[SPEAKER_06]: meeting will be held in person at the Howard Alden Memorial Chambers, Medford City Hall, as well as by remote participation on Zoom. The meeting can be viewed through Medford Community Media on Comcast Channel 15 and Verizon 45 at 4.30 p.m. Participants can log in or call in by using the following link or call-in number. You can call in by dialing 1309-205-3325, and when prompted, please enter meeting ID 928-4391-6441. 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. The agenda is as follows, presentation regarding the fiscal year 2024 Medford Public Schools operating budget to the Medford School Committee for fiscal year 24 funding requests, reviewing the past expenditures and remaining fiscal year 24 ESSER funds and analyzing the district's strategic priorities concerning equitable supports. I'll turn it over to our superintendent of schools, Dr. Maurice Edward-Vinson.
[SPEAKER_00]: Mayor, roll call.
[SPEAKER_06]: Member Ruseau.
[SPEAKER_00]: Roll call.
[SPEAKER_06]: Roll call vote, please. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. Member Graham.
[SPEAKER_06]: Here.
[SPEAKER_00]: Member Hays, absent. Member Kreatz.
[SPEAKER_02]: Here.
[SPEAKER_00]: Member McLaughlin.
[SPEAKER_02]: Here.
[SPEAKER_00]: Member Mustone is on Zoom. On Zoom. Here. Member Ruseau? Present, and Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[SPEAKER_06]: I'm present, and Member Hays? Is present. Present. Seven present, zero absent.
[SPEAKER_04]: Good evening.
[SPEAKER_01]: Just waiting for the slide deck to be pulled up.
[SPEAKER_04]: One moment.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you, Dr. Cushing. This evening, I'm going to be presenting before the committee this budget update. And based on questions that came in from the members and were asked last week, I have attempted to respond to provide answers for the majority of the questions. So I'm going to start the presentation. Thank you, Dr. Cushing. So the first thing, for those of you in the community who are just joining for the first time and are not certain how school budgets function and the different funding streams that are available to school districts, this slide shows that these are the different ways that funding comes. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the governor's budget, submits an allocation to the municipality. That funding goes to the municipality, the city of Method, and the city of Method's chapter 70 allocation, that's what the city, local aid, local contribution, that's what comprises the city's funding sources. Based on the allocation from the city, that funding funnels and goes to all of Medford Public Schools. And it allows us to address our district priorities and goals, departmental priorities and goals. It includes the superintendent's recommendations. This process, the budget meeting process, which is a multi-step process, school committee requests. We receive again the municipal appropriations and then eventually school committee adoption. Also federal funding is involved in this process. And the federal government provides supplemental grants and again it's intended to supplement, not to supplant. So we receive federal and state grants, our title grants, our Perkins grants, our IDEA grants at the time of the pandemic. the additional COVID-19 grants. And I want to state that these allocations, the federal government grants, they fluctuate. So it does not remain the same exact amount every year. Sometimes there's a slight increase and sometimes there is a decrease. So I just wanted to say this is kind of where the funding streams kind of come from that come to the district. Next slide. In particular, for Medford Public Schools, all of our funding sources are as follows. The general fund allocation, which we talked about the Chapter 70 allocation. Grants, again, IDEA title grants. ESSER, which is one time funding source. And the fourth funding source is revolving accounts. The revolving accounts are accounts that are based out of Medford Public Schools. It's not part of the official operating budget, but it is a funding source that we do use. So everything that is happening within the district comes from these four funding sources, so I hope you can see that there are funding sources coming from these four areas. Thank you, Dr. Cushing. So in response to the budget process, right now we are at April 10th, and there were several steps that have already taken place. The school committee has approved the district's strategic plan. There were budget surveys that were administered during the month of March that went to school committee members, department heads, administrators. We are now in the process of having budget meetings discussing funding and where we are. And right now we're at our second budget meeting. This process will continue where the superintendent will give formal recommendations coming up at the May 1st meeting. School committee will formally put in their requests by the May 15th meeting. And in this context, the municipal appropriation was given to us a little earlier. So I do need to slide that block up forward. The committee will adopt it in June, and there will be implementation in July. July 1 is the implementation of the new fiscal year. So the previous budget objectives at our April 3 meeting, which was just a week ago, it was the introduction to the budget process and reviewing our FY 23 allocation. Today we will be looking at some funding requests, reviewing the available FY 24 ESSER funds and highlighting some priorities. Upcoming on May 1st will be the official recommendations on our strategic priorities for Medford public schools. So our FY23 budget, the budget that we are currently in right now, we were allocated 68,994,776. So these are our FY23 budget numbers that we're currently working with right now. Our anticipated operating budget that was given to us from the municipality is $71 million for FY 24 budget numbers. So our anticipated operating budget to be approved in June is totals a $1.7 million increase over the operating budget that we received last year, which is the equivalent is a 2.5% increase for this coming fiscal year, FY 24. One of the key budget drivers, which I will talk about later, is our employment agreements. And just for a refresher, our FY22, based on our contracts that were settled, 2.5% increase for FY22, 2.5% increase for FY23. and for FY 24, 2.5% plus an additional 1% on the 100th day of school. So again, we're talking about a $1.1 million fixed cost increase based on FY 23 increases, and that is inclusive of the teachers only. I reviewed some of the fixed cost increases, and again, I wanted to just go back to kind of restate some of the fixed costs that we know are going to increase and where some of them are going to have impacts on this budget process. So we are aware that for FY24, which starts on July 1, that our special education costs are going to increase, and that projection is around $1 million. And again, that is a projection because we know that there is an unanticipated, unknown piece to those numbers. Our FY 24 contractual increases across the board, our increases to personnel, we are anticipating that at a $3.3 million increase. A significant portion 2% in FY 22 and 2% sent in FY 23 of these increases were incorporated into our last two budgets in anticipation of our negotiations. still with FY23 and 24 increases, exceeding the budgeted amounts, that has really impacted our flexibility that we previously thought would have been, that we previously thought would have existed. For FY 24, we do have anticipated vendor increases. And I'm saying anticipated because we are still working on some numbers for outside contracts, transportation, and maintenance. So those are anticipated, but we know it's going to increase and not decrease. And we are still working on additional CBAs for our custodians, our monitors, our administrators, our security monitors, and our food service workers. Here is another way of looking at our anticipated increases. And I will kind of restate this again later in the slide. Out-of-district tuitions, we're expecting again from 3.7 million, which was allocated for this year, FY23, we're expecting that increase to be approximately 4.2 million. Again, that number can fluctuate our transportation and van services as a 10% increase there from 1.5 million. We are expecting or anticipating approximately 2.24 again that number can