AI-generated transcript of Regular School Committee Meeting

[McLaughlin]: Hey, Tom, congratulations.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you.

[Van der Kloot]: Yes, Tom, congratulations. Congratulations, Tom.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, everyone. Thanks for all your support. When is your official start date? July 1.

[McLaughlin]: Big stuff. It's nice to have you right next door. Reading's lucky to have you.

[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Mel. You know, I'm really excited about the opportunity. I think throughout the process, I became even more excited about the community and about the role. So, and having Medford next door with all of my colleagues, coaches, mentors is certainly not a, a bad perk of the role. So no, thank you for everyone's support. I'm really excited.

[McLaughlin]: That's great. I loved how they said in the article too, that it was so clear in their walkthrough, how valued you were in our district. So I hope that you'll relate that too and share that article with Paul Revel. And hopefully we'll have more EDLDs coming our way, Dr. Ebay.

[Edouard-Vincent]: We can't hear you, Maurice. I am working on it. We've got good news coming. So hoping for the same special arrangement as this year. So I'm working on that right now.

[McLaughlin]: Well, I'm happy to send Paul an email as well and just tell him how great things were. So thank you.

[Ruseau]: Mayor, I think we have to take a roll call.

[Lungo-Koehn]: I guess we, Ms. Wise will just figure that out. She just can't seem to get in, but we'll start the meeting. Medford School Committee meeting, February 22nd, 2021. Remote meeting by Zoom. Executive session, 5 p.m. Regular meeting, 6 p.m. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order, suspending certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, Chapter 30A, Section 18 in the Governor's March 15, 2020 order. posing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in one place. This meeting of the Medford School Committee will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. Specific information, the general guidelines for remote participation by members of the public and or parties with the right and a requirement to attend this meeting can be found on the city of Medford website at www.medfordma.org. For this meeting, members of the public who wish to listen or watch the meeting may do so by accessing the meeting link contained herein. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so despite best efforts, we will post in the city of Medford or Medford community media websites and audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. The meeting can be viewed through Medford community media on Comcast channel 22 and Verizon channel 43 at 6 p.m. meeting of the Medford School Committee virtual information, 5 p.m. Since the meeting will be held remotely, participants can log in or call in by using the following call-in number, 1301-715-8592. Enter meeting ID when prompted, 96704862414. Additionally, questions or comments can be submitted during the meeting by emailing medfordsc at medford.k12.ma.us. Those submitting must include the following information, your first and last name, your Medford street address, your question or comment. Member McLaughlin, if you may call the roll.

[Unidentified]: Member Graham. Here. Member Kreatz. Here.

[McLaughlin]: Member McLaughlin here. Member Mustone.

[Unidentified]: Here.

[McLaughlin]: Member Ruseau. Member Van der Kloot. Here. Mayor Long-Wakai.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Present, seven present, zero absent. We all may rise to salute the flag.

[Unidentified]: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[Lungo-Koehn]: We have negotiations and legal matters and executive session executive session of the Medford school committee pursuant to general law 30 a section 21 a to conduct a collective bargaining session on the basis that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect. on the bargaining position of the Medford School Committee. Specifically, the Medford School Committee will discuss ongoing negotiations and hold a grievance hearing filed by the Teamsters of the 25 pursuant to the relevant collective bargaining agreement. In addition, the Medford School Committee will discuss strategy and preparation for pending litigation on the basis that an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigation position of the Medford School Committee. Specifically, the Medford School Committee will be discussing pending litigation before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. benefit school committee will reconvene in public session following the executive session. Is there a motion by a member?

[McLaughlin]: Motion to move into executive session. Second the motion.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to move into executive session by member McLaughlin, seconded by member Van der Kloot, roll call. Member Graham?

[McLaughlin]: Yes. Member Kreatz?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[McLaughlin]: Member McLaughlin, yes. Member Mustone? Yes. Member Ruseau?

[Mr. McLaughlin]: Yes.

[McLaughlin]: HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she and her team, say aye.

[Lungo-Koehn]: HAB-Charlotte Pitts, Moderator, she and her team, say aye.

[Unidentified]: Thank you for your patience, everyone.

[Lungo-Koehn]: We are going to move on to approval of minutes from our February 8, 2021 school committee meeting. This is our regular school committee meeting. Is there a motion for approval? By member Kreatz, seconded by member Rousseau. Roll call. You're muted, Member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: Yeah, I'm sorry, I apologize. My Zoom screen keeps, I don't know what's going on. I'm figuring out, sorry. Member Graham? Yes. Member Kreatz? Yes. Member McLaughlin, yes. Member Mustone? Yes.

[Unidentified]: Member Ruseau? Yes. Member Van der Kloot? Yes. Mayor Longo-Klein?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero the negative. The minutes are approved. Number three, we have approval of bills, transfer of funds, and approval of payrolls. First is 020-821-Payrolls.

[Unidentified]: Motion of approval.

[Lungo-Koehn]: And second is 022-221-Payrolls. Is there a motion for approval of both?

[Van der Kloot]: Yes.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion for approval of both by member Van der Kloot, seconded by? Second. Member Kreatz, roll call. Member Graham.

[McLaughlin]: Yes. Member Kreatz? Yes. Member McLaughlin? Yes. Member Mustone? Yes.

[Unidentified]: Member Ruseau?

[Ruseau]: Yes.

[Unidentified]: Member Van der Kloot? Yes. Mayor Long-Beaucorn?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Payrolls are approved. Do we have a report of secretary?

[McLaughlin]: No, Mayor, there is nothing. in particular to report. I do have a new tally sheet that I think I sent to you all last week. I'll be sending at the end of each meeting to the committee and to Susie, just of the tally votes nightly. So that's it, thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Great, thank you. Number five, we have report of committees with the rules, policy and equity subcommittee meeting, February 10th, 2021. Member Ruseau, chair.

[Ruseau]: Thank you very much, mayor. On February 10th, the Rules, Policy and Equity Subcommittee met again with members McLaughlin and Graham as my co-members of the subcommittee. We powered through an awful lot and we covered the new annual reports and presentations, schedule policy, as well as six other policies. If it's okay with everybody, I would actually like to just go through each of the policies. I'm not gonna read the whole policy unless members want that, because we do need to approve each of those policies. But is there a motion to approve the, actually, I guess you do that, Mayor, I'm sorry, on the minutes.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to approve the minutes? Do the minutes have number one through seven broken down?

[Ruseau]: They do, I'm sorry, yes. Each of the individual policy, they're in a different order, I apologize, than the order that is on the agenda. Each of the minutes, each of the new policies or updated policies are separated down into here and all seven of them were approved by the subcommittee unanimously to be sent up to us.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, so maybe we take them one at a time for those that have questions on each individual. each individual paper. So first up we have JB, equal educational opportunities. If you wanna just give us a summary of that and then we can move for approval.

[Ruseau]: Yep, just a lot of windows right now, one second. A lot of windows. Let's see, JB. Of course it's the last one. So Policy JB is the Equal Educational Opportunities Policy. This was the first time that Medford is adopting this policy. It comes from, the latest version of it comes from the Massachusetts Association of School Committees, February, 2019 policy newsletter that they send. And this is a, all of these policies other than that schedule policy are actually required by the upcoming Education Stability Program Review, which is formerly known as the CPR. Medford is one of the first 60 districts that will be evaluated. So we needed to get these policies on our books because they are required for this review. So that first policy is probably the simplest of all policies in this pile. Sorry, too many windows here. This policy is pretty standard. It is the, that we won't discriminate based on all the things that we won't discriminate on. Are there any questions on this?

[Lungo-Koehn]: And no questions for me. Motion for approval by member Graham, was that you? No, I'm not McLaughlin. Member McLaughlin, seconded by? Second. Member Graham, roll call. Yes.

[McLaughlin]: Member Graham? Yes. Member Kreatz? Yes. Member McLaughlin, yes. Yes. Yes. Member Miss Stone. Yes. Member Ruseau?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Member Van der Kloot? Yes. Mayor Longo-Klein? Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Paper is approved. Number two, we have JFABC, Homeless Students Enrollment Rights and Services.

[Ruseau]: Yes, thank you, Mayor. This is the Homeless Students Enrollment Rights and Services policy. I don't know if this one's a new one for Medford or an update. It says it's an update in the agenda. So I'll believe what I wrote before. So this is a set of policies on the rights of homeless students. It's several pages long and it is again, a copy of the policy that we received in the policy service that we subscribe to. We did not make any amendments or changes to that policy. So if there are any questions.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion of approval. Second. Move for approval by Member Van der Kloot, seconded by Member McLaughlin. Roll call.

[Unidentified]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Kreatz. Yes.

[McLaughlin]: Member McLaughlin, yes. Member Mustone. Yes. Member Ruseau. Yes.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Van der Kloot. Yes. Mayor Longo-Khan. Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Paper is approved. Number three. JFABE educational opportunities for military children.

[Ruseau]: Thank you, Mayor. So this is a new policy for Medford, I believe, and is a, like the other policies we've discussed, is a required policy that we should have. We had some conversations on this particular policy about whether or not this should cover just K to 12, or whether it should include up to age 22, for students with disabilities that have rights up until that age. I'll tell you all what I experienced. I took on the task of attempting to get an answer to that question so that we could expand this up to age 22. I don't know if it's a reflection of the last administration at the federal government level, or if it's a longstanding challenge with the Department of Veterans Affairs or not, But their websites that they have set up for this matter are filled with links that go to no pages, chat features that do nothing and are broken. It was really quite two hours of clicking around in their multiple federal government webpages that were all dead, dead links. I just eventually gave up because, you know, The help pages and FAQs don't go anywhere. It's kind of hard to get the answer. So I do, I think we should stick a pin in it to expand this to age 22, if in fact we can figure out how to get the answer to the question about whether or not this, it is a federal law, the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunities for Military Children. getting the answer to whether or not that, when they say military children, do they need up to 22 or just K to 12? It was a difficult thing to get an answer to. Mayor, Member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you. Thank you, Member Ruseau for poking around on that website. I'm sure it's a bunch of dead links, but I am fully confident in saying that Our students are students until age 22 in the transition program for our students with disabilities and should qualify for everything that our K through or pre-K through 12 qualify for. So I would recommend to the committee that we vote to move this forward. And if there are further questions, I would also recommend that the administration could reach out to Mass Advocates for Children, which is a free legal organization that can offer advice or the Federation for Children with Special Needs that can offer advice in this capacity.

[Lungo-Koehn]: So I make a motion to move this forward. Motion for approval by Member McLaughlin, seconded by Member Van der Kloot. Roll call.

[Unidentified]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Kreatz.

[Kreatz]: Yes. Can you hear me?

[McLaughlin]: Yeah, we can. Thank you. Member McLaughlin, yes. Member Mustone? Yes. Member Ruseau? Yes. Member Van der Kloot?

[Unidentified]: Yes. Mayor Longo-Khan?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. 70 for Ms. Zierden, the negative. Paper passes. Number four, JFABF, Educational Opportunities for Children in Foster Care.

[Ruseau]: Thank you, Mayor. This is a policy also required for our upcoming, I wanna say CPR, I forget what the new name is, our new audit, our upcoming audit. This of course is a policy related to the McKinney-Vento Act, as well as Title I and Part A of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. and this just lays out the rights of students, as well as the definition of students that are in foster care. So if there are any questions. Motions to approve.

[Lungo-Koehn]: For approval by member McLaughlin, seconded by member Van der Kloot, roll call.

[McLaughlin]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Krentz. Yes. Member McLaughlin, yes. Member Mustone. Yes. Member Ruseau.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[McLaughlin]: Member Van der Kloot. Yes. Mayor Long, O'Connor.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero in the negative, the paper passes. Number five, GBEBC, gifts to and solicitations by staff, update. Member Ruseau.

