What the MTA Fails to Mention: Letter

What the MTA Fails to Mention

Last week, an insert fell out of a local paper that caught my attention. It was a flyer encouraging people to vote no on the override. While I am a strong supporter of the override, I respect people who feel differently than I do. I have had conversations with many of them as I’ve knocked doors for this campaign. Reasonable people can disagree, but I don’t believe the case laid out on this flyer is reasonable. It is misleading, manipulates the data and lacks crucial context all voters need to make a choice on April 2. I am writing to provide some of that context to these misleading statements shared last week by the Melrose Taxpayers Alliance.

The flyer points out that city and schools have a built in raise of 2.5% as defined by the Prop 2 ½ State Law. It fails to mention that they have unavoidable increases in expenses as well, and these increases exceed 2.5%. For instance, in calculating net school spending requirements, the State will factor in a 3.75% increase for inflation in 2020 budgets. Healthcare for school and city employees are set to increase by 3.3%, despite Melrose’s cost savings move to the statewide GIC healthcare program in 2010. Most importantly, our school enrollment has jumped 5% over the last 3 years and kindergarten enrollment has skyrocketed, requiring the addition of extra kindergarten classes in each of the last 4 years. Demographic studies indicate this population increase is a new normal in Melrose, with middle school enrollment projected to increase by 25% in 10 years.

The flyer points out that the proposed $5.18mm increase will last forever. It fails to mention that while our tax base will be increased going forward, the city would once again be limited to an aggregate 2.5% increase in the following years. This is not a vote to remove the protections of Prop 2 ½ forever, no matter what the MTA tries to suggest.

The flyer points out our strong bond rating and Melrose’s free cash surplus. It fails to mention that a cash surplus of 3%-5% is strongly recommended by the State and if we use that free cash to balance our budget, our bond rating will be at risk and the cost of our debt could increase significantly. Using free cash to patch holes in the schools and city is counterproductive, and certainly not the type of long term planning we want for our city and school system.

The flyer points out that renters may be impacted by the override and that seniors may struggle to afford higher taxes. It fails to mention that Melrose offers several exemptions and volunteer work discounts, along with a full tax deferral for qualified seniors who pay property taxes. Senior housing complexes such as Fuller, Gould, McCarthy, Steele and Cochrane will see absolutely no impact in costs. Meanwhile, all city residents, renters and owners alike, will feel the impact of the proposed cuts to city services needed without an override, including reduced funding to the DPW, public safety and senior services and our library.

The flyer points out that Melrose students compete regularly with other communities, but it fails to acknowledge that they have been doing so with less and less funding. For the last 2 years our school budget has been just 3-4% above the mandatory minimum we are required to spend by the state. Our per pupil spending and average teacher salaries are in the bottom 12%. The schools have already made significant cuts, but with a growing student body population they are at a breaking point. If we want to continue to meet our legal obligations to our students and teachers, more investment from the community is needed.

While I still believe reasonable people can disagree, it is important to have the full picture of our budget situation and what an override will mean for the city and its residents. For the above reasons and many more, I believe an override of Proposition 2 ½ is desperately needed in Melrose. I support the OneMelrose campaign and will be voting Yes on April 2.

Jeff Breay