fluctuate. Our transportation and school bus, our big yellow bus transportation, we anticipate going from 1.2 million to approximately 1.25 million. And again, we are looking at that anticipated that our current contract and also looking at the possibility of other contracts to look to see what's going to best meet the needs of the district. We have a few more anticipated increases, utilities, gas and electric. Those are increasing as well from 1.85 million for FY23. We are expecting it to come in around $2 million for gas and electric next year. And our cleaning contract, FY23, we paid $445,000 for that contract. We are anticipating an increase in that, a similar increase of $45,000 to $50,000 for our cleaning contracts. So I just wanted to say where some of these anticipated increases are coming from. So to total all of that, we're looking at approximately $1.4 million increase in ordinary expenses, things that are non-salary. So a $1.4 million increase in ordinary expenses, a $3.3 million increase in personnel expenses. And those are our settled CBAs. So we are anticipating a $4.7 million increase, which is about 6.8%. So just based on the increases that are in place and our approximations, we would be anticipating a $74 million potential request So there is a gap that we will definitely need to address moving forward. So I want to address the FY23 and FY24 ESSER budgets. I did mention this in our previous presentations, but I just wanna say how some of our ESSER funding is currently being used. for cell and counseling programs, for supervision and evaluation, professional development, for talking points and other subscriptions. And we are doing analyses on subscriptions that are not being used to the highest levels about dropping those. So that number, Although you see a TBD listed, we are really working at looking at the usability of all of the subscriptions, and we're still in the process of calculating those numbers. For our MBTA PASS program, we will probably, this will be one of the areas that we will talk about. We anticipated $150,000. We are thinking we're going to be closer to $202,000 for next year as an anticipated expense. The connectivity fund, we still have as TBD. And for summer programming, we have those listed as TBD. Continuing with our FY 23, 24 estimated budget, we have some numbers that are fairly similar. Currently right now, our engagement specialists. We've had some were engagement specialists we did have a vacancy we had some turnover, and we had some engagement specialists that are not 1.0. They are working in supporting the district, but they are working for us in a point six capacity. So that also attributes for the lower number that you're seeing for behavior specialists were anticipating 130,000. We have the 1.0 reading specialists. If we are to carry two of them on our ESSER funding, it would be approximately 200,000. Our ELL newcomer program, we do have newcomer, we currently have five newcomer staff, and we're looking at that number as well. And then we have another, payout of $, that will be coming out of our funding. Hill for literacy, which is our intensive professional development that we are offering for are elementary educators who are participating in that professional development. We still have it at approximately 90,000. We are working on a final number. But as we have new staff that also come into the school, those staff need to be trained and to come up to speed. So that's taking that into account. And for restorative justice, responsive classroom, those best practices, we have approximately 100,000 set aside to be addressing those professional learning opportunities for our educators. So, our proposed so budget through the calculations. At the last time I presented to you. I had $250,000 that we're showing for the mathematics program that funding, it said the operating And so our ESSER balance right now is 3.2 million for FY 24. And the curriculum, which I talked about, I mentioned at last week's professional, at last week's committee of the whole, our new elementary literacy program. We initially thought the literacy programs were going to be approximately $600,000. In actuality, the literacy programs that are currently being reviewed by the literacy team is in the vicinity of $800,000 to $900,000 for the adoption of the new programs. So we have been awarded $200,000 from DESE as a grant. And depending on which program ends up being selected by the literacy team, we would still have an estimated cost of approximately $600,000 because the cost of the programs that are being considered are significantly more. So I just wanted to provide that clarification that two of the programs that made the final cut are 800 and 900,000 respectively, and the literacy team is working diligently to pick the best program for Medford. So it would still be an ask of 600,000 to potentially 700,000. If the most expensive program is selected so I just wanted everyone to put a little pin in that number to know that that is something we are thinking about. Again, the restorative justice, which we talked about on the previous slide, bystander intervention at the secondary level, that's approximately 100,000, and the Hill for Literacy, again, which is our professional development programming at the elementary levels, and would be supporting, through our partnership with them, whichever new literacy program is selected. With that, that's a slight modification from 1 million, we could say to almost 800,000 but if we do go with the more expensive program. Instead of 600,000 that number would be 700,000. 800,000 900,000 so we're still kind of creeping very close to the 1 million mark. We do have 3.2 million allocated for FY 24. So a special request last week was to show the ESSER funding that Medford Public Schools received. ESSER 1 we received, we were allocated $668,052. Zero, as of right now, the end of year, fiscal year 23, that ESSER 1 funding is at zero. ESSER 2, we were awarded $2 million 372,520, and as of right now, that is also at zero, the balance remaining. ESSER III, we have 5,309,620. Our anticipated balance at the end of this year will be $3.2 million. So our total allotment allocation for ESSER funding to the Medford Public Schools was $8,350,192. In response to the mayor's question about so three funding all so three funding must be spent by September 30 2024. That is during the first quarter of FY 25 because the new fiscal year would start on July 1 of 2024. So we have also begun thinking about that and looking to see for some of the programmatic needs. such as the costly literacy program that we're going to be bringing on. We know that we have the $250,000 balance of the math that we're paying out of the operating budget. But even if we were to try to leave 3 quarters of a million, approximately $750,000, left on ESSER funding three to carry us over, it could help to defray the cost of some of the programs. So again, it's just a possible suggestion as we go through this budget process and we look at what is ahead of us. So our FY budgetary priorities, which I talked about last week, I, I have highlighted two sections for the committee under strategic staffing investments focused on our most vulnerable learners. We have identified a necessary need, not an optional need to provide an additional occupational therapist, and an additional speech and language pathologists, so the OT and SLP, a 2.0 FTE. Those positions are needed for our IEP needs. We've seen significant increases in speech and language and OT with our youngest learners that are in our MEET programming. And so in order to balance the needs and balance the caseloads, that was an identified need that we need to have in place for next year. In addition to the literacy interventionists, maintaining social workers and adjustment Councilors, the expanded school day staff under professional development and specialized training, which I talked about, building-based professional development, district-wide professional development, that is critically important for us to continue to sharpen our skills so that we can really provide the best education for our students. And summer programming, which is grant dependent, but we want to continue to provide summer programming, and we are going to continue to pursue any additional grants that Desi may offer for literacy, math, fine arts, and cell. programs to our traditional array of summer programming options, and then