[Ruseau]: Thank you, Mayor. So this is a policy that really is just a codification of the annual ethics training, frankly, that everybody who's a public employee has to take. There is nothing in here that is Medford specific. This is the law as laid out in a policy.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to approve. Second. I just have a question. So this is an update, but where it says the solicitation of personal items shall only be to benefit students, does that mean like our CCSR group couldn't do a coat drive for the homeless?

[Ruseau]: No, Mayor, this is just for, this is only for employees.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, so employees soliciting donations. Correct. Okay, so student groups could, perfect, thank you. Motion for approval by member... Banderclute. Banderclute, seconded by... Member McLaughlin. Member McLaughlin, roll call.

[McLaughlin]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Kreatz. Yes. Member McLaughlin, yes. Member Mustone. Yes. Member Ruseau.

[Ruseau]: Yes.

[McLaughlin]: Member Vanden Heuvel.

[Unidentified]: Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. I think my question was meant for number six, sorry. Number six. GBEBD online fundraising and solicitation crowdfunding, new.

[Ruseau]: Thank you, Mayor. So this is a policy that is also required, I believe, and is a codification of state ethics and conflict of interest rules. I would say that the specification of this policy online fundraising platforms like GoFundMe, Kickstarter, Indiegogo, Mutecaring, DonorsChoose. Those are examples, it's not an exhaustive list. I know that I believe in our last term, there were issues around one of the online fundraising platforms where one of our student groups, or maybe it was a sports or something like that, was using and they were taking, I think a 30% cut or some very large cut of the donations. And so that I believe is part of the motivation behind this is to make sure that folks are using platforms that are not gouging people making donations, but also to make sure that the superintendent is aware and importantly from the school committee perspective to make sure that we are aware We need to know when people feel the need to fundraise so that if those things really should be part of our budget, we get that insight and can make decisions on it. If everything is covered by fundraising and nobody ever tells us on the school committee that that's how it's actually being paid for, well, we won't know. So that's the motivation behind that. Are there any questions?

[Lungo-Koehn]: No questions. Motion for approval. Member. Motion for approval. Graham seconded by Member Kreatz. Roll call.

[McLaughlin]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Kreatz. Yes. Member McLaughlin. Yes. Member Mustone. Yes. Member Ruseau. Yes.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes, seven. The affirmative zero in the negative paper passes.

[Van der Kloot]: You didn't call my name.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Oh, I'm sorry. Member Vandepest. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative, paper passes. And last but not least, annual reports and presentations policy, new.

[Ruseau]: Thank you, Mayor. So this was the actual work we had to do. The other policies were relatively easy because they were written for us. So the purpose of this is to create a schedule, not actual dates, but a schedule of annual reports and presentations, although some of them are in fact semi-annual, to provide clarity to school committee members who are coming in and who wanna know when something's gonna happen or find out whether or not something is gonna happen, as well as guidance for the administration to know, okay, this is the list of things we've committed to doing and when do they normally happen try to bring that institutional knowledge onto paper. So there is one amendment to this that I like to make on page two. There is a bolded to-do insert link to a definitions page. One does not exist, create one. That actually should be the MPS URL slash definitions. It's a page that will, be created very, very shortly. So I would offer that one amendment so that it is actually correct in the policy. And then the schedule is the thing at the end. And these are the, I won't read through the entire schedule, but it has the name of the actual report or presentation, what type of meeting we expect to have it at, whether it's statutory, so whether the law or regulation mandates it, and the frequency as well as if there are any special details on when we would expect it, like prior to budget, and then a description if necessary. Any questions?

[Van der Kloot]: Mayor? Member Van der Kloot? Through you, through the chair, First, I want to thank the committee for laying this out and Paul for the work you were doing on this. I think it's an excellent working document to have at our disposal. The one thing I wasn't certain if I saw, and I could be terribly wrong, but I didn't see super, I saw goals, but superintendent's evaluation.

[Ruseau]: So if I may, Mayor. So, When we were meeting about this, we had that same kind of like, well, what about this? And there were many, many of those things. This was, I think if I'm, and the member McLaughlin and member Graham can correct me, but the way we ended up landing on what we mean by this is things that will be coming to us for presentation. And we decided that meetings that we must have, such as, you know, the annual, the first example that came up was the annual budget hearing, you know, that is by law must happen. That's not on here. Even though it will be a presentation, it's really that there's a, the meeting is what's required. So the superintendent goals, an evaluation. Actually, is that not in here somewhere?

[Van der Kloot]: I saw district goals, but I didn't see any specificity around self-evaluation or, you know, that that would be part of what the school committee can expect on an annual basis.

[Ruseau]: Yeah, we didn't want this to be an actual calendar, but We also didn't want to add things that simply, for the most part, don't exist right now. And I'm not sure we have actually had meetings to do that, but would that be a report or presentation that we would get? Or will we get together and do something? Like when we do the superintendent's evaluation, we get together and we do something. And that's not a report that would end up on the agenda or a presentation on the agenda that we would receive a file that we would stick on the public website. So, I see your point that it is annual and that there is, in fact, a format to it, but it's not something we will receive. It's something we will do.

[Van der Kloot]: Well, we receive, if I may, we receive from the superintendent her, and we need to expect to receive the self-evaluation. Yep, yep. Right, so that's, again, and I'm thinking as if I were a new member looking at this, that if it was put on that, oh yeah, one of the things I'm gonna get is the superintendent's evaluation, and that's gonna start the process. So in my mind, I think it's appropriate. Of course, I understand the committee deliberated it a long time, but that was my question. Again, the other, I think you did a great job.

[Ruseau]: So if I may, just writing some notes on this. So are you offering an amendment to add the superintendent self-evaluation for a regular meeting? Actually, it's statutory, I believe, annually.

[Van der Kloot]: Yes, exactly. Thank you.

[Ruseau]: Any other questions?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to approve. Motion for approval as amended by Member Ruseau and further amended by Member Van der Kloot, seconded by Member Van der Kloot. Roll call. Member Graham?

[McLaughlin]: Yes. Member Kreatz? Yes. Member McLaughlin? Yes. Member Mustone? Yes. Member Ruseau?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Van der Kloot? Yes.

[Unidentified]: Mayor Lungo-Koehn?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. that we have a special education and behavioral health. Paper passes as amended. Number two. We have special education, behavioral health subcommittee meeting, which took place on February 11th 2021. Member McLaughlin chair.

[McLaughlin]: Yes. Thank you, Mayor. a good number of parent participants and staff members participating. We had some conversation about the EPIC Leaders Presentation with the Common Ground Program at the high school. And the EPIC Leaders Program is about disability, civil rights, ableism, and person first language. And we further discussed the Common Ground Program that currently exists at the high school. The Common Ground is currently a reverse inclusion program where general education, non-disabled students, for lack of a better word, join disabled students in their classroom, which fosters friendships and continued community relationships. It's a program that has been very successful at the high school and we are having discussion about expanding this program to the middle school. We have been engaging the middle school principals and other staff members at the middle school to find, to garner interest there. It was suggested by the director of people's services and others that, and educators, teachers, both special education and general education, that we look at this as a potential elective course. And we look at what a syllabus would look like. And Susanna Campbell, who is the, I believe, Director of Speech and Language, has been presenting a disability awareness course and shared her syllabus with us to be thinking about what a syllabus might look like for a course like this. We had several staff members that had been part of the disability awareness curriculum and raved about it and said how important they think this is at a middle school level. So that was really good to hear. And then from the behavioral health component, we had a parent who was a lot of parents who are very concerned, of course, about social, emotional needs of our children, particularly through the pandemic. and there was a parent who was asking specifically about art therapy for the district. We shared that there was a music therapy grant that had existed at preschool that was driven by a parent and that we believe that that was not available currently, but asking about how we might pursue that and whether there was even also potentially community members that might be able to or interested in providing art or music therapy within our district and what that would look like. Dr. Cushon talked about initial stages of planning some summer work and hoping to build more outside activities through nature. Let's see, sorry. We are going to do more research into the art therapy and social emotional piece, Stacey Shulman talked about Lesley University's art therapy program and how excellent they are. We also had a parent who was very concerned about behavior supports for children in our schools and how that really alienates our children who are struggling with social emotional needs and exhibit that struggle through communicating by behavior. We noted that there are four behavior specialists in the program in a district of 4,000 students, which was very concerning, understandably. So we will be continuing this conversation and recommending policy by the year end. Our next meeting is March 18th from 5 to 6.30. we will do behavioral health first, 5 to 545, and special ed will be 545 to 630. Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Member McLaughlin. Motion for approval by Member Vinclute, seconded by Member Kreatz. Roll call, please.

[McLaughlin]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Kreatz. Yes. Member McLaughlin. Yes. Member Mustone. Yes. Member Ruseau.

[Ruseau]: Yes.

[McLaughlin]: Member Van der Kloot. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Minutes are approved. Number six, we have community participation. Emails, questions, or comments can be submitted during the meeting by emailing medfordsc at medford.k12.ma.us. Those submitting must include the following information, your first and last name, your Medford Street address, your question or comment. Member Van der Kloot, do we have any emails?

[Van der Kloot]: There are no emails today. I do want to mention that there is a curriculum subcommittee from 4 to 5.30 this Wednesday. We're going to be going back to what was on the agenda for a meeting that was canceled, had to do with our world language program and also technology.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Number seven, we have report for superintendent. Number one, superintendents updates and comments. Dr. Edouard-Vincent.

