairman Deane I agree with you. Alderman Siegel I support this and I think the changes are necessary and I agree that the process was done very well. My only comment is that I just want to make sure that whatever we are doing that there is a plan in place to take care of the building structures because I sense that far too often we do the break it and bond it approach to school maintenance. I understand that this is reconfiguration and safety but I wanted to make that comment. Alderman Dowd I want to assure the Board that we will only expend what we need to make this work and not necessarily reach the full amount of the bond. We are looking at ways right now to reduce some of the costs so that we can Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 11 meet the requirements of getting that traffic off of Main Street and minimize the impact of the overall bond. Alderman McCarthy I want to point out that what we’ve got at the school is a case where we bring in buses from one of the side streets but they have leave through the main entrance and they cross the traffic at a very small drop off loop. The traffic backs up onto Main Street and this were anything but a city facility, we would probably have ceased them from operating long ago because of those issues. We do require ourselves to meet the same site plan requirements that we would require of anyone else so it’s an improvement that is necessary to do. Chairman Deane When this school is done are we going to come up for a little air for a few years? Alderman Siegel hit the nail on the head. We don’t fund to take care of anything. The school department is no different than anyone else. We have this great habit of borrowing or cutting a ribbon and walking away, that’s what we do and it’s a big problem. I know that there were some roofing issues and things of that nature that we addressed earlier. I know that Alderman Dowd addressed some floors at a previous meeting that is taken out of the capital reserve account but what are the plans for next year? Alderman McCarthy The plan calls for after these two to do Main Dunstable and Birch Hill again. There are a number of schools that we did some work on like Elm Street where we had data in front of us that said it needed $12 million worth of work done it and we funded $6 million and then we did about $8 million of the other $6 million over the next ten years. We have been trying to not do that with any of the ones that have been done recently. We are trying to finish everything that’s necessary for a couple of years. I absolutely agree with you that at some point we need to start setting money aside in funds to make sure that we can do this maintenance as it comes along. This is not something you can do on a yearly basis; this is something that every 20 years every school needs a big chunk of cash invested in it. It’s a long-term management issue. When we did the high schools we put a tremendous amount of debt service into the budget to do that. As that debt has been paid off we’ve been able to do some of these other projects and basically keep that debt service level. At the moment, we can’t do that because of the Broad Street Parkway infusion but when we get past the first few years of the Broad Street Parkway bond and as we are reaching the end of the high school bonds, there is money left in what we are currently investing in debt service that we could put towards reserve funds to make sure that we don’t have to bond the next set of improvements. Chairman Deane How many years will we be into those high schools by the time that date comes? Alderman McCarthy They will be 15 years old when that starts to happen. Chairman Deane So we will be five years out of a new huge capital cost. Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 12 Alderman McCarthy I don’t think you’ll see the problems that we had with the old high school. The value of the high school because of the way it was constructed was basically completely exhausted when we went to do the renovations and we built the second one. The two high schools are built in such a way that structurally at least I think they will last a lot longer than the previous incarnation of south. We couldn’t even save most of the foundation. Alderman Dowd When we built the two high schools we built them with the understanding that they would last and so far they are holding up very well. The floors that we are talking about replacing and the middle gyms had an estimated lifespan of 12 ½ years. The north school is at 12 ½ years and the south school is a little over 10 but the south school is the one that had the issue of the water coming up. Chairman Deane It’s like anything else. If you don’t have a preventative maintenance plan in place, you are in trouble to begin with. I don’t dare ask if that exists because I have a pretty good idea that I know what the answer is. Alderman Schoneman If this bond had come before the one for the school I think I could have more readily supported it because I think that the traffic configuration issue is important for the neighbors, the school buses and everybody. My concern here is once again we are spending more money and we’ve already decided to spend the money to renovate the school and now here’s just more. I understand the nature of the traffic improvements but my concern is that all of this money we are spending; we talked earlier about budgets and while this is a capital expense and not an operating expense, there is an impact on that. The money that is being spent doesn’t move us towards