under miscellaneous departmental supplements. I mentioned it before, but I'm going to stress once again that as part of the signed CBA with the teacher's contract, we have a challenge at the high school with the five day schedule on the vocational side and the comprehension comprehensive side, having a six day schedule. And although the two schools are merged and they are one school. We're still having a six day schedule and a five day schedule that do not speak to one another. So we have looked into high school scheduling consultants and the best rate that we received thus far is $64,000. So we are looking at other options, but our reputable consultant is $64,000. And that is required as part of the negotiated contract. but we would need to have this schedule completed by the spring of 2024 in order for the schedule of the high school students, by the time scheduling comes along for us to have what the new schedule would look like for the day. So again, that would involve minutes changing, how long the blocks are, and it's a very, critically important and comprehensive process. Also, as part of the agreed contract. When we change the schedule at the elementary level, and we sunsetted the early release Wednesdays. And we added the half days as part of that sun setting of the early release Wednesdays. There was a need for for additional specialists. So, that is not. wish or want, it's something that is truly needed. We will need four additional specialists in order for the elementary schedules to function. So I highlighted those two sections in bold so you can just see that those are 6.0 FTEs that were added from last week to this week. So, as, as a result of looking at all of these. Looking at what's before us, we realize that as a district, we're also going to be looking at where we can reconcile. Is there a reconciliation process? Where is there waste? For example, I know member Graham mentioned that about like if the subscriptions aren't being used. So if there are areas for reconciliation, We are looking at those areas right now very carefully to make truly informed decisions. So, looking at our budgetary capacity, where we can find savings with those instructional materials. If there are areas where grade level strands need to collapse that if there is a very very low class size to really start looking at areas to reconcile, so that we are able to bring in all of the new things that we would like to bring in for next year. Identification of external funding sources as appropriate. Identification of revolving funds. As I mentioned, it is a funding source not to supplant, but to support work that is happening. And sometimes looking at potential reduction in positions where necessary. That is something that we may need to be looking at. and looking at identification of capital expenditures appropriate for one time funding sources, if that is something that we are able to look at. And last but not least, possible deferral of some strategic priorities. So we have that listed as well. So our FY 24 budget drivers, I shared this with you a year ago, not a year ago, I'm sorry, last week, but I want to share what we know our growing student needs, cell, social, emotional learning, and we also are stressing the importance of intervention. Our biggest arrow, our rising costs and expenses, our new CBAs, our collective bargaining agreements, our MOAs. We've ratified the teachers, the nurses, the paras, our secretarial, carpenters, Kids' Corner. And to be determined, we are still working on our administrators, our admin, our custodians, our monitors, and cafeteria. And using special revenue funds, we are using ESSER, which is one time, but we're also using grants. And where necessary, not to supplant, but to supplement, we would use our revolving accounts. So that is just an additional budget driver. I just want to reiterate that message. As a district, we are going to continue to look at keeping students at the center of all that we do. We're gonna keep students at the center of our decision making. We're gonna provide data to support student-centered learning. Educators, which I've highlighted before, we are still providing them with important, necessary professional development. We wish to continue to partner with our community to support our students. families and caregivers to partner with the district. And our goal is always to be preparing our students for college and career. And we want to continue to thrive and create a true sense of belonging for all of our students. And again, tiered, multi-tiered system of support Tier one, addressing all students. Tier two, for our at-risk students. Tier three, for those that are our most vulnerable, our highest risk students. So we're always keeping that in mind, that we're trying to meet the needs of all of our learners. And all of our strategic priorities are based on our strategic plan. And our priority number one is implementing implementing curricular assessment instructional strategies to support all of our learners priority to. is building culture through community engagement. Our priority three, looking at equitable supports for our students, both academic and cell, meeting the physical needs of our students. And priority four, looking at our infrastructure and providing supports for all of our students, safe and supportive learning environments. So those are our ACEs. And so my final slide is our Q&A ending with our students. And I am prepared to respond to questions from the committee. Mayor?
[SPEAKER_06]: Member Russell?
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. I appreciate the presentation, I feel much more aware of our situation than last meeting. I have enough questions to keep everybody, the rest of us going for another hour. The budgetary priorities, those don't have a dollar figure listed anywhere and they're not included in any totals anywhere, am I correct?
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes, the budgetary priorities, they're not there. And that would be with the...
[SPEAKER_00]: They're not mapped out for you yet. Thank you. I just wanted to translate savings on instructional materials to mean that PTOs go back to buying paper. Sometimes things sound very different than they do in real life.
[SPEAKER_01]: Can you tell me what side you're on?
[SPEAKER_00]: I was on slide, forgive me, 19. We're just talking about how to save money. I have a list of things. This is definitely not a comprehensive list. These were things that I think many of us expected to happen in the next year. Director of Communications, that position I presume is gone.
[SPEAKER_01]: No, the Director of Communications and the Finance position, they are still open. Okay, so those will need to be added somewhere as additional costs here as well? Yes, we hope to have them, the Director of Communications would, it would end up being like a, because that would not be perceived as a new, because we have a retirement that is coming, so that would, hopefully one would,
[SPEAKER_00]: I think the salary, though, is certainly going to be dramatically higher. The health curriculum, should we just give up on that for next year?
[SPEAKER_01]: No, for HECAT, we're still moving forward.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I'm on the HECAT committee. Any curriculum we purchase, or there are free ones even that are not bad, they do nothing on their own. They are going to require a vast amount of money to train the staff. Hundreds of thousands is a minimum is my guess. We don't know because we haven't gotten that far in the process, but there's no getting us to the point where we stop teaching harmful health curriculum, which is what we have right now in Medford. And the one of the professionals in our committee said, if we could just teach nothing, it would be an improvement over what we have as a curriculum. Now I will say that it's probable the staff isn't following the curriculum and is doing better, but the approved curriculum right now is harmful. So I don't care what a new health curriculum costs, when the professionals in health education tell us what we have would be better if we just let kids watch YouTube all or play a video game in their class instead of learning what we think they should be taught. That's really startling. So I hope the health curriculum makes it. I take it the theater teacher we heard very joyously about in the last meeting, it's not gonna make the list.