[Edouard-Vincent]: Good evening. Pool testing is going well. For our high school athletes, COVID testing is mandatory. But this is just another step towards some sense of normalcy as sports are on the way back. This past season, the only sports that could be offered were girls' ice hockey and gymnastics. Beginning March 1st, boys' and girls' basketball, swimming, and boys' ice hockey will begin their competitive seasons. Also on March 1st, fall two pre-season conditioning starts with girls volleyball, boys and girls soccer, golf, cross country and football. Of course, at all times, all aspects of sports will be following COVID safety regulations. Medford High School will only compete against other GBL teams and there will be no fans allowed. We are so appreciative of the testing that keeps our community safe. Let's go Mustangs. So last week, last Wednesday on CBS4 at 6 p.m., the Mustang Unity Poetry Contest received some great publicity from news anchor, Lisa Hughes. This month, nationally, CBS News has been featuring segments on unifying America. Lisa Hughes wanted to do something locally and came across our poetry contest. On Friday, February 12th, she went to the Roberts Elementary School and taped our third grader, Mr. Joe Hogan, as he read his unity poem. On President's Day last week via Zoom, Lisa interviewed Violet Bell and Ibrahim Ammar from the Roberts, both remote learners who also submitted poems. Lisa told me she felt the students' poems give us all hope that we can become a more united community and world. I agreed wholeheartedly. Additionally, the segment seems to have been a big hit on our social media channels. We have received approximately 65 entries for the contest. Lisa Hughes will be following up with me to find out who the Mustang Unity Poem winners are and the hopes to feature them on CBS4 Boston streaming service. So for any students who are listening, I am still accepting poems until 1159 p.m. tonight. please feel free to email your poem on Unity of not more than 10 lines to superintendent at medford.k12.ma.us. We are also accepting poems in your native language. If it is not English, we will get it translated. And we are also accepting illustrations for students that that would be appropriate for them to submit in entry. So we have until 11 59pm this evening. And I do also want to share with the school committee that I did receive my very first poetry entry from a parent today. And so we have parents that have been inspired. And so I was so happy reading that poem that I wanted to just put it out there to those that are listening. If we have parents out there, members of the school committee who may be inspired, you wanna write a poem on poetry, please submit your entry to superintendent at medford.k12.ma.us on unity, up to 10 lines, any kind of poem you want it to be. So I wanted to share that good news and I was really pleased with the wonderful segment that highlighted the positive things that are happening in Medford public schools. I also have additional good news to share. I'm really happy our Mustangs are back at it again. So I want to say congratulations to our Mustangs Ethics Bowl team. That group is under the direction and leadership of Mr. Essner. They compiled a 3-1 record and reached the semifinals with wins over Phillips Andover, Boston University Academy, and yes, Lexington High School. So I just want you to know our Mustangs are doing phenomenal work. under these wonderful COVID conditions. So what does the Ethics Bowl do? The Ethics Bowl promotes respectful, supportive, and rigorous discussion of ethics among high school students nationwide. It differs from a debate competition, as students are not assigned opposing views. Rather, they defend whichever position they think is correct with proper data and always respectfully. Ethics Bowl members learn ethical awareness, critical thinking, civil discourse, civic engagement, and an appreciation for multiple points of view. Great job, Mustangs. We are very proud of you. As we begin to prepare for the upcoming school year, so many parents have asked, what will the school year look like for next year? While there is much we do not know yet about next year, we want to provide you with an opportunity to share your experiences. To that end, we will be hosting listening sessions, which begin next week on March 4th. These sessions have been broken up by grade level and will provide opportunities for students, parents, caregivers, faculty, and staff to participate. All the listening sessions will be held via Zoom Each session will feature three breakout rooms, Cohort A students, Cohorts B and C, and Cohorts D. Please be advised that translators will be available in Portuguese, Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Arabic, and closed captioning will be also provided. For those who may be unable to attend these sessions, we are accepting feedback via the email info at medford.k12.ma.us. Again, feedback can be sent to info at medford.k12.ma.us. The questions that will guide these conversations include, What has gone well? What are the areas for growth? What would you possibly like to see for the upcoming school year? The entire schedule is listed on our website, the MPS Facebook page, the MPS blog, and PTO Facebook pages. As noted, we will begin on Thursday, March 4th with elementary education. From 3.30 to 4.30, we will listen to students. From 5 to 6, faculty and staff. And from 6.30 to 7.30, parents and caregivers only. On Tuesday, March 9th, the same schedule will follow and we'll continue with our middle schools, And our third session will be on Thursday, March 11th. We will host high school education. Again, the same schedule will be followed. Our hope is that these sessions will provide us with invaluable feedback as we prepare for the upcoming school year. As always, please feel free to reach out to us at any time with questions or concerns. This Thursday, February 25 will be our second building bridges to kindergarten presentation via zoom. This session will take place in the morning from 11am to 12 noon. We hope, incoming kindergarten parents and caregivers can join us. Again, if you can't join, we are hosting another presentation in March, and you can always contact Assistant Superintendent Suzanne Galusi with any questions or concerns. Just a reminder, next week, Tuesday, March 2nd, we will be hosting a district-wide professional development day. Therefore, there will be no instruction, whether remote or in school, on that particular day. Marie Cassidy of the Medford Family Network has informed me, and there's an all call, that many members of our community are in need of diapers. They are especially in need of sizes two, three, and six. If anyone is able to assist, please contact Marie Cassidy at 781-393-2106. Again, they are in need of diapers sizes two, three, and six. Our partners from Melrose-Wakefield Hospital are offering free, safe at home classes via Zoom. They're offering a class for students in grades four through six, and it's the safe sitter program, safe sitter. Completing this program does not mean that a student is ready to stay home alone. Only the students' parents can make that decision, but it will help students learn how to practice safe habits, how to handle common household emergencies, and how to address illness or injury. The classes are being held on Saturday, March 13th, from 10 to 11.30 a.m., and also on Wednesday, March 31st, from 4.30 to 6 p.m. Additionally, coming up in April, they plan to also offer safe sitter classes for students entering grades six through eight, our middle school age students. For them to be safe when they are home alone, watching younger siblings or babysitting. Students will learn life-saving skills such as how to rescue someone who's choking and what to do during severe weather. The lessons are filled with fun activities and role-playing exercises. For further information or to register, please email che at Melrose Wakefield.org or call 781-338-7561. February, lastly, is fast coming to a close. But the Medford High School Black History celebrations continue. School committee members, you are being invited if you're interested on Thursday, February 25th, Monday, March 1st, or Thursday, March 4th. The F Know Haitian dance performances are continuing to take place at the high school gym with strict social distancing protocols. All performances run from 9 to 9.50 in the morning. Thanks, special thanks to assistant principal Sherose Walker, who has spearheaded that initiative. If you'd like to attend, please contact her and let her know. The performance is quite uplifting and interactive. And in honor of Black History Month, let us remember the words of representative John Lewis, who yesterday would have been 81 years old. Sometimes you have to get in the way. You have to make some noise by speaking up and speaking out against injustice and inaction. The Medford Public Schools, we are committed to doing that. Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Dr. Edward-Vincent. Number two, we have COVID-19 public health update and Medford Public School COVID-19 testing summary and update. nurse supervisor, Ms. Toni Ray, and Mr. David Murphy.

[Wray]: Good evening, everyone. I'm going to provide both community data and school data tonight. So the February 18th report that came out from the Department of Public Health, Medford continues to be in the yellow zone. Our percent positivity decreased to 1.08%, which is almost 50% less than two weeks ago. And this aligns with the decrease in the number of positive cases reported statewide. So we are very excited to make that benchmark. For school data, our pool testing program started on February 4th. As of February 18th, 416 pools were tested. We identified three positive pools and completed the reflex testing. The reflex testing identified the three positive cases through a Binax rapid test, and it was confirmed by a positive PCR test. Athletes were tested on Thursday, February 18th, and no positive pools were identified. Pool testing resumed today at all schools for cohorts A and B, and results are expected in tomorrow morning. I'd like to also take this time to refer back to a request by member Rousseau, who had asked about the new CDC guidelines that were published on February 12th. And I reviewed them and would just like to make a couple highlights. The report focused on five major points of mitigation, mandatory masking, ventilation, sanitation, contact tracing, and testing. We meet guidelines one through four. Our students and staff are wearing masks regularly. We've improved ventilation at all schools. We are following the sanitation guidelines that are outlined by the CDC. And our school nurses are collaborating with the Medford Board of Health to complete contact tracing within the school. Of importance is that we are exceeding guidelines in two areas. We've made additional PPE available to all our staff, such as face shields and desk shields. And we're also conducting surveillance testing. The CDC does not recommend universal surveillance testing of all students and staff, and instead advises school administrators to determine, in conjunction with their local health officials, whether to implement any testing strategy. Our testing program, supported by Tufts University, has been operational since September of 2020. As we have frequently discussed in this forum, the program has been instrumental in identifying positive cases, quickly isolating them, and determining the close contacts from the school population. So if you would like to discuss the report in any further detail, then we can make arrangements to do so. Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Miss Ray. Mr. Murphy. Anything to add?

[Murphy]: Just a couple of quick comments as both. I know the superintendents that I think Mr. Raymond mentioned as well. We were doing a really good job in terms of our ramping up our testing program and as our testing numbers. Increase our positivity rate consistent with the community's rate is significantly decreasing. And so I think that it will require a continued vigilance to make sure that the testing program continues to be as robust as it is and participation continues to be as high as it is. That is particularly important with regard to student athletes and students who are participating in extracurricular programming in person. That is an element of the program that we are tightening as we speak and student athletes and families of student athletes should know That lack of participation in the in-school portion of the testing program will result in exclusion from those activities if the students aren't testing. So we're sending out communications to that effect. The athletics department is communicating through coaches and other school personnel to make sure that that message is reaching students and families, because the last thing we want is for anyone to be excluded from any activity. But given the nature of the programming and as part of that continued vigilance that I mentioned, all students and families should keep that in mind. And again, we're going to be communicating that again, in a variety of forms, but it is something that I think the committee and the community at large should be aware of.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Member Ruseau.

[Ruseau]: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for the report. I appreciate it very much. I know, I don't know if you're supposed to have the week off last week, but I am grateful you managed to get through that guidance. I did have a question. I've seen a number of articles and about somewhat the unnecessary level of cleaning. I know that some early on in the pandemic people were isolating their mail for days and we certainly cleaning of our facilities was a major component of our work over the summer as to what the plan was going to be. And I certainly am understanding of how some things we do maybe just make us feel better. But my question is, are we doing cleaning that is unnecessary? Because I think there's two aspects to doing anything unnecessary around cleaning that concern me. One is the cost, obviously. And the other is something I talked about numerous times last year. And there wasn't a lot of feedback, but concern about whether or not these chemicals have truly, the chemical industry isn't exactly known as the most trustworthy industry who's concerned about all of our safety until you know, until they can go out of business after killing a bunch of people. So my concern is, do we need to be doing cleaning, all of the cleaning we're doing, and can we cut any cleaning out that is truly not necessary, even though it may make, and if we can, we should communicate that this is definitely no longer necessary. It's been proven to be not necessary.

[Murphy]: Does anybody have any feedback on that? I think it's a good question, and I think it's something that has been on our minds as the data and the evidence has continued to evolve over the course of the past year. And I'm not a scientist, and I think that this is a virus that didn't, to the best of our knowledge, exist 15 months ago. So we should all sort of have that humility in recognizing that we don't know We know more than we did a year ago, but probably not as much as we will a year from now. And what I would say is that there's it seems as though there's a consensus that this that the surface based transmission concerns were potentially are not quite as great as they were at the beginning of the pandemic right that there's a pretty large body of evidence that that being said. There's solid data that what is used to clean the schools are non-toxic chemicals that are good for sanitation purposes. And they're not, I've seen no evidence and no data to suggest that they're being used to a point of reaching diminishing returns. In other words, we're not cleaning to the point where you feel like you're going to school in a Windex bottle. I think that, and I think while there's some, there have been folks that have said, and this has come up in some of the conversations we've had with various constituents, including some, those representing some of the employees, that sometimes when the, what's known as the fogger comes in and sanitizes a room, like it can be irritating to some people. And so we try to time that in a way that you're not getting blasted with this non-toxic chemical immediately upon coming into a room. But I haven't seen anything to suggest that we need to scale back those efforts because I've seen no evidence to suggest that it would do any harm. And we haven't reached a point where we're exceeding our financial capacity due to some of the financial support that we received specific to the pandemic relief. And so I think we're striking the right balance there, but I think it'll be something that certainly going forward, we'll have to take a closer look at, because if there is the evidence that it doesn't actually do any good, I think we have to look at the cost aspect of it.

[Ruseau]: Thank you. And I had a second question in this, around, I've heard, you know, I'm very happy to hear that there's a robust sounding protocols around sports participation. or unclear about why music is not happening yet. And anybody who's played an instrument and anybody who has participated in the support, I find it hard to believe that unless you're doing maybe a trombone or some of those instruments with excessive requirements, why are we not doing music?

[Wray]: So I'll try to answer that for you. The amount of exhalation that comes out of any of the instruments is the point of concern by the medical community. So until we can figure out a way to successfully filter that, the recommendation stands to avoid doing that in person. And we have followed those recommendations. I do believe that a group of percussionists will start getting together soon because that is an instrument where there's no exhalation. I think the color guard is also having practice sessions. So we are making the strides that we are allowed to make right now. And there hasn't been any further recommendations from the Department of Education on that.