the goal for a better education, it moves us towards the goal of maintaining infrastructure and I can understand the need for that because we are apparently in the real estate business by choice or by default. I am going to vote no on this today but I don’t know how I will vote on it when it’s before the full Board. Alderman McCarthy I’m not sure that I agree that the investment in infrastructure doesn’t get us towards better education. I don’t know if you can make that argument for the site improvements other than it makes pick-up and drop-off a lot easier and it’s easier to get kids onto the site. We probably shouldn’t even have a Certificate of Occupancy for that building because it doesn’t meet the requirements of the site plan. In general, our investment in the buildings has had a tremendous impact on educational quality. For example, Fairgrounds Jr. High School, we had measured CO2 levels of anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 parts per million in some of the areas of that school. The recommended for a public environment is 800; at 2,000 people become drowsy; at 4,000 they are pretty much asleep. Frankly, when we started that, I sat through meetings where I watched every person in the library fall asleep during the meeting because of the air quality and I can’t believe that the students learn very much when they are dosing off. With respect to our investment in the high schools, when we look at our drop- out rate in the years just before we renovated them; when north opened the principal, Mr. Corbin, invited every kid that had dropped out the previous year to come and tour the facility with him and they all re-enrolled in Nashua High when they saw the new building. I think our investment in the infrastructure, if nothing else shows the kids that we actually care about them getting an education and it’s not something that we just go through the motions of. I think if we are more serious about it they are more serious about it. Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 13 Alderman Schoneman I agree with that. I think the notion of showing somebody that you care about the effort that you want them to put into their education goes a long way. I don’t know that we need to build multi-million dollar buildings to accomplish that. I had a conversation with one of the architects or engineers as we were touring the Broad Street School that I’d like to share. We walked through the temporary classrooms in the gymnasium where it was one big room with temporary barriers. I don’t know what that temporary facility cost but I would imagine that it was very inexpensive. The architect said to me that the kids love it here. I think that when the kid’s say they love they are saying that they like that someone is paying them some attention and I would bet that the education that was accomplished in those temporary classrooms was much better than what might have been guessed by those who say that we need new classrooms. It’s just an observation. Alderman McCarthy I do know about the education of those temporary classrooms because my wife teaches in them every day and it’s not good. The kids may have loved them because it was mayhem in there all day long. It’s loud and the teachers’ can’t keep order and there were situation where the project achievement kids were in those rooms at the same time as classes and it was a highly disruptive environment. You need classrooms that are stable in order to get kids to learn. Alderman Soucy I am in agreement with Alderman McCarthy. I too worked in some of these open classrooms as an SRO and you could hear what was going on in the next classroom. It was very disruptive. Maybe the kids liked it but I don’t believe the teacher’s did and it wasn’t conducive to good learning. We have to invest in infrastructure and if we don’t take care of it now we have to take care of it tomorrow and tomorrow’s dollar is going to cost more than today’s dollar. A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Deane; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Dowd; 5 Alderman Siegel; Alderman Soucy Nay: Alderman Schoneman 1 MOTION CARRIED NEW BUSINESS – ORDINANCES – None TABLED IN COMMITTEE R-14-046 Endorser: Alderman-at-Large Brian S. McCarthy AMENDING THE PURPOSE OF A FISCAL YEAR 2014 ESCROW FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT  Tabled – 6/30/14 Budget Review – 2/23/15 Page 14 R-14-099 Endorsers: Alderman-at-Large David W. Deane Alderman June M. Caron Alderman-at-Large Lori Wilshire Alderwoman Pamela T. Brown Alderwoman Mary Ann Melizzi-Golja Alderman-at-Large Jim Donchess Alderman-at-Large Diane Sheehan Alderman Paul M. Chasse, Jr. RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF $55,284 FROM DEPARTMENT 194, ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION 70 – CONTINGENCY INTO DEPARTMENT 109 – CIVIC & COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, ACCOUNTING CLASSIFICATION 56 – OUTSIDE AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DONATING TO THE NASHUA ASSOCIATION FOR THE ELDERLY  Tabled – 2/18/15 GENERAL DISCUSSION - None PUBLIC COMMENT - None REMARKS BY THE ALDERMEN - None POSSIBLE NON-PUBLIC SESSION ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY ALDERMAN WILSHIRE TO ADJOURN A viva voce roll call was taken which resulted as follows: Yea: Alderman Deane; Alderman Wilshire; Alderman Dowd; 6 Alderman Siegel; Alderman Schoneman; Alderman Soucy Nay: 0 MOTION CARRIED The meeting was declared closed at 8:03 p.m. Alderman David Schoneman Committee Clerk, pro tem