[SPEAKER_01]: So we are really thinking creatively. We would still like to have theater offered at the district. So we're gonna look, With reconciliation, we're also gonna just look at potentially creatively looking at some of our existing staff. Maybe it might not end up being a 1.0, but we still wanna be able to offer it to students. So we are in the process of trying to look at other ways where we would still be able to provide, offer our students this as another opportunity for them and look at. So that again is still, We're committed to providing the greatest amount of opportunities for our students.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. I'll ask one more question and then I'll pause for my others. Let other people ask questions. How many people are currently employed that are on expiring funds, because when I look at other districts, they're trying to do, you know, not most districts, but other districts are trying to do two and three year budgets, which I recognize part of that process is in fact, theoretical because the money doesn't come yet. But, you know, we're one year away from having everybody that we paid from out of ESSER being on the street. And while I care very much about them, I actually care to a greater extent with the services that they're providing to our students that will just cease in need, they will stop completely, because they will not be employed here are we talking five people are we talking 50 people. And I recognize you may not have the number but if we could get the for the next meeting or in a report. How many people work for us that are paid for out of s or funds and. And what are their positions and what do they do, because I'd like to know that this is the next you know this is the next budget we're going to face but it's very relevant now because when we're making decisions about what to cut now. it matters if we're, you know, do we cut a little here? If next year we need to really just cut a big hunk of something off so that we can afford to keep these critical people. And I don't really get a, I don't have a good sense of who it is we're paying for an investor funds and what those positions are. And I will let my colleagues ask questions before I come back. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_03]: Member Hays. Thank you. I'm also wondering about the new literacy curriculum. Same question that Member Ruseau just had about the health curriculum. We are absolutely going to need literacy coaches or some other kind of professional development to go with the new curriculum or, you know, it's We're going to be spending a lot of money on a curriculum that is not going to get fully implemented if teachers don't have the support they need. So is that also built into this budget or is that another thing that we're going to be trying to figure out how to make happen.
[SPEAKER_01]: So, with our partnership with Hill Hill does provide some coaching and counseling. I don't know if Mr. Lucy you want to share a little of the supports that he'll has provided. We don't have a total number of. coaches just yet, is it something where we would need to add 2.0 literacy coach? So I don't have a hard number for you, but I do want you to be able to say from putting on a new program and providing professional development in training for teachers.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yes, I mean, as I've mentioned before to the membership, Hill for Literacy has been able to provide a level of coaching for now this year K through three staff, but predominantly it's been focused K to two. That will continue for next year, but in terms of what you're specifically speaking about, I don't think that's reflected right now in additional coaching positions for the district. We can certainly look creatively and it's a need down the road, but right now we have the helpful literacy piece.
[SPEAKER_03]: Do they provide coaching, would they provide coaching specifically around the new curriculum or they still providing coaching around equity because I've started looking at these curriculums they're massive as they all are. There are so many components and so many. places where teachers are gonna need some support and understanding, what do I implement? What do I need to kind of ignore? I mean, without the coaching, I'm just really concerned. We're gonna be spending a lot of money on a very necessary curriculum that is not going to be implemented correctly.
[SPEAKER_05]: I hear that and share that feedback. So part of the grant that we just received, which is wonderful, the high quality materials grant from the Department of Education. We received $200,000, which is the highest threshold that they gave out to municipalities. You can see that on the website. Part of that grant also includes coaching. that comes along with part of the purchase of the program. And Hill for Literacy is an approved vendor through the Department of Education, so they will be assisting us in implementing the new program.
[SPEAKER_03]: The kind of coaching they provide, is it somebody that's actually housed in the building? I mean, when you think of, obviously, when you think of a coach that we would hire as a school system, they would be, hopefully, in theory, we'd have one at each building to help across the grade levels, their home would be the building.
[SPEAKER_05]: That's the hope and the dream. I haven't gotten to that level yet as we're still selecting the program with Hill for Literacy, but I would guess that they're not going to be a dedicated person every single day of the week. Right now, the way the coaching model is with Hill for Literacy, they're at each building twice a month.
[SPEAKER_03]: Twice a month. Twice a month. That's not going to do it for a new, a brand new literacy curriculum. And I know you're working hard. So please, this is not coming at you, but I'm just going to say to the powers that be, that's not going to cut it for a brand new literacy curriculum. It's just not, especially when we're talking about implementing the science of reading. I know teachers are already learning that through ECRI, but you know, it's a whole new mass of materials. It's also a whole new style of teaching or pedagogical shift twice a month. And that would be for each school.
[SPEAKER_05]: I'm not there yet because right now we're still reviewing the programs, but that will be the next level of work after we have selected a program. Okay.
[SPEAKER_07]: Point of information. On slide 16, which covers some of the ways we plan to spend ESSER next year. Do these amounts include professional development? Because it looks like it does include the curriculum and health for literacy. So I'm just seeking some clarification on whether the professional development associated with the new curriculum is on this page as an ESSER expenditure or not.
[SPEAKER_01]: For the restorative justice and RJ bystander, the approximate 100,000 does include professional development. And Dr. Cushing, you can speak to the bystander intervention, if in fact.
[SPEAKER_07]: I was referring to the literacy curriculum and the Hill for literacy numbers on that slide.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes, the 90,000.
[SPEAKER_05]: The Hill for literacy will, yes. So the Hill for literacy will be in addition to whatever program we're going with, the professional development that's associated or comes within the six-year package cost, the Hill for Literacy is in addition to the professional development that the program will provide.
[SPEAKER_07]: And does the $800,000 on the first line include professional development? Yes. That is recommended by the curriculum provider?
[SPEAKER_05]: That will come from the vendor, yes.
[SPEAKER_07]: So if I'm reading this slide correctly, we plan to pay for the curriculum and the recommended associated professional development for the literacy curriculum through ESSER next year. Is that true?
[SPEAKER_01]: A portion of it, because that was where I was saying we were looking at where the ESSER money technically ends on September 30th. that if we were to take that 600,000 and potentially say we're going to pay 200,000 this year on answer and defer 200,000 to f y 25, because the money has to be spent by September, and you can't pre encumber a person's salary, so that if we were to set aside a little bit of money It would need to be on a program so it would make sense like you could on July 15, you could make a $200,000 payment and be in compliance with what answer is like the rules, making that final payment before September 30. Again, that's just a, I didn't even do it as a separate slide but the 3.2 million which is the current balance right now. We were like maybe we could set aside 750,000 so I, and I don't even know if the key cat team would have a recommendation potentially coming up for something so it could be. $750,000 set aside to help pay for a little bit of programming. Because we had the $250,000 for the math, that was on the operating budget. But this literacy, we were trying to put it on the ESSER because it qualifies. So that was, again, it will be up to the committee to decide, but this was one of the things we were just looking at.
[SPEAKER_06]: Member Hays has the floor. Do you have anything further, Member Hays?
[SPEAKER_03]: I did. I just want to clarify. I did have one other question, but I just want to clarify, too, that there's the professional development. I know that you're asking about the funding for that. I guess what I'm specifically asking about, though, is coaching, which is different than the professional development. The ongoing coaching that teachers need to have somebody in the building when they need to troubleshoot and It's really not just a frivolous extra expenditure. It's really needed when you're implementing a brand new program like this. They haven't implemented stuff like this in 10 plus years. I have information from the chair.
[SPEAKER_06]: If I could ask you a question, then it seems like you know what would be needed. And I'm sure Ms. Kalusi and Dr. Everton would as well. If you were implementing this, how long would teachers need coaching? Are we talking like the full year, are we talking multiple years?