[Ruseau]: So, sorry to beat this horse a little bit, but we can all acknowledge that sports gets a very different level of attention and concern from our society in general. So my question is, so the studies about the amount of exhalation for these instruments, similar studies have said that doing all this physical activity in close quarters is in fact not producing the same amount of exhalation. I mean, I feel like I'm not terribly in shape. So I, maybe I just breathe an awful lot if I even start to work out, but I just think it's like, we have this robust scientific base standard for music, which is great. And then do we really have that same standard for sports?

[Wray]: So. I mean, I'd say I wait for the guidelines to come out and I make recommendations based on those guidelines. So that's where I've, you know, that's the position I've taken. Following whatever safe, you know, safety procedures we can. So.

[Ruseau]: Thank you.

[Wray]: That's the best I can answer you.

[Murphy]: I would just say it's a very fair question. One aspect is with the music program being part of the school day, there are restrictions on the mandatory testing element that we're able to impose on athletics because they're extracurricular in nature. That doesn't answer what I think the point of the question is, which is the discrepancy in terms of potential scientific standards, but it is one variable that does distinguish the two situations, at least internally for us.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Van der Kloot, did you have a hand up?

[Van der Kloot]: I guess to that point, is the orchestra playing?

[Murphy]: I don't believe so. Not at the moment. I would just say that I think that assuming the progress, and that's sort of why I tried to start my comments with this idea of heightened vigilance, it's my hope that if the data continues to be favorable, that vigilance is the word that we keep going back to because that it will become an increasing need for us to remind ourselves of the need to have a robust testing program, of the need to stay out of school or out of work if you have symptoms, of the need to if you are close contact to make sure that you're quarantining because if the trends continue The likelihood is we're going to be receiving new recommendations around music, around occupancy, and around some of these restrictions. I don't think we're going to be hearing any news about masks anytime soon, but for these types of things, these are conversations that we're hopeful that we're going to be having in the spring and seeing what elements of, as Dr. Fauci would say, normality that we can begin to re-institute within the district. And I think that will stretch from the academic programming to scheduling to extracurricular. and so on and so forth. But that's all of these things. It's a little premature right now, but I think right now, if we were able to maintain that vigilance, that could be where the conversation goes next.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you very much. Next up, we have number three, report on financial update for the city of Medford, Ms. Aleesha Nunley-Benjamin, Chief Financial Officer for the city. Thank you for joining us, Alicia.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: Thank you, school committee members. May I share my screen for the presentation tonight?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. Yes, please. You should be good to go. Yes, you're a co-host.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: Are you able to see my screen right now with the presentation?

[Van der Kloot]: Yes.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: OK. So for Q2, the city is meeting its target revenue estimates in total, but not by every single revenue stream. So for instance, my Q2 budget estimate for motor vehicle excise is higher than what I actually collected. My boat excise tax is about on target. My penalties and interest is actually up. No pilots because they're not expected until Q3 and Q4. Hotel excise is down, which we would expect. The hotels got hit the hardest due to COVID-19. Our local meals tax is doing well. I have a community impact fee, it's extremely small. This is the first year we're receiving it. Our fees are higher than estimated. Our rentals are on target. Our departmental revenue is on target. Our license and permit is below what we would have expected. Our Medicaid is actually below what we would have expected. Actually, excuse me, above our estimate. Fines and forfeits is below. Our investment income is below because the rates have dropped so much. and miscellaneous is about where we would expect it. As of right now, there's still no federal stimulus, and we're watching the American Rescue Plan with Biden, hoping he's gonna give us some additional stimulus to cities and towns. He did extend the CARES Act to December 31, 2021. Here are the actual numbers. So you can see my Q2 budgeted receipts versus what I actually received. So you can see for my motor vehicle, I'm actually down 82,000, For my boat excise, I'm up 546. For my penalties and interest, I'm up 90,674.06. For my hotel, I'm down 9,925.76. Local meals, I'm up 22,105. Community impact fee, I did not budget for, as I said, it was new, and that's only 2,986.35. Fees are up $156,871.47. Rentals are on target. Departmental revenue up $14,832.81. License and permits is down $110,540.85. Medicaid is up $82,232.85. Fines and forfeits is down $28,926.20. Investment income is down 50,095 and 53, and miscellaneous is up by 5,777 and 16 cents. This is my 2021 cherry sheet receipts. This is the final. When we did the budget, we had done that 10% projected conservative cut. And when the governor level funded the chapter 70, we reprogrammed that difference back to the schools, to the city council. This is the final 2021 cherry sheet assessments to the city of 12,000,716,837. Here is my local aid summary from 2021 for chapter 70. We had budgeted 11,053,769. We actually got 12,143,306. That 1,000,089,537 was reprogrammed back to the schools. and unrestricted general government aid, also known as UGA. We budgeted $11,916,986. We actually received $12,880,443, a difference of $963,457. In other revenue streams, we budgeted $1,031,317. We actually got $2,317,259. For our assessments, we budgeted $11,884,634. but our actual assessment was 12,716,837. So we will actually pay 832,203 more than what we thought we were going to have to pay. And do you notice a little asterisk I put is 82,442 is directly to the public library. This is our fiscal year 2022 preliminary revenues. And if you can see right away, we actually dropped from 27,341,008 to 27,001,262, the biggest being charter. The charter went from 1.9 to 900. So we lost a million right off the top on the charter. Our fiscal year 2022 preliminary assessments are more than fiscal year 21s. at 12,948,591 versus 12.7. So this translates into 132,420, which is a slight increase in chapter 70, a three and a half percent increase to unrestricted general government aid of 450,816, but a decline in our other aid by 840,029. And the largest decline, as I pointed out, was due to the charter. In addition, our assessments are up from 12,716,837 to 12,948,591. That's 231,754 more. That's a direct hit in a reduction to our budget revenues by 488 by 47. So due to COVID-19 and the resurgence and the economic decline that's happening and that we're in a recession right now, the city implemented a spending freeze for non-emergency expenditures and hiring. The state has indicated that we're in a recession with a recovery range between fiscal year 23 and fiscal year 25. Massachusetts said, since this is currently in an economic recession, it gave these figures. So as of February 2020, GDP decreased by 3.4%. and 31.6% in second quarter declining tax revenue. Meals and motor vehicle decline shown in April, 2020. July, 2020 state taxes started to recover. 48% of jobs recovered in October. However, the pace of economic recovery declined due to the resurgence of COVID-19. State growth dropped from 6.8% to 2.2%. In fiscal year 21, year-to-date state tax collections, 2.7% more than fiscal year 20, but two thirds of that revenue is collected between December and June. So the state said a lot could change. It might get less than what they're thinking. At the state level, 8.1% increase in regular sales tax, negative 31.9% in meals, an 8.7 increase in motor vehicle sales, a negative 53% in room occupancy. And one of the big concerns is what our assessors will be facing, which is commercial market, fair market value is slowing down. Certain property types are really struggling, such as retail, malls. So they're also concerned about businesses closing effective January 1st. This will affect our assessments, our values and our new growth and pressure on assessors to abate. Hotel occupancy rates plummeted and don't expect to recover until full implementation of a vaccine and the prediction to return to normals between 2023 and 2025. Massachusetts lost 4,000 restaurants due to the pandemic. Independent restaurant sales are down by 30% rural, 40% suburban, and 45% urban. So how does that affect our city with the economic decline? So our local receipts for fiscal year 20, we projected 20,063,416, and we actually received 19,105,993. So we were actually short 957,423 last year. Fiscal year 21, we projected 15,830,089, a $4.2 million loss from the prior year due to COVID-19. New growth and assessed values could decline in fiscal year 22 due to significant decline in the commercial sectors, as I said before, such as shopping malls, office space, retail, auto dealerships. The decrease in projected fiscal year 22 local cherry sheet aid of $488,547. We currently have a $5 to $8 million budget deficit projected. Fixed costs such as health insurance, waste management, pension, they continue to increase. The city used free cash last year to subsidize the general fund budget. But it's important to note that free cash is our only general fund reserve, is a one-time surplus, it isn't guaranteed every year. And we cannot deplete our entire reserve, this would be catastrophic to the city's finances and bond rating. And without additional federal aid for revenue losses, the city is facing a tough fiscal year 22. But we are watching the package up at the federal level and we are very, very hopeful. So with the CARES Act that came out, we have gotten extended to December 31st, 2021, which is great. but it restricted us to only COVID-19 eligible expenses. The good news was there was no cap on the school. So relating to the school's HVAC, getting the air better for the children, there was no restriction on that. Whereas there was a cap on eligible capital expenses on the city side of 150,000. So the city is still experiencing large revenue losses. and the reduction in the budget is entirely due to the economic fallout due to COVID-19. The CARES Act was awarded May 14th, 2020, extended to 12-31-2021. The city has been charging 75% of COVID-related expenses to FEMA and 25% to CARES. The landscape at the federal level shifted with the change in administrations as a result of the shift FEMA's indicated that both eligibility and reimbursement rates for the FEMA public assistance program will be expanded upon and we're still waiting for the guidance on how that's going to work. We're still waiting to hear back also on our October submission that we sent to FEMA. The CARES Act award to the city was 5,093,008. In fiscal year 20, the city had encumbered 65,756.22, expended 132,155.03. This includes 25% of the COVID-19 FEMA eligible expenses. In fiscal 21, the city has encumbered 1,611,030 and expended 2,741,800. The schools in the city will be using the remaining 2.1 for PPE, contact tracing, vaccination, and various other COVID-19 related expenses until December 31st. FEMA doesn't have an expiration or award total. The program is open for eligible COVID-19 expenses. In fiscal 20, the city had encumbered 47,384.03 and expended 288,388.36. In fiscal year 21, the city has encumbered 78,529 and expended 184,340. FEMA funds were drawn down on October 15th. We still haven't heard back from the Fed. As stated earlier, the FEMA directives on eligibility have shifted from the Trump administration to the Biden administration, and the city is awaiting further guidance on the new directives. The CARES Act funds, 53% were allocated to the schools. 2.64 million has been expended by the schools year to date, and I just showed a little graph so you could see the infrastructure, such as the HVAC and facility modification, personal protective equipment, sanitation supplies, technology, instructional materials, and contact tracers. In fiscal year 21, the schools were awarded 2.3 million under the CRRSA Act or the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act. ESSER II Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Grant signed into law on December 27th, 2020. And below are the three buckets taken from DESE, which are academic, social, emotional operations, These slides were shared with me through the school finance side. So any specific ESSER questions should be directed to the school assistant superintendent of finance. So this is the academic focus from DESE, high quality instruction, early literacy, K-12, skill building, planning and implementation, summer learning, diagnostic assessments. social and emotional focus, unique needs of low-income children, students with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, foster care youth, behavioral and mental health support and services, an additional 10,000 provided per district allocation for mental health services and support. and operations focus, educational technology, supplies and services, school ventilation system improvements, planning for and coordinating during long-term closure, and other activities. And this is just a summary of those three buckets just broken down further in a summary view. So free cash and retained earnings include actual receipts in excess of revenue estimates and unspent amounts in departmental budget lines, items for the year just ending. So this was certified by the Department of Revenue on January 4, 2021. The general fund free cash is $8,534,241. And the Enterprise Fund Water and Sewer Retained Earnings is $6,059,512. And I put a note on the bottom, Enterprise Water and Sewer Fund budget is independent of the general fund school budget. It's completely different. It operates its own expenses. It's for the rate payers of water and sewer. The Enterprise Fund budget was $24,800,089 with Enterprise Fund Water and Sewer Retained Earnings of $6,059,512. In conclusion, the city's Q2 revenues are in line with our prediction overall. But as you can see, some of the revenue streams are below what we expected. Even though overall we met our projection for the quarter, we're expecting more of a decline to start in Q3 with the COVID-19 resurgence. Therefore, the city implemented a non-essential hiring and spending freeze in January, while closely monitoring revenues throughout the pandemic. The city's CARES Act stimulus has been extended under President Bunnin to December 31, 2021, with the COVID-19 resurgence. Under President Bunnin, the FEMA public assistance program will be expanded upon to increase reimbursements from 75% to 100% for certain expenditure types, and we're waiting for the guidance. The city's local aid cherry sheet estimate is less than prior years, decreasing our fiscal year 22 budget funding. The schools were awarded an additional 2.3 million in ESSER II funds. The city is hopeful that President Bynum will award additional stimulus to cities and towns greatly impacted by the health pandemic to help offset the projected fiscal year 22, five to $8 million budget deficit. And the following slide is just a display of general fund school expenses year to date. And it has payroll posted through February 11th.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Alicia, for the presentation. I know that you presented to the city council on Wednesday of last week and I thank you for coming to the before the school committee to present as well Just to give us an overall picture of where we're at You're welcome here. Um Let me just make sure there's no questions and we can move on where Yes, ma'am Yes, member russo the member of mandaclou. Excuse me.