[SPEAKER_03]: Personally, I would say at least a couple of years. Yeah, at least three years. It's a big program. And as I said, we're also looking at not, it's not just a continuation of what they've been doing before. because when you get into that K to two piece, that's the science of readings. And even beyond that, I mean, it is really, at least the one I started looking at now, it continues that piece of morphology. And maybe they're doing all of that already, but I think it's much more comprehensive than what we've had. And you just can't undervalue that having the coaches there to really make sure they continue to implement it. Because if the teachers don't have the support, You know, that's when things start to fall apart. They just don't have the support to do it. The other question I had just in looking at slide 19, when we're talking about potential reduction in positions, which is a really huge and ambiguous statement, can you give us a little more clarity on what kinds of positions you're talking about? Are we talking about teaching positions? Are we talking about possibly administrative positions or director positions, what kinds of things are you looking at?
[SPEAKER_01]: We would have to look at all, like we would have to look at it from soup to nuts. If there's redundancy or, again, I think I had said something about looking at class size, looking at, you know, If, if there could be a classroom that has like very very low enrollment numbers and then you know one school has a class size of this amount and another school has a larger amount could we look at. we just have to look at all of the possibilities. And so if redundancies were identified, you might say, you know, I don't need this, but I need to add that. And so, you know, just as you're advocating right now and saying like, you're bringing on a new literacy program, we need to be able to have like literacy coaches to support the implementation of a brand new program. So if we're going to add literacy coaches, we most likely need to look at where we could cut something just to bring about some kind of reconciliation. So we would be looking at the entire district. That's why it just says potential. It doesn't mean guaranteed, but just based on what we are working with right now, what we're looking at, we're trying to look creatively and see what we can do.
[SPEAKER_03]: I appreciate that. I know that this is tough. This is going to be some tough choices to be made. I'm wondering at what point, though, do we begin to actually get down to the nuts and bolts of what you're looking at? I mean, we are at the end of April already. So I'm assuming you hopefully have already started looking at what kinds of positions you might consider. I'm a little concerned when I hear about class size. And I mean, obviously, if there's some that are very small, but I'm hoping we can start by looking at positions that don't directly affect students.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, so that is one of the pieces that we always look at who's closest to the students and look at positions that don't directly impact students. So that is definitely taken into consideration. But when I'm saying class size, I'm not talking about increasing class size to 35 students. But if you might have a classroom that has a very, very low teacher student in one building, and then the same exact grade level in another building has a fuller portfolio, just looking at where we could kind of be more equitable. So that is part of the analysis. This week, having back-to-back meetings, and it was a short week last week, so we're still in the process of pulling numbers and trying to calculate. And with now having a clear anticipated allocation, municipal allocation, that also made us think differently and start saying, okay, we need to think creatively because this is, we have a proposed number. And so we need to start looking at how we can reconcile, in what ways we can reconcile where possible in the areas, like all of the things that were being said, the positions that I said were definitely required. And some of the positions member Rousseau was just talking about, those positions that we are wanting to add to our cadre. It's going, you know, it is going to go back to those scales, I probably should have, my scales will be back for the next one, saying that we're adding here. where is it that we could make a possible reconciliation if necessary, just being prudent. And again, with the subscriptions, if during COVID, you know, we had hybrid, we had 1300 students that were remote. So with that, we had purchased a lot of online programs and platforms. And so some of them just aren't having the usability that we thought would have continued post pandemic. So we are getting the actual, Ms. Layden is calculating the actual hard numbers for us right now of usability of the programs for us to be able to make an informed decision and say, you know, we have 30% participation where, you know, during the pandemic, it was 100% or 17%. It doesn't make sense to pay for an entire district if we're just not getting we might keep something, but just keep it in a very limited capacity. So just looking for those areas where we're being fiscally prudent and wise in that regards.
[SPEAKER_06]: Member Graham.
[SPEAKER_07]: Thank you. Does the $74 million that is listed on slide 13, So does that include the communications director? Yes.
[SPEAKER_01]: The communications director is that was, I never had it listed because, um, we have a retirement, so we. Okay.
[SPEAKER_07]: I just want to make sure I understand what's in and what is not.
[SPEAKER_01]: That was in, but I will be able to, yeah.
[SPEAKER_07]: Does it include the addition of an assistant principal at the high school to bring the numbers to four instead of three?
[SPEAKER_01]: Um, so that we're looking. So, currently at the high school, as we look at it, there are technically for people that are sitting in the role title role of assistant principal. including the vocational side of the house. So we are looking at the high school very closely and at our May 1st presentation, May 1st meeting, Mr. Welch will be presenting a recommendation, his recommendations as well for a potential structure. for the high school, but there are other ways where we could get to the same amount of additional coverage, but might not be through, it could be that we add an additional assistant principal, it could be through the addition of a different position.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_01]: So the high school isn't, the short answer is yes, the high school is included. It's just there, there could be more than one option that's presented to the committee that's presented as a potential structure.
[SPEAKER_07]: But the current $74 million does not include any additional staffing over what is there today?
[SPEAKER_06]: No.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay. And the $74 million does not include dollars associated with implementing our HECAT curriculum recommendation.
[SPEAKER_01]: No, it definitely does not include the HECAT.
[SPEAKER_07]: And does $74 million contemplate the increased salary impacts of hiring three new principals and the set of dominoes that that could require?
[SPEAKER_01]: So, the 74 million would include what we were currently at right now. It may not include if it was some. So, so there is some consideration there. So, yes.
[SPEAKER_07]: But no. Right? Like, no, if we have to pay one penny over what we're paying today, then that is not, that is not in the 74 million dollars. Not yet.
[SPEAKER_08]: Okay. Point of information, ma'am.
[SPEAKER_06]: Point of information, member McLaughlin.
[SPEAKER_08]: Just to the chair, I'm curious if you'll clarify the dominoes that you mentioned that the high school principals effect could have, what were you referring to?
[SPEAKER_07]: I think every time we bring in folks at various levels, the people who have been at the district for 20 years or 15 years, look at the increased salary that we're paying to somebody who just walked in the door and say, what about me? So there's a set of dominoes that happens and especially it is absolutely present right now in the marketplace because people are unwilling to work for the rates that they once were. And so we have a really thin labor pool, we have a lot of market pressure and I think we have to be prepared. new high school principals are making at least $40,000 more than our high school principal makes. So that's just a fact. And if we want a high school principal, we're going to have to contend with that fact in some fashion. And then that creates a whole set of considerations that we need to be planning for. I will admit, I am finding it really hard to process what we're saying is our recommendation versus what we're saying is our doomsday scissors approach to get to the number that we are likely to receive from the city. And I would like us to think about how to make it clear, like what do we believe that we need to run the district next year it's okay if that means like we don't need subscriptions but subscriptions is like not even close to remotely covering the gap that we're talking about here. So, I would like on May 1st for the presentation to exclusively be about what is our recommendation because it's our job to advocate in front of the city and the mayor to tell the community what we need for our schools. If we don't do that, nobody will do it. So, I think it's really incumbent on us to lay that out thoughtfully so that when we look at that list and we say, yes, this is the number, we know that it means pre-literacy coaches. We know that it means one theater teacher. We know that it means two FTEs for OT and speech therapy, like that we know what it means. So then when we have to start crossing things off the list, it's really clear like where we started and what hard decisions we had to make. Those hard decisions, 90% of our costs are people. So those hard decisions are about positions by and large. So I think on May 1st, we really need to have a crystal clear presentation that says, here's the dollar amount for our contractual obligations only. Here are the additions. Here's what they each cost so that we really are clear what we're asking for. And then we can get to work on the hard decisions, which have to come. However, like we still don't know what the what the consolidated house and senate budget will be, right? We have the governor's proposal but we don't have house and we don't have the joint ways and means budget. Um what we do know is that the the state has given us a few million dollars and not all of that is slated to come via that 71 million dollars that we're anticipating being allocated. So, I like to think that there's an opportunity for us to make a case there. And the city is sitting on $25 million of free cash. I'd like to think there's an opportunity to demonstrate to the community that there is a very good reason to dip into the giant pile of free cash to get us through what is another lean year. This is my fourth year, my fourth budget. It's the third one that's bad. There's a lot to talk about there, and we can talk about that at some point in time, but I think we can't do that unless we're clear on what it is that we thought we needed in the first place. And I think what's happening right now is all of that stuff is getting mushed together, and I think it's really hard to understand what we're trying to accomplish by doing that.
[SPEAKER_08]: So I would like to make a motion that- I actually have a point of information on that too, excuse me.
[SPEAKER_06]: Point of information, Member McLaughlin.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you. Just in terms of the, so on slide four, if I'm understanding correctly, it's saying that May 1st, we're gonna have another budget meeting, right? And then in between that and the school committee request, there's gonna be a meeting with the superintendent's recommendations, right? I mean, that's what...
[SPEAKER_01]: So May 1st, it'll be a budget meeting, and at the May 1st meeting, I will be presenting my formal recommendations to the committee. Just the way that our schedule ended up being back-to-back meetings, And it was a for a four day week, and we had a meeting last Monday so it really only left us three days and then we received the official. The anticipated allocation. When we had the anticipated allocation. I. wanted the committee, just to be able to see that this is the anticipated number that we received. This is what we're thinking, just, you know, just between our ordinary expenses. and our personnel expenses, we were anticipating a 6.8% increase. So I just wanted to provide the committee with that number to say that we were thinking that 6.8% came up to about 4.7 million, which is why I was showing the approximate $74 million request. But we- I think I still have the floor, right?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, it's just that the point of information hasn't been answered. So may I ask again? Yes, thank you. So I'm still not understanding on slide four, we have under budget meetings, we have April 3, April 10, and May 1. Then in between school committee request and budget meetings, there's a superintendent's recommendation TBD for a date. So that I'm confused by that when folks are saying, The may one meeting is going to be the superintendent's recommendation because this graphic on page for suggest that there's going to be. time in between that for a meeting with the superintendent's recommendation. So I need that clarified.
[SPEAKER_01]: On slide five, I did, I tried to map out the objectives. My slide five was an homage to you, Member McLaughlin, where you were just saying to kind of pass out what we were anticipating has been happening in terms of what the objectives have been thus far. So at the May 1st meeting, My hope was to present my recommendations to you at the May 1 meeting that was going to give us time. And we still have our community engagement meeting on April 26. to hear from members of the community who want to provide feedback or things that they would love to see happen. So I wanted that meeting to happen and just gather that additional data so that I would be able to fold that in to my presentation on May 1st. And if we need to add, another meeting, we can always do that as well.
[SPEAKER_07]: Thank you. Member Grimm and then Member Kreatz. Thank you. On the budget priorities list, you do mention that we need four additional specialists for the elementary school, but it doesn't describe what they will do What will they do? Besides fill a spot in the schedule.
[SPEAKER_01]: We intentionally were vague on that one. We are looking at a lot of options. We're looking at STEM, we're looking at STEAM, we're looking at potential literacy. We have a couple of options on the table. We're trying to look at which additional specialists will enhance the elementary schools the most. So not just for right now, but like long-term. So that's part of the conversation that I'm having with the central office team. And one of the reasons why I said STEM is we did invest heavily in FOSS. science, and we've just been thinking about stem and saying like we made a big investment in stem and are we providing students with the maximum amount of stem exposure as well so I. We don't have it fully defined for what that position is going to be just yet in terms of part of our greater strategy at the elementary level, but we know that we need an additional 4.0 FTEs so that one would be assigned to each school in order for the new schedule to work next year. Point of information?
[SPEAKER_06]: Point of information, Member Ruseau.
[SPEAKER_00]: When we keep saying specialists, we mean new teachers, right? Teachers that are in the MTA.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_00]: Okay. That's the confusion, because specialists could be, I mean, anything. And I just don't think it's clear that that, I don't know if Member Graham was trying to ask, like, are we talking about four new teachers? And that's what we're talking about.
[SPEAKER_01]: Four new teachers, four new teachers to cover an offering that we would be providing our students with at the elementary levels. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_07]: If I look at page 15 and 16, if I add up the columns about FY 24, I get to about $2,000,000 and $2,020,000. And it looks like we have 3.2 million. So does that mean that we only have anticipated ESSER spending with still about 1.1 million to go. I'm just having a hard time making the math add up to 3.2. I'm not sure if it's supposed to, but I can't tell if something is missing or if it's just that we haven't decided how to use that remaining $1 million yet.
[SPEAKER_01]: I would say to you we have slide 15 is again our best, our best estimate of where we think we are and we do have a few TBDs. And we are looking on our end to see what has to be on ESSER, what could potentially be on operating, so that that's why there was a little a little wiggle room, not much, but our current ESSER, when we did that calculation, it was, we're at the 3.2 million as a balance.
[SPEAKER_07]: Yes, that is.
[SPEAKER_01]: And you're saying you're not sure, you're calculating 2.2 million.
[SPEAKER_07]: Well, I'm calculating what we're planning to spend in FY24 to be 2.02 million. And we have $3.2 million. So I think that means there's still a million dollars untagged. Is that correct?