[McLaughlin]: Can we please stop sharing the screen? So we sure

[Ruseau]: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, Alicia. Ms. Nunley, excuse me. You said charter a couple of times. I just want to be clear that that's charter school reimbursement, correct?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.

[Ruseau]: Thank you. You also mentioned in one of the early slides that the additional funds were reprogrammed to the schools. We did not do a supplemental budget, so I don't know where that money went or who decided where it would go, but I noticed that in the last recession, that the school committee came together and did a supplemental budget when there was more money available than had been anticipated. We didn't do that. So I'm just confused how money can just be reprogrammed from city council unless that money was sent to facilities or something. Does anybody know where that million went?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Mr. Murphy.

[Murphy]: This was the appropriation that was made at the end of August, or I think it was initially introduced on the floor of the city council at the end of August and then appropriated in mid-September. And there, in terms of where it technically sits, it's in a personnel line item because there were positions that, as I understand it, were technically eliminated from the FY21 budget with the understanding that if the district was made whole, by way of this additional appropriation when the chapter 70 funds came in, that the those positions would be restored and so when it became clear in. Again, this was my arrival but only by a short period of time. And so, I was the positions were essentially restored at the very beginning of August, that ate into a large chunk of that funding. And Other components of it have been made as it's in a personnel line item, the personnel needs that were identified over the course of the year. I'd have to go back and actually check, but I believe it's technically the million dollars is still intact, but it's necessary to bridge other gaps that were identified as we went through and reconstructed the FY 21 budget. I'd be happy to make a more comprehensive presentation as to exactly what those priorities were, how they were identified, but essentially that it's primarily in personnel and positions that needed to exist in reality, but couldn't exist in the budget at the time the budget was adopted.

[Ruseau]: Thank you. So speaking of the budget though, so when we get to our next budget, Is the budget going to say that the last year's budget was 62,500,000 or 62,250,000? Or is it going to say that it was 63 million and change? I don't understand this, like we can just throw money onto the budget that wasn't in the budget. So when the next year comes along, what was last year's budget? Because year over year comparisons matter a lot.

[Murphy]: It should include that million dollars.

[Ruseau]: But we never approved that. So that cannot, how can that include that we did not approve that budget?

[Murphy]: The appropriation was made to the school department. If we can go back, as I said, make a more comprehensive presentation so that it's been formally adopted.

[Ruseau]: So is the school committee actually not required to approve a budget? Because it can be any number we want. Let's approve a budget for $100,000. The city can allocate a whole bunch more and everybody's fine. It didn't matter whether we did it or not. Is that true?

[Nunley-Benjamin]: I think what's what I think to be defined is the school committee adopted a budget. City Council, a supplemental appropriation came through which the mayor said, you know, we're going to hold the schools harmless. So if chapter 70 comes in higher than we expected, we're going to she gave that money back.

[Ruseau]: So I understand that.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: And so the city council at that point programed it back. I don't know the mechanisms after the point of which the mayor to city council, then how it comes back to you. I just know as long as a supplemental revenue comes in before the tax rate is set, it can be added to the budget.

[Ruseau]: Thank you. I actually, I paid all the attention during those times and I'm very happy the money came back and that the, you know, the promise was there. That is not at all my concern. at all. Everybody did everything they could here in this regard. And I'm very happy about that. I guess I don't know. And member Van der Kloot was here for the 2008 recession when there was supplemental budgets that were sent to the school committee for approval. If that is not legally required, then just somebody has to say that and I'm fine with it. But when we start comparing year-over-year budgets, which as a school committee member, I have done for the last decade or more of budgets, I need to know which document is the real document. So if money can just be tacked on willy-nilly, not willy-nilly, money we were promised and we were given and that's awesome. But what's the truth? What's the budget number? I thought the number we approved that we spend months in meetings to get to Like that last budget was not fun. The next one's going to be worse. Are we going to do it all? And then in the end of the day, whatever we approved was sort of like pointless. Like did we really not do all that work for a reason?

[Nunley-Benjamin]: No, I think what you're saying, it makes sense. But what we're saying is since there was additional funds, we just programmed them back. At that point, whether or not you, the superintendent or the assistant superintendent, programs the supplemental, I don't know. I can't define that. But I can tell you that your budget can be added on to anytime before the tax rate is set if supplemental funds are available.

[Ruseau]: Thank you. One more question, I'll just get out of the way. So with the, is it the CRRTS? There was a lot of different letters in that one. I'm very happy to see the three buckets. But one of those buckets in particular to me is staff. So are we actually able to hire full-time employees, not contractors, not in money that will disappear tomorrow, actually add full-time employees from those grants?

[Murphy]: You're asking about the $2.3 million? Yes. I think the answer to that is yes, but we should... The sort of important cautionary note with that is that as of right now, that funding is intended to last over the course of the next two plus fiscal years. And so $2.3 million spread out over that period of time. And I think it's all of our hope that there'll be additional injections of federal funding at both the city and school side. But as of right now, it's a $2.3 million reservoir on a budget that already has, as was mentioned, what is effectively a million dollar reduction out of the charter school reimbursement. That's a little bit of a misnomer to call it a reduction, I think, but certainly practically that's what it amounts to. over close to three years. And so that's not a lot of personnel, I think is sort of the point that I'm making.

[Ruseau]: So we should not get excited that we're gonna be able to hire a bunch of counseling staff. It looks like a big number, but even if we could hire all of them, the day that the grant money runs out, we'd have to fire them all or find something else to cut in our school budget to make up for it. So we are at present, have no capacity to add mental health counseling. There's no money for that, really.

[Murphy]: I would say that the $2.3 million is not a sustainable funding source for a significant number of additional staff over time. One, it's not that much money. And two, it's over a long period of time. And the point that you're making is that making charging reoccurring expenses like personnel to one time funds creates in effect a fiscal cliff that we get to a point in which we still need the Councilors, but we don't have the money. Now, that doesn't mean we can't think about strategic investments to help bridge some of the gaps that have been exacerbated by the pandemic. with this funding. I don't think it's the case that no portion of $2.3 million will go toward personnel. I think some will. I just think we have to be smart and strategic about how those investments are made.

[Unidentified]: Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: And on top of that, it's just the fixed costs that are going up as well that we have to cover on both the city and the school side that is gonna greatly be affected by, good or bad, the Biden bill. And I know that the state legislature, Rep. Donato, Gabarly, and Barber are advocating for that charter school reimbursement to try to supplement that somehow for the city of Medford. So they're actively having meetings on that. my fingers crossed for that as well. Member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you. So is there, what I was hearing during that conversation was there was no process for supplemental budget should the, in the, you know, odd occasion that we are reallocated additional funds. Is that accurate?

[Murphy]: Well, I wouldn't say that there's no process for it. I think if the committee would like us to make a more comprehensive presentation on this, I think that would be a good idea. And to Mr. So's point, there would be nothing wrong with taking a vote to formally adopt the budget, including the supplemental portion that was made in September. I don't, this does not in any way, this next comment is not in any way to diminish that process, but it would be to some extent a formality due to the expenses that, as I said, existed in reality, but were not necessarily incorporated into the FY21 budget. There may be some priorities that the committee could identify that could be rendered by that additional vote, but it would not be to the tune of over a million dollars because of the expenses that are baked into the budget and the need to have the financial runway to close the fiscal year.

[McLaughlin]: May I, Mayor, just respond? Yes, Member McLaughlin. Thank you. So I hear you. Clearly, we were in need of that million dollars and more, and so I understand that you know, there were expenses that were already there for that to be allocated towards, but, or, and to member Ruseau's point, our charge as school committee members is to approve a budget for the school and how the money that is allocated to us from the city is spent. So in the off occasion, in this extreme circumstance where there is an additional allocation, it seems to me there needs to be some process getting back again to that flow chart that we have a meeting to approve a supplemental budget before moving forward with any spending.

[Murphy]: Again, I think if the committee would like us to make a more comprehensive presentation, I don't think the administration would object to that in any way. I would say that that the administration did brief the school committee in mid-September after this appropriation was made and did formally notify the committee of this additional funding that came in. That's not to say that the committee did not take any action at that time. And if the committee would like the administration to formulate recommendations or options, I don't think there would be any problem with that. And certainly something that we could do going forward.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member McLaughlin, are you done?

[Murphy]: for now.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Van der Kloot and member Rousseau.

[Van der Kloot]: Yes, I just wanted to thank Ms. Nunley for her presentation. And I was curious, Alicia, could you send this to us? Because there was a lot in it and a few things I'd really like to go back and take a look at more. So again, appreciate the report. Please send it to us.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, I will send it directly to the assistant superintendent of finance to provide to the school committee. Thank you. member Rousseau.

[Ruseau]: I am about whether to have a actual supplemental budget or anything like that. I just want to also there's an optics thing going on here. I hope everybody is aware. You know, last year we had a lot of conversation about whether it was a level funded or whether it was a cut. I think most school committee members will tell you that a level fund is a cut. And You know, if you're in finance and you're talking dollars, well, $1 is $1, but our budget was cut by $3.5 million. And the optics around whether we're gonna have another cut coming up and whether that is a $1 million cut or a $5 million cut, we need to be able to all agree what the real number is. So if people flip open the budget from last year and it's 62.5 million, it doesn't look good for the mayor. if really it was 63.5 million, because if we go to 63.5 million, well, that looks like we added a million. This coming year will be 63.5, 63.5 million, not 62.5 million. So we really do need to, as a committee and as a city council and everybody, frankly, needs to agree on, well, what was the number? That number is absolutely going to be a major talking point very, very soon. And if we're all talking with different numbers about what last year's budget was, it's not going to get, it's going to be, we're all going to get to be right. We're all going to say we increased the budget. Others of us will be able to say we cut the budget. And it's a waste of time when we're actually supposed to be talking about what's in the budget and what's the effect of the budget, not whether the numbers really went up or down. I just, I think it's an important point. I don't care whether we get around to having a vote on an actual supplemental budget. The money came in, we knew it might come in. I'm super happy it came in and we can restore some staff. Nobody disagrees with any of that stuff if I can assert that. But what that number is, is critically important that we cannot be disagreeing on by the time we get to the next budget.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: I think to be clear, the budget number was 61250000, and it went up by your supplemental appropriation to 62339537, and that would be a fact. The fact that you had a budget, and then you had a supplemental appropriation to increase your budget, that is your budget number. So your number is that increased number, not the original vote, but the supplemental on top. And in addition to that, we also reprogram capital funds for you guys to use for any capital items that you needed. That was also in addition to the 2.6 that was allocated from the CARES Act. So I think it's important to see the whole picture. And I think even more so, and I'll try to make a point of doing this for the school committee, is showing you the actual costs that are on the city side that are the schools, like the Medicare, the workers' compensation, the health insurance, the dental. I'll try to break that out so you can see all pieces to make it really, really clear of how all the pieces actually work.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Right. 53% of the city's budget, it does go to the schools. And when Ms. Patterson decided to do a 5% increase without the city's knowledge, that led to the three and a half million over level funding. So yeah, I argue that we did not cut the budget, but I can see what your point, Ms. DeRusso, a level funded budget seems like a cut budget when you talk about fixed costs that are going up every year. So it's a tough one to swallow. It's a tough situation we are once again facing.