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes. Yes, that is correct. And when we were meeting, when I said the $750,000, when we were meeting and trying to say, could we carry a few of the programs onto the FY25? So we were trying to see if we didn't if we did not spend all 3.2 million right now during FY 24. Could we like squirrel away 750,000 to help pay for some of the programs and not people. And that way, you know, that would leave us with a little bit of extra cushion for FY 25 operating budget, because as of September 30th, 2024, ESSER III is gone and it's not coming back.
[SPEAKER_07]: Okay. And my last comment is a motion to, so I'd like to make a motion that the superintendent's recommendation only include our request to the municipal government and that it refrain from talking about the hard decisions that come next.
[SPEAKER_06]: Can you state that one more time?
[SPEAKER_07]: That the superintendent's recommendation, her presentation on May 1st will only contain our recommendation for the FY 24 budget or our request for the FY 24 budget and that it will not simultaneously seek to deal with decisions that might need to be made after the fact.
[SPEAKER_06]: Point of information. Point of information, member McLaughlin.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, just some clarification on that. So, again, going back to the schedule of what we're talking about, if May one is the superintendent's recommendation and then we are gonna have a public meeting, right? And then we are gonna have a school committee meeting to discuss. Um I just wanna clarify if through the chair, if member Graham is asking that what the superintendent presents on May 1 is her recommendation not backed into an allocation because we haven't really sort of asked for the allocation at this point, at that point. So I'm not really clear. Do you guys follow me? Yes. So I guess I'm asking for some clarity on what the motion is actually asking for.
[SPEAKER_07]: So, I am asking that the presentation on May 1st be purely our request to the municipal government for what we believe we need in FY24 to operate Medford Public Schools in a responsible manner.
[SPEAKER_09]: So, when you say, may I check?
[SPEAKER_09]: So, when you say our, who is our?
[SPEAKER_07]: The school committee.
[SPEAKER_09]: But what they want is the superintendent's recommendation. They're still going to be deliberating their recommendation. It's not our recommendation. Is that right?
[SPEAKER_06]: That's correct. And just from the floor, we're pushing into May, and there is has been an allocation so we do have to start making the tough choices or at least the planning has to be done by central administration is sooner than may one. point of order member Rousseau.
[SPEAKER_00]: The committee decides what our process will be so receiving a memo that tells us what we're going to get for an allocation does not change what this body will do and we have a process that we have implemented for three years now and we will create a request that will say what we need to operate this district regardless of what the municipality is going to give us, that unless the committee decides to change our process, that's what we're going to do. Getting a memo does not immediately decide that we don't have to do our jobs and that the superintendent doesn't have to tell us what's needed to make this district function and flourish. Those are not related things. So I disagree very much that receiving that memo last Friday suddenly short circuits our process.
[SPEAKER_06]: I'm from the chair I'm not I'm not saying it does it all but in the past you haven't had a number this soon to at least be able to somewhat plan, even if they ask as far more than what is allocated.
[SPEAKER_08]: Point of information. And so what I'm asking for is clarification between the superintendent's recommendation and the school committee's recommendation, because those could potentially be two different things. So the superintendent on May 1, if she's gonna share her recommendations with us based on the information that she's given us up to this point, then I would assume May 1 is what she's representing as the superintendent as her recommendation. And then on the, according to the schedule, and this is what I'm trying to differentiate because I do, through the chair to member Ruseau's point, I do think that there is potentially a difference between what that school committee recommendation might be for the allocation and potentially what the superintendents might be. So that is exactly the point. And so I'm trying to get clarification on that motion because I'm just looking at our calendar and trying to find it for us when we're meeting. to decide what we're going to put forward our school committee request May 15th or June 5th. You know, that's a substantial amount of time between May one, when the superintendent's making her recommendations, we still have to have the public meeting. And then we decide what our allocation is not May one. So I guess what I'm trying to get is I hear, I hear what I think people are saying, which is that we want a real understanding of what our school needs in terms of not backing into a number. I totally get that. And frankly, I agree with that, but I think I'm not sure that I understand the motion for May 1st, because I think that that's the superintendent's discretion. And then the school committee's job is to decide whether they accept that or not.
[SPEAKER_07]: I think my ask is that when the superintendent makes that recommendation to us, it is not muddied with hard decisions that she has to work on in parallel. It's totally fine. I recognize that that's the reality, but we can't do our jobs unless we hear from her what she thinks this district needs to operate. So what we can't do on May 1st is get something that is like a mishmash of what I need and what I know I'm gonna get, because then we can't do our job. So I'm just asking that the superintendent's recommendation be clear and distinct about what she is asking this city to provide on her behalf. Um and then if we have things to add, things to change, that's what would happen, you know, after that meeting. But honestly, it by and large is going to be what she recommends. I mean that we think small things change year every year but there's we we can't make wholesale changes without the right data. I I'm just asking that we not muddy the water on May 1st with a bunch of stuff that has to come and maybe it comes on May 15th. I'm totally fine with that but we need a basis that is clear and clean. Point of information there.
[SPEAKER_06]: Point of information that member has been waiting. Thank you. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_08]: I just want to understand. So, is this is the 74 million that we're talking about in this meeting not clarification in terms of what is needed versus what her recommendation might be?
[SPEAKER_07]: I mean, it doesn't contain any of the things on the needs slide, and it doesn't contain- You mean broken out? Like this slide, slide 18, none of these things are in $74 million, nor is the HECAT, nor is- I knew the HECAT was, but none of these things are? None of the priorities are? Correct.
[SPEAKER_08]: No, 74 professional development and the restorative. Okay, I'm sorry, I'm misunderstanding this.
[SPEAKER_06]: The ESSER expenses are different than the priorities.
[SPEAKER_08]: So none of the budgetary priorities are included, but they were included under ESSER, and so they're gonna be expiring 2024, so then they're not included in what the 74 million is that she's recommending.
[SPEAKER_07]: I don't think the superintendent is recommending. No, I know, she's not recommending, she's talking about. Is that accurate? That is my understanding. That's why I think we need a clear picture of what the ask is. So we can say, yes, we agree with the ask or no, you have to add this to the ask, or maybe like, I know you want this thing, but we have to take it out of the ask. Like that is work we have to do, but we can't do it until we have just a clear picture of what that number, what those numbers are. And there is no second on my motion. Second.
[SPEAKER_06]: by Member Graham, seconded by Member Hays. Roll call.
[SPEAKER_00]: Member Graham.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_00]: Member Hays.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_00]: Member Kreatz.
[SPEAKER_02]: No, no. Member McLaughlin.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_00]: Member McDone. Yes. Member Rissell, yes. Mayor Lungo-Koehn.