[Ruseau]: May I respond, Mayor?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Ruseau?

[Ruseau]: Thank you. We have a budget document that sits on the website. We can all figure and say what the budget is, the public, and frankly, I think most of us, flip open that document. And that's the number, not the number that's in the, not in Excel, not the number that is in the finance software. The number is the number in black and white on the official budget document. And we're comparing ourselves to other communities, which I know I do all the time, and the public does it, and I think most of us in this meeting do it. It's a painfully apples and orange comparison. Medford Public Schools, we take care of our own buildings. In Somerville, the custodial services, all buildings, all utilities are completely on the city side. So somebody would look at the Somerville Public Schools budget, looking at that same document like we have, and they would make a very wild conclusion about spending in their schools compared to ours. And that's just an unfortunate reality of the way Massachusetts does school funding. But my point is that the number that's on that document, that is the budget, not any number that you say, with all due respect, Ms. Nunley, The numbers that you named are numbers in accounting software. And unless we all in the public have the ability to just log in and look at them, those aren't the numbers. The numbers are the black and white numbers.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: My general ledger is a public record. It is audited by outside exterior accounts and it is supplemented by those votes. And my general ledger actually supersedes that budget book. So in law, when I get audited, that gets submitted up to the federal and the state and is audited. So my books are law, and I can submit the law to you on that.

[Ruseau]: But so can you send me the URL so I can access them?

[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes. I can send you the report with the number, and I can also send you the URL to the law on my general ledger, on my books.

[Ruseau]: No, I mean the URL to the general ledger.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, it's an ERP system, so there's not going to be a URL into an ERP. But I can send you the report.

[Ruseau]: the public wants to know that number randomly in the middle of the night next week. Where do they go to get it? They don't.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: Well, we shared it. We did share it during the city council. So that's on the report that was provided to city council. I also provided a copy of that to the media. And I'm also going to provide a copy of the presentation tonight to you. And it's also in the last slide.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Mr. Murphy, Member Van der Kloot, Member McLaughlin.

[Murphy]: I was just gonna say, I think that the point that's being made is that there needs to be consistency between the public facing documents and the official documents that Ms. Nunley is referring to. And so we can work closely with the city to make sure that each of those numbers align. The only other point I would just add is that the million dollar supplement is just one component of why there is at times variability because there are, just as another example, In addition to the 2.3 million that we expect to flow in two different chunks for lack of a better term over the course of the spring, but then extend beyond the fiscal year, we were also notified, and I referenced this in the presentation at the last meeting, that DESE was allocating an additional, had a formula that produced an additional allocation for COVID-related relief funds from the initial grant that we were up until January under the impression had been fully exhausted. So that's another $216,000 variance that's come in. And it's not, at least under these circumstances under which we're operating, uncommon to have those types of injections that, and so the budget is fluid in that sense. I don't think that takes away from Mr. Rousseau's point, or at least it's not intended to, that in order for the communication and understanding as to what the amount of funding that the district is using to operate, we need to make sure that we have as much consistency as possible. But it is not as simple as just making sure that Alicia sends me a document and I put it up on the website because there is that level of fluidity, particularly when the state and the federal government are swooping in at various points with funding that at times has certain restrictions on it. But I think consistency and clarity is the point. And that's, I think, everyone's priority. And so that's something we can reaffirm our efforts on.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Member Van der Kloot, then Member McLaughlin.

[Van der Kloot]: Yes, well, Mr. Murphy just referenced this, but, and he said it would not necessarily solve the problem, but I can't, in order to address some of my colleagues' concerns, can we post where we have our budget, a page explaining additional funding was coming from the supplemental, and then, you know, you know, doing the addition or whatever and the final number, just to make it clear and to keep track.

[Murphy]: Absolutely. Yep. And I think it's important that we do.

[Van der Kloot]: Okay. If you could do that, I think that that would at least be a start.

[Murphy]: It may change at various points, because as I said, what I would have posted in January is not going to be the same as what we would post now. And to reference the federal legislation, it is conceivable that that number could change as a result of that. If it does, I hope there aren't too many restrictions on it, and I hope it's not time sensitive, but that is another potential variable.

[Van der Kloot]: So clearly what you're expressing to us is it's a fluid situation so that when you post it, you can post it with that caveat as well.

[Murphy]: And all I would say is that means it's our obligation to update the postings as necessary. I'm not in any way suggesting that we shouldn't be as transparent as possible when these numbers change. It's just that everyone should understand that it's it's not set in stone.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Member Van der Kloot. Member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you. I'm also still looking for and maybe Mr. Murphy can help with this or my colleagues. I'm also still looking for a process regarding this. So I still want some process of when this happens in addition to, I think it's great to have in a budget addendum posted on our website. That sounds good. But I think that I want to see this at some sort of process in the budget flow chart or timeline for when this occurs, what the community and the school committee can expect that the process will be around the understanding and notification of Supplemental funding.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: I'd be happy to forward the vote when the city council votes the money to school committee or to the assistant superintendent finance to provide to the school committee to vote on how they want to put that in the budget.

[Murphy]: I think that type of formal communication would be helpful, but I do want to stress that the administration did immediately brief the school committee when this funding was appropriated. I think that what I'm hearing is a desire for a more formalized process and to make sure that there is the adoption consistent with the sort of traditional adoption process that occurs in the spring. I think that is smart. I think that's important. I think it's necessary from a clarity perspective. I just don't want anyone who only hears a strand of this conversation under the impression that the city council appropriated a million dollars and the administration stuck it in a drawer somewhere because that is not what happened in September.

[McLaughlin]: Fully understand that, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. But you're right. A formalization of the process would be helpful. Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.

[McLaughlin]: Member Graham.

[Graham]: Thank you, Alicia, for your presentation. So just to sort of close out the conversation around the supplemental appropriation, I think one of the most valuable parts of the budget process for the community, and I know for myself, is that's the opportunity where we say, we're gonna hire a middle school health teacher, for example. And that person, that headcount is in the budget. And then we know what to look forward to the next year. So I do think we should get a full accounting of the budget's plan for that million dollars plus. Not because I disagree with or I anticipate disagreeing with how you have spent it because as you said the reality of the positions we needed versus the positions we could afford to pay for before that amount of money in in the form of teachers, aids, etc like the, that reality. was just exactly that. It was a reality. And further, the money came so very late in the cycle that I am completely comfortable that you all had to put teachers in place to start the year literally within days of the appropriation. So I don't think that it's a matter of feeling like there's discretionary money in there, but I do think it's worth the time to say, this allowed us to reinstate four elementary school teachers, three middle school teachers, two high school teachers, whatever, because to us, to the community, to the kids who have those teachers, they don't know that those teachers weren't gonna be there had that money not come through. Right? Like you all know that. But I think it's really important for the community to know just how, you know, just exactly how that happened. So I do think that is important. And I do think to make sure that the community is clear that you have the support of this committee, we should take an official vote to make sure that that can live as part of the the overall documents. So I'm happy to make a motion if that's necessary. If you just want to put it on a future agenda, I'm fine with that as well. But I do think that is really important when it comes to people understanding the situation as it unfolded in real time, how that has translated across the year, and to establish an important baseline for the next discussions of the budget. Superintendent, do you want me to make a motion or do you want to just provide that accounting?

[Edouard-Vincent]: I think if you make the motion, are you stating that you're going to accept what has already gone forward or you still would like an additional presentation?

[Graham]: I would like a presentation so that we can vote on it. I don't know what we would be voting on.

[Murphy]: You'll definitely get a presentation. I just made it very clear. You're absolutely going to get a presentation. You're going to get an itemization. and we'll do our best to flesh that out. I would rather just commit now to a comprehensive presentation that you would frankly need anyway, because as was referenced earlier, it's the starting point for FY, or one of the many starting points for FY 22. The other caveat that I would put on that is that we're at a place in the fiscal year, Ms. Nunley referenced the freeze on non-emergency spending that the city has imposed. The district has also imposed a freeze on non-essential spending. What that means essentially is it's not a complete freeze on all spending, but all administrators and department heads have been notified that any spending, including any hiring of personnel at this point, will be subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny prior to the approval of any purchase orders. And so that is not because we are expecting any type of crisis as we close out the fiscal year, but it is because we've gotten to a place in the fiscal year in which we have a responsibility to have a heightened vigilance with regard to our financial position. And that will be reflected in where that funding currently sits and where it stands. And so the committee should just be aware of that prior to us coming in, because if we come in and say, There are 750, I don't know that this is the exact number, but if we say there's 700,000, 750,000 remaining from that million after we restored positions, I don't think it's that much. But if we go in and say that, it may be the case that that's the 700,000 that we need to bridge all other gaps and have the funding necessary in order to close out the fiscal year without getting too close to being in the negative, which we're not allowed to do. There's a lot of fluidity at this point in the fiscal year, which is why, depending on the level of concern, that sort of determines the sort of tightness of the freeze, if you will. And in this case, we're at the point where it's not a complete freeze, but it's a non-emergency spending freeze.

[Graham]: Okay. That I think that would be helpful. And then I do think as a committee, we should take a vote to formally approve those numbers so that they can be posted to the website and there can be no mistake about the committee support or lack of, but I don't anticipate that personally support for the supplemental budget.

[Murphy]: I think that would be really helpful. And I think that it would be important for the reasons that you've stated. And I promise this is the last caveat that I will add, But at the time that we presented on the supplemental appropriation in September, you may recall that there was a significant number of personnel question marks as we began to, as we continued to implement the hybrid learning plan and as we sifted through some of the personnel challenges that were coming up as a result of the pandemic. Some of those question marks resulted in additional costs. And some of those question marks just have lingered throughout the entire school year. And so there's a real sort of personnel heavy focus on some of that conversation in for members of the community who might be wondering, well, why is the committee not voting to adopt this until March, potentially. that is reflective of the sort of uncertainty and additional fluidity, both in terms of how much money would flow in and what types of costs there might be. We had a significant, I don't wanna go into too much detail about this, but like we had a not insignificant adjustment that occurred today as a result of various like pandemic related personnel changes that isn't frankly uncommon, but it would have an impact on the types of numbers that we're talking about here. And that's just that just happened to that that's just is indicative of what sort of the day to day life is like in operating this type of budget with this many variables in a pandemic. I promise that's the last thing I'll say until I I'm muting you.

[Graham]: So Ms. Nunley, I had a couple of other questions for you. You referenced being able to provide information to us around costs that are incurred by the city that are reflective of schools. And my question for you is, are you planning to do that for all departments? Because I would not want to see you do that only for the school department and not do an equal allocation out of those costs to all departments, because that will kind of skew the look of those costs. So either you're going to do it, or I don't want you to do it special for us. if you're not going to do it for the rest of the city's department.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: I mean we do it we do it for enterprise fund which is separate and then they have indirect costs so we break those out. I think it's important for the school committee to see those costs so that they understand that those are on the city side so when you see those increases we don't just think okay we're increasing the city side but we're cutting the school. That's not the case. If there's a seven percent you know increase to school health insurance It should be stated it's a 7% increase to school health insurance, not 7% we took from the schools and we gave to the city. And I think it's really important for the public. And I think it's really important for the school committee to see that.