[SPEAKER_06]: No, five in the affirmative, two in the negative. Motion passes. Member Kreatz.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yes. First, I wanted to thank you for adding the numbers to the slideshow. I did reach out to you to ask you to do that. It's very helpful. And so I had questions and they were already answered. I had the same question about the specialists of 4.0 and then the reductions. And then going back to the motion that was just made, the question I have is, I guess I'm a little bit unclear. So on the slide 18, where it has the budget priorities, it's bolded that we clearly, It's critical that we get the OT and SLP 2.0 and then also the elementary specialists. So what I'm not understanding is like, so those are the budget priorities. Are we going to be funding those with the ESSER money and not the budget money? I guess I just I'm not sure that's why. i'm just i'm not sure.
[SPEAKER_01]: For the ot the SLP the specialist those who are thinking would be coming on on the official operating budget, so these are just other budgetary. priorities that are needed, so we would want them on the regular operating, the general fund. This was not allocated, we weren't thinking about these for ESSER, and again, with this being year three, or the final year of ESSER, these positions we wanted to have on the operating budget, because ESSER, we just have it for one more year.
[SPEAKER_02]: Could I ask another question for clarification on that? So in the number for the 74 million, are these needs in there or we're going to have to build them into that number?
[SPEAKER_01]: So the 74 million is, let me just go to the right side, is inclusive of how we've anticipated The, the colors the increase the fixed costs. That's how we got to that three point. Let me just find the right side. The 1.4 in the 3.3 million. The 1.4 million is the ordinary expenses the non salary, all of the things that I was. The out of transportation those things which are non salary positions, and then the 3.3 million is for our settled CBAs are memorandums of agreement, our contracts, those personnel expenses so those are like guaranteed those aren't maybe Those are guaranteed the 3.3 million is a guaranteed amount, so that 3.3 in personnel expenses, the 1.4 in you know the gas the electric and transportation and the cleaning contracts, all of those ordinary expenses. That's just giving the 4.7. So, what I was trying to show was that ordinary expenses our personnel expenses alone with nothing really new was a 6.8% increase totaling 4.7 million. which is where I just was saying approximately 74 million. That is not including the new positions of the elementary teachers, the four elementary specialists teaching positions, the occupational therapists, the speech and language pathologists. Those are just six positions right there that we know we currently don't have right now, and their positions that we will need for next year. So, that number is just letting you know, this is what our calculation is for Medford public schools to continue functioning the exact way that it is right now. just increased bills and all of the settled CBAs. And again, we still have four more that we're working on. So that number, the 3.3 million will go up by the end of the year.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you. And I just had one more question and it's on slide 19. What are some of the examples of the deferral of some of the strategic priorities? I was just curious about what those might be.
[SPEAKER_01]: Member Hays was communicating with me earlier today. We had some, there were some additional supplemental, I'm gonna just look at the list of what we had that was deferred from last year.
[SPEAKER_06]: Generally though, this is just deferral of some priorities that we wish we could afford, but we don't have the funding because right now it looks like the $74 million doesn't even include the $2 to $3.2 million you're going to use of ESSER funding. So you're going to have a $5, $6 million budget gap just in the schools alone. You're going to have a devastating cliff next year and the year after. Devastating, if that was ever how we want to operate. So I agree. If you want to do just what you think you need on May 1, but at the same time, I respectfully ask that central administration do the hard work, and even if you don't present it till the 15th, that it be done, because you cannot use free cash to sustain a $6 million budget gap. It will be devastating.
[SPEAKER_01]: An example of a deferred position was like we had something, a transportation coordinator. That was a deferred position that didn't end up happening. So there were other positions that we kind of really hoped for and just, you know, when we prioritized a year ago, that's one of the positions that was deferred. And some of the interventionists at that point in time ended up being deferred positions.
[SPEAKER_03]: Thank you. Member Hays. I just want to be, I think we need to be really crystal clear with people using the word deferred is a really nice way of saying we're not able to fund it. And many, if not all of the positions we deferred last year are not going to be funded this year. And if I understand correctly, you know, we were told in the past that Next year might even be a more difficult fiscal year. So we're not really just deferring these were saying these, you know, and some of these were literacy interventionists at the high school career Councilor at the high school math coaches, we had a lot of really. These weren't, again, extraneous or extra things. These were things that we really felt kids critically needed. So people, the community needs to understand that we need to be clear that calling them deferred until a subsequent fiscal year means we can't fund them and we're not likely to fund them in the next, at least the next year or two. So I just want to make sure that's spelled out clearly to people.
[SPEAKER_06]: That's correct. And we can discuss overrides. I know that's discussed in the city council, But just to give you an example, Newton did a 90 or $100 million override for two new schools that passed. But their $10 million override for the budget school and general fund budget failed. So it's just something that we cannot depend on for the priorities that we would like to see on the city and school side. And I have the same issues on the city side. We have not even including public safety, 10 new positions being requested. plus another 10 covered by ARPA that is also gonna reach a cliff, but we are planning accordingly. We are gonna start not filling positions as they become vacated. And we're also making sure that anybody hired, it specifically says in their offer letter, this is a one year position paid for by ARPA that will not be covered after such and such date. So it has to be done on the school side, just like we're doing it on the city side. we're going to have some serious issues. Member Graham, Member Ruseau.
[SPEAKER_07]: Thank you. I agree that we need to hear about that next step really quickly in the follow on. So I'd like to make a motion that the superintendent will present her plan to close the gap that we know will exist at our May 15th meeting.
[SPEAKER_06]: Motion on the floor by Member Graham, seconded by Member Hays. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Member Ruseau, and then I know we have the Chief of Police here, who's here for 6 p.m.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you. I looked at the cherry sheets, which is the state's, there's a set of different cherry sheets, but those are the amount of revenue the state plans to send to Medford. In this year, Medford is getting a 20% increase and we'll receive $3.76 million more that the state says is for education. Communities, cities do have the freedom to spend that money any which way they want. The state could give us that 3.76 and the mayor could use it for pavement. That's legal and allowed. But I do find it very concerning that the state has believes we need $3.76 million more for education and we're only getting 45% of that in this new budget. That 55% of the money that the state said here Medford, you need more money for education 55% of that money. The mayor is choosing to do something else with, and that is 100% her authority, and we can do nothing about it but I think it's really important, and this set $3.76 million is the governor's budget that usually goes up as the legislature gets their hands on their proposed budget. So this number is almost certainly just going to go up. So I'm, I was very surprised to see that that's what the cherry sheet said and what the governor's budget said we should be getting more for education. And I don't, I think those numbers speak for themselves.
[SPEAKER_06]: Is there a motion on the floor to adjourn?
[SPEAKER_07]: Motion to adjourn.
[SPEAKER_06]: mission to turn by member Graham seconded by member laugh line all those in favor aye all those