[Graham]: I am fine with that as long as that 7% increase, which is going to be applied to the police department, the fire department, the department of public works and all the other departments in the city that hold staff, that same increase would happen across the board. So all I'm asking is that if we're going to provide that level of information that we do so in a collectively objective way and that we don't cherry pick out stuff for the schools that we are not cherry picking out to all the other organizations because that has the potential.

[Nunley-Benjamin]: I'm just confused if you could just clarify there's a city side budget and a school budget and I think but all I'm trying to do is show what is in the city's budget that applies to schools, because the schools have its own. If I was to take all the costs that were in the budget and put it to the schools, when they do their chapter 70 calculation, it would actually give less funding to the schools.

[Graham]: There's a reason why, but I think it's important for the- I know, that's not what I'm saying. But what I am saying is, when you talk about the school as a department, It's not unlike talking about any other department in the city in terms of every department brings forward a budget and the community watches those budgets and they watch the numbers. Do they go up? Do they go down? And all I'm saying is if you're gonna present that information as money for the schools, which it certainly is, we just need to make sure that we're having a rounded discussion about that so that the money for the schools for health insurance is, is identified for whatever it is for the employees who are here, but then that comparable money for the city's employees, whatever they are, it is talked about in the same way. That's all. I just, I don't want people getting something and then other departments are or aren't like there's health insurance across every department in the city because everyone who has employees incurs health insurance and that is paid for by the the sort of city's general line items so if you're going to break out city line items i just want to make sure that we're really breaking it out and we're not just sort of tagging it to school because that to me that causes other problems and how we talk about this

[Nunley-Benjamin]: No, it would be like, for instance, 18 million is health insurance, 12 is the school, 6 is the city. That would be the type of breakdown.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, city versus school. So $17,223,842 went to the school's health insurance. That's 81% of health insurance, where the city side is 19%. We break it down from city and school, not by city department and school department, because you have special ed, you have maintenance. So we do city and school. I can't have Alicia breaking it down every single department. I think that would take far too long.

[Graham]: As long as there's some way to understand and rationalize those numbers, like the city, the school, right, has more employees, which is why those numbers are higher. So as long as there's just a way for somebody to reasonably look at the information and say, I understand what this is telling me, I'm fine with that. What I don't want to see is us Throwing numbers back and forth in a way that confuses that confuses the discussion about whether the city's appropriation to the schools, increased or decreased I feel like that number, like I feel like when we start talking about but we pay for other things. It's, it's always to. sort of demonstrate that that appropriation is not the only thing that comes to the school. And that's true. But that's true for every department that gets an amount of money in their budget from the school. So I just want to make sure we're talking about apples and apples. So when we talk about that appropriation, we all can just be clear about what's in, what's not in. what that number is, what it is not, and did it go up, did it go down, or did it stay the same? There should be no debate about that information. And as we sort of alluded to, when we talk about the school budget, a disproportionate amount of the school budget, perhaps unlike many other departments in the city, is based on personnel. Those costs go up every year by contract. But like 90% of our budget is personnel oriented. So when we talk about increases or decreases, that affects real people in the school department in a way that is not necessarily the case in any other sort of budget. Usually there's a little bit more non-personnel charges in a budget, right? It's something very unique about what we pay for in our budget. And so when we talk about increases, decreases, et cetera, we are talking about people positions disproportionately than maybe people generally expect. So I just want to make sure that we're doing our part on the school side to have a more clear and transparent budget. I think you guys did a fabulous job on the city side last year and really sort of changing the professionalism and the look of the budget. It was very clear. I want us to do the same. I want us to be really transparent about our revolving accounts and our grant funding and the CARES Act stuff I think is a great example of all the grant funding that we receive from various sources, it all has rules. while we're getting 2.3 million dollars for the next couple years we just had a discussion about how that's it's really not a viable funding source to add Councilors because those are people and they have ongoing recurring costs so I just want to make sure particularly as the conversation starts to unfold about the budget that we can be clear about the fact that the people in Medford public schools who service our students are part of The budget that is served by the city's appropriation the grant funds that are being issued to us via for purposes of like pandemic mitigation have strings and we should just be clear about what they are and how we've spent them and Mr. Murphy did a presentation. last time so that there can just be no confusion about but we got more money like if that money doesn't come without sort of strings we have to on you know we we can't spend it if we're not honoring the the intent of that money so I just want to be really clear so that we're not confusing the community about like what does this extra money mean does this extra money mean we could have hired a teacher to do something, yes or no. So I just want to be super clear about that. And then my last question is, when will the school department expect to receive the city's appropriation number for us to be able to start our budgeting process?

[Nunley-Benjamin]: So we haven't given a definitive number because we didn't want to give you a really, really low number, not knowing what the Biden administration is doing. So we've been watching that. So hopefully, fingers crossed, in the next few weeks, they'll have something. We're hoping the Fed will. If they don't, We will meet with the school administration and discuss numbers. But as of right now, as I told you, $5 to $8 million deficit is what we're looking at. There's no way around it. If we don't get any more federal funding, we're in another bad position for fiscal year 22. But from what we're hearing, Biden has said he wants to give money to cities and towns, just can they agree, settle it, and how's that gonna look? So again, it's just too fluid, so we don't have a definitive number as of right now. But as soon as we do, we will definitely let the school administration know.

[Graham]: And is there a sort of a date where you will say, we don't have a number and we have to move forward with our budget planning?

[Nunley-Benjamin]: Yes, and I'd have a discussion with the mayor on that. Or I'd let the mayor make that call.

[Graham]: Okay, so that decision hasn't been made yet, is what you're saying?

[Nunley-Benjamin]: No, because we're still waiting for the Fed. So we haven't made an ultimate timeline. This is it. We're waiting right now, hopefully. We don't wanna be too quick to draw and then something changes. We wanna give a really good number.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah. And the scenario and the five to eight million, some of the lower end of that is without increases. So we're looking more towards the eight plus budget gap. So what Biden has proposed could cover that. I'm hearing it come as soon as the end of March. So I am hesitant to start either budget until we, at least until the end of March, because that is, I don't know where we will find $8 million to cut. just we've already turned over all the rocks here so definitely not um okay that that's helpful just to know like are we talking about a week a month or whatever okay thank you the last i've heard is by the end of march they're expecting it and just my fingers across and as soon as we hear something we will let school committee and city council know great thank you may i remember graham is there a motion on the floor mayor no It's just to get accounting for the 1 million, which I would expect within the next month, month and a half, Mr. Murphy, but there's no motion. I think we trust that we will get that in one of the next, one of the two or three upcoming school committee meetings.

[Murphy]: Yeah, I think it's the next one or the one after that, depending on what else you have on the agenda would be my expectation. And we can certainly, we can provide just, you know, a detailed analysis of it and writing even before that, so that you can, you know, be prepared for the conversation as well. That wouldn't necessarily have to wait till the presentation, I don't think.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Member Van der Kloot?

[Van der Kloot]: Yes, again, I'd like to thank Ms. Nunley, and I'd like to make a motion to accept their report and put it on file.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to receive in place on file by Member Van der Kloot. Mayor? Member Ruseau.

[Ruseau]: We have not received the report, so I don't know how we can receive it and place it on file.

[Van der Kloot]: We did, well, we received the report.

[Ruseau]: I have not seen the report other than the presentation that was displayed on screen.

[Van der Kloot]: Yes, and in our conversation, I did ask Ms. Nunley to send it to us, which I trust she will, but it is typical that you receive a report and place it on file. So, I don't have any reason to... not think that this presentation then counts. Paul, it's the way that you move on the conversation when we don't have another motion to approve. This is the way that we end the discussion and move on.

[Ruseau]: If I may, I mean, there was a lot of numbers and a lot of slides that were excellent and I would dig into, and I would have spent hours digging into them before the meeting if I had them. So I mean, unless we want to have this presentation done again at the next meeting, I need to see this thing before I can vote to accept it. Well, you've made your motion, so.

[Van der Kloot]: Well, I'll make the motion to say, I mean, Ms. Nunley already said to me that she was going to supply to us, but I make a motion that the director, the city director of finance supply to the school committee, a copy of her report.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, motion on the floor by member Van der Kloot, seconded by member Kreatz, roll call. Member Graham.

[Unidentified]: Yes. Member Kreatz. Yes. Member McLaughlin, yes. Member Ms. Stone. Yes. Member Ruseau.

[Ruseau]: Yes.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Van der Kloot. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn. Yes, seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. Motion is approved. Next up, thank you, Ms. Nunley-Benjamin. We appreciate the presentation and the update. Thank you. It has been sent. Thank you. You can do a money dance to the feds. Thank you. Take care. Number four, we have a report on Medford's selection as one of four participating districts for the Massachusetts Family School Partnership Initiative. Desi, Dr. Marice Edouard-Vincent.

[Edouard-Vincent]: This was just to formally announce that back in January, on January 26, we submitted an application. Member McLaughlin helped and worked with the district saying, let's take our chance to pursue the Massachusetts Family School Partnership initiative. And this was something that was offered for the entire Commonwealth. and we were really pleasantly surprised that Medford was selected for this opportunity. Again, this is an opportunity to work with the school to look at family and school partnerships initiatives working collaboratively with DESE and that they will work with a tactical team, a small group of administrators, parents, possibly 10 to 12 people to say how can we further improve our school and family partnerships as a district. They particularly asked for team members from special education, English learners, a community partner, student support staff. So a lot of the work that we have prioritized working with our most vulnerable, but being part of this collaborative with DESE where they would support us with professional development and coaching and additional training to help us as a district to further promote our family school partnerships. So this was just to notify the school committee that we were one of four districts that was selected for this year to participate in the initiative. and as additional information becomes available we will definitely share it with the committee.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Mayor. Thank you Dr. Edouard-Vincent. Member Van der Kloot.

[Van der Kloot]: Yes so first I want to thank my colleague Melanie McLaughlin for bringing this to our attention. I know there was a phone call a couple of days afterwards and I know I was on it and Melanie was on it and in fact took a, you know, participated and Dr. Edouard-Vincent was on it as well. I think that probably really helped that you both were there. And I just, I don't know exactly, is there a dollar amount attached to this or is it more in terms of hours of training or how is it stipulated? member McLaughlin. Oh, sorry, Dr. Edouard-Vincent, and then member McLaughlin.

[Unidentified]: I give the floor to member McLaughlin. Thank you.

[McLaughlin]: Firstly, I want to say thank you so much for being open to the opportunity. I think it's a really exciting opportunity for Medford. And we will have an orientation with DESE on Thursday, the 26th. So we'll be finding out more. It'll be an announcement of the four districts that were selected. And I think it's primarily going to be an understanding of some frameworks and some training and a look at best practices and implementation and strategy. But we will be hearing more and can report more out after the orientation on the 26th.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Great. Yes, sorry. Just filling my water up, sorry. Member Van de Kloop?

[Van der Kloot]: No, I'm done. I just, thank you.

[Graham]: Member Graham? This is really exciting. Thank you for doing the work to get this in. I don't know how the group that they will work with will be formed, but I would just like to ask that at least one member of this committee is included in the working group. I think the visibility for the committee to have into some of this work is really important when we talk about connecting to the community and you know certainly budgetary questions that come when you start talking about really formalizing systems and structures that would be needed to support enhancing our communication protocols. So any you know I don't know exactly what the makeup of the committee is but I would just want to make sure that there is some representation from the school committee.

[Edouard-Vincent]: Yes member member McLaughlin has definitely actively been involved in this process. We are going to confirm and work with some of the administrators and the different stakeholder groups, but many of the stakeholder groups are the populations that we did identify as our most vulnerable. And just to respond to member Van der Kloot's question about the cost, we're not technically receiving a monetary amount, but the training, the coaching, you know, access to DESE personnel, that's, everything is kind of being covered by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Ed. So it won't be a hard number, but again, how we quantify the training and the mentoring and the professional development, I'm sure it will be valued at a significant amount of, if we could come up with a number, it would be substantial. And again, I think it's an honor for us. I wasn't sure that we were going to have a chance because we are a much smaller district. And I was just assuming that the larger districts probably would be given the benefit of the doubt. So I, again, want to also just extend a special thank you to Member McLaughlin, who reached out last month and said we should take a chance and give it a try to see if we have a chance. And thankfully it worked out for Medford. So I look forward to updating the committee about as we get more information, but updating you on the progress and the training and you know, what Desi will be offering to us. Cause we won't know until we start going to the information sessions. Thank you. Thank you.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to approve. Motion to approve by member Van der Kloot, seconded by member. Second. Roll call.

[McLaughlin]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Katz. Yes. Member McLaughlin, yes. Member Mustone. Yes. Member Ruseau.

[Ruseau]: Yes.

[McLaughlin]: Member Van der Kloot. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, seven, the affirmative, zero, and the negative. The motion passes. Number eight, we have old business, which I don't believe we have any. Number nine, communications. And then number 10 is new business, and we have one resolution offered by myself. Be it resolved that the administration provide to the Medford School Committee an update on progress toward renovation and upgrades to the two Medford High School student restrooms as contemplated by previous allocations of funding and direction by the school committee. We had further resolved that the administration be prepared to provide an update related to these projects at the next regular scheduled meeting of the Medford School Committee on March 8th, 2021 to determine what if any portion of the September 2020 capital improvement appropriation should be directed toward the advancement of these projects as well as adding additional bathroom upgrades to the list to be complete on or before the start of the next school year. I put this on the agenda. I know we voted on this probably almost a year ago. And since that time, we had a number of upgrades that we've done to all of our schools. Four and a half million has been put in to get our kids and teachers safely back to school. and part of that was HVAC and fans and windows and HEPA filters. So I know that building and grounds have been very busy, but I wanted this to be put on because I think the restroom projects are extremely important and where we were able to use CARES funding for all the other work. I know there's the 816,000, which we need to do a few things with, but once we figure out cost estimates for the security upgrades and the boiler, really hope that we could do more than two bathrooms at the high school, because I know they sorely are in need of renovation and upgrading. We've heard that for quite some time. So I thank Mr. McLaughlin for being on tonight and kind of giving us an update. I know member Kreatz has the building and grounds subcommittee. So some of this work obviously will flow through that, but I just think it's important the committee talk about that 816,000 in depth so that we can work on getting that spent on much needed improvements in our district. Member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you. Do you, is there any indication of, um, I know it might be, you know, sort of digging down into the details a little bit early, but I'm wondering if there's any indication of which bathrooms I'm specifically thinking of, um, the bathroom that the public uses whenever they come into the high school facility. And it's also an accessible bathroom. And every single time I go into that bathroom or I bring my children into that bathroom, I cringe and I think about all of the community that is one of their first introductions, frankly, to our school, that bathroom right in the entrance way. So I'm wondering, is there any priority list for which bathrooms would be renovated first?

[Lungo-Koehn]: I'm just, I'm really concerned to make sure we get them done this summer while our students are not in and before the start of the school year, but I can pass it off to Mr. McLaughlin if you have any updates on that and then member crops.

[Mr. McLaughlin]: Hi, good evening, Mayor and School Committee and Superintendent. We did make the choice that we were going to do two second floor bathrooms at the guidance suite. Our original pricing came in a little bit more than we expected, so procurement had me hire an architect at which we do have the plans and the specs that are ready to go out for pricing information. And I would assume that it would be a vote of the school committee to send that forth, the specs and the plans to get pricing on the two bathrooms next to the second floor guidance suite.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Member Kreatz.

[Kreatz]: Yes. Yep. So I actually have a building and ground subcommittee meeting scheduled for next week. And we were going to have this on the agenda. And then I saw it as a resolution on tonight's meeting. So before tonight's meeting, John and I, he had sent me the specs and I believe everything is ready to go over to or for us to take a vote to send it over to procurement so they can send it to the specs to go out for bid so that you know, we can get the cost and then we'll know more about how many bathrooms we would be able to do. So I'm not sure, you know, I was thinking that maybe this evening, we would take a vote to send the RFP, like the specs out to go out for RFP this evening.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McLaughlin. And I'm fine with taking a vote or making a motion to take a vote to send out an RFP. And I guess I would just like it on the record that I think that that bathroom should be a priority for bathrooms that we're doing, especially with it being an accessible bathroom and meeting ADA compliance as well. I would just put that out there as well. But I'm happy to make a motion to move this to an RFP for bathroom renewal, if I can have a second.

[Lungo-Koehn]: My only question on the RFP is if we're able to do more than two and put it up out to bid for two bathrooms and with the 816,000, we're able to do more than that. I want to make sure we can capitalize on how many we can do. Member Graham?

[Graham]: So I just had a couple questions. I feel like it's always customary to see the specs or the designs before you would send it out to RFP, and I just wondered if the original resolution was to do this at the next meeting, which would afford time for us to see like whatever it is that the architect has come up with. So that might be helpful. And then I guess the other question that I have about the $816,000 is, it sounds like Mayor, you're suggesting we spend more money on bathrooms, but we still haven't had a capital planning meeting. And I'm concerned that there are other capital needs that should super, we should do the bathrooms too, in my opinion, but if there's only $816,000, are we sure that that's the best spend of that $816,000 or are there capital needs that are more pressing that we should be focused on? So I guess I would just also not want us to commit to spending that money until we have that capital improvement planning discussion to know what other expenses are ahead of us.

[Lungo-Koehn]: We could call one next week. I know Mr. Murphy, you have like three projects plus the potential ADA accessibility improvements in the front entrance that I think are the four projects that we could use for this 816. So I don't know how you want to handle that.

[Murphy]: Yeah, I think it makes sense to present it in as comprehensive a format as possible. I think that if the committee has specific priorities that they would like the administration to move forward on it, I think certainly we'd want that direction and I'd encourage you to take that vote. I'm not sure voting on a specific RFP based on a bathroom, I could see a situation in which that would potentially hinder the administration's flexibility to issue those RFPs as necessary, which I don't think would be an intended precedent, but that might be, I think, something that would be worth taking that into account. But I don't, I think that if the committee would like to see the specifications on this particular project first, I think that's something that is, I think was mentioned, it's already been provided to the subcommittee. We can certainly circulate that to the broader to the full committee. So that's one piece. I think that we could, I'm pretty sure we'd be able to issue the RFPs with the necessary flexibility to make sure that we, even if we had issued two, frankly, that we could receive potential proposals, both with the flexibility of doing more than one set of bathrooms and the ones that were previously identified on the second floor. I think we could do that. But again, that would be a reason I would say that Once the committee's given what it believes to be sufficient direction to the administration, we should begin issuing those so as to not wait any longer than is necessary. And then to the final point, yes, I think it would be good if we presented the list of some of the capital priorities that we see as most pressing. The reason the 816 is still intact, frankly, and this may sound like it echoes the conversation related to the Chapter 70 supplement, is because we initially intended to use that for emergency measures related to the pandemic. Our access to the CARES funding based on what the state was saying was eligible criteria was expanded. We ended up using more CARES funding. As a result, the 816 is still there, but I do think a comprehensive articulation of those priorities would be in the committee's interest. So we can prepare that. Unlike the itemization of the million, if we had more than a week on the capital articulation, I think that would probably make it for a more detailed presentation.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, Member McLaughlin.

[McLaughlin]: So I can withdraw the motion for that information, if we can have it between now and the next school committee meeting. And then I would ask also on any ADA compliance or accessibility issues that are there, that those are shared as well, please.

[Murphy]: Thank you. Just to be clear, that's shared as part of that articulation of the capital priorities?

[McLaughlin]: Yes.

[Murphy]: Absolutely. But I guess, Mayor, the one thing I, is there any, is it the position of the committee that you'd like us to hold off on issuing the RFPs related to the restrooms until you've had a chance to take a vote? Because with those specifications having already been shared, My inclination would be to get the RFPs out as quickly as possible, understanding the need for the flexibility that if there's the capacity to do more than the original set of bathrooms, then we'd wanna try to maintain that flexibility if possible. But if that's the direction the committee wants us to provide, just because of the timeline that gets attached to these, I'd rather get the RFPs out. And then there's still room and time for us to articulate the broader set of priorities.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, I'm interested in moving the process forward. So I didn't know it was at that stage when I inquired a couple of weeks ago. I just thought it kind of fell to the wayside because of all the HVAC improvements that were getting done.

[Murphy]: In the sense that all we've done is get quotes. And I mean, we've done, and Mr. McLaughlin spoke to this, his work with procurement has put us in a position where we're now ready to issue the RFPs. lack of moving forward on the funding as a result of being mindful of the pandemic related expenses.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Graham.

[Graham]: I think it's not my sense that you need our approval to issue an RFP. Is that true?

[Murphy]: It would be. I've never seen that precedent of needing to issue an RFP, so I would be hesitant to adopt that precedent now.

[Graham]: Okay. If you're going to require a vote based on a set of specs that I haven't seen, I'm not gonna be in a position to say yes, but I also am perfectly fine if there is no need for a vote to get you to issue an RFP. I'm totally fine with that too. I would still like to see the specs. They haven't been provided to me. I don't know if I've just fell off the email or if there are others. So I would like to see the specs. I don't personally need to vote on having you issue an RFP because I feel like that's regular course of business for the administration.

[Murphy]: I agree with that.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, so we'll need to call a capital improvement plan meeting, especially as it relates to the 816,000 so that we can get a better idea of what needs those four projects that need to be done and if there's any extra to do additional work. Member Kreatz?

[Kreatz]: Yes, I have the specs that John forwarded to me. I can share them with Susie and she can send them to everybody. That'd be great.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Okay, so which can just amend this resolution to call a capital improvement plan meeting to especially discuss the 816,000. Is there a motion for approval?

[Unidentified]: So moved.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Member Van der Kloot seconded by. Second. Member Kreatz, roll call.

[McLaughlin]: Member Graham. Yes. Member Kreatz. Yes. Member McLaughlin, yes. Member Mustone. Yes. Member Ruseau. Yes. Member Van der Kloot. Yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.

[Lungo-Koehn]: Yes, 70 affirmative, zero negative, paper passes. Number four, we have school committee resolution and we have a condolence. The Medford School Committee expresses its sincere condolences to the family of Barbara Scopa, a former traffic supervisor and school lunch employee who is the mother of former community schools administrator, assistant Denise Scopa. If we all may take a moment of silence. Thank you.

[McLaughlin]: Motion to adjourn?

[Lungo-Koehn]: Motion to adjourn by Member McLaughlin, seconded by Member Van der Kloot. Roll call.

[McLaughlin]: Member Graham? Yes. Member Kreatz? Yes. Member McLaughlin, yes. Member Mustone? Yes. Member Ruseau? Yes. Wendy Gaertner?

McLaughlin total time: 12.21 minutes total words: 1738	Van der Kloot total time: 4.77 minutes total words: 716	Edouard-Vincent total time: 17.22 minutes total words: 2079	Ruseau total time: 23.27 minutes total words: 3634
Lungo-Koehn total time: 18.62 minutes total words: 2868	Kreatz total time: 1.08 minutes total words: 174	Graham total time: 13.14 minutes total words: 2160