[Zac Bears]: Paper 22-354, Committee of the Whole, meeting notice, Tuesday, June 21st, 2022. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Present. Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. I do not see Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. Councilor Tseng. Present. And President Morell informing she was gonna be absent.
[Zac Bears]: Five present, two absent, the meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, June 21st, 2022 at 5.30 p.m. This meeting is regarding the fiscal year 2023 budget to discuss the Medford Public Schools budget. The City Council has invited Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Chief of Staff Nina Nazarian, Finance Director Bob Dickinson, and relevant department heads and Medford Public School administrators to attend. For further information, aids and accommodations, contact the City Clerk at 781-393 2425 sincerely yours, nicole morale, council president. Thank you everyone for being here today. Um, I just want to start off with a couple of notes. Number one, uh, president morale is not able to join us this week due to illness and her family. Um, and Councilor and I will be joining us late. So we're going to get started. Councilor and I will be here, but president morale will not be able to be here. So I will be presiding. Um, I also want to note for anyone viewing or in the room, uh, just the simple powers of the city council as pertained to the city budget. Our only powers are to approve, reject or cut the budget. We do not have the ability to reallocate funds or increase funds for any department. That certainly doesn't mean we don't want to. Um, so with that, I would like to invite superintendent Maurice, Edouard-Vincent, uh, and assistant superintendent Dave Murphy to present the budget.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: Good evening. I would like to share my remarks from the budget books. To the members of the Medford City Council and the Medford community, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Medford School Committee and members of the Medford Public Schools community for the feedback and insight you provided to the district administration over the course of the last several months as we developed our proposals for fiscal year 23 MPS operating budget. After regular quarterly updates to the Medford School Committee throughout fiscal year 22, we convened public hearings, a series of six, which also featured our annual statutorily required budget hearing. The questions and comments in these meetings and in the numerous previous public meetings in which we have discussed our strategic plan, priorities and goals as a district have helped to inform our decision-making in the development of my FY23 budgetary recommendations. As we discussed several times before the school committee, the district's budgeting process is designed to provide ample transparency around our objectives and challenges. The proposals submitted to the Medford School Committee represent an authentic articulation of the needs and priorities of Medford Public Schools. As has been discussed several times at our public meetings, the original May 25th request of the school committee exceeded the amount that has ultimately been recommended to the city council. Please know, as was stated repeatedly throughout our public budgeting process, the MPS administration prepares for a multitude of contingencies in the development of our operating budget. And we have made a series of strategic modifications and reductions so that we are fully prepared to implement an operating budget consistent with the mayor's recommendation. On June 13th, the Medford School Committee endorsed this budget. While the total allocation may be short of what was requested, something we understand to be true of all municipal departments during this challenging budgetary cycle, the priorities contained herein represent prudent investments in both the Medford public schools and the future of the Medford community at large. These budget proposals have been generated based on a process in which school leaders, department heads, and other stakeholders were tasked with identifying their key strategic priorities in the areas of equity, technology, COVID recovery, and organizational structure. Through the investments contemplated by this budget proposal and those that will follow in the development of our ESSER budget, but time limited federal dollars allocated directly to school districts exclusively for the purpose of combating the effects of COVID-19. We intend to reaffirm our mission to serve the children and young adults of the Medford community. As is always the case in a budget of this size, there is some degree of fluidity within the numbers being presented. The multitude of variables that could affect the final shape and scope of the FY22 operating budget include the ongoing collective bargaining negotiations with our collective bargaining partners. A part of the investments presented in the MPS budget has committed, MPS has committed to competitive and sustainable wage increases. This is a fundamental component of our budgeting strategy that is reflective of the high esteem in which we hold our educator colleagues and the increasingly difficult budgetary landscape in which we find ourselves. While this budget is technically balanced, the narrowness with which we have constructed the budget on the basis of the $68,994,776 recommended allocation has required a series of strategic compromises. These included the shifting of a limited number of personnel line items to one-time funding sources or revolving funds, a practice we would prefer to avoid, but the circumstances and the needs of our students demand. In addition, prior to the June 15th statutory deadline, We did issue a limited number of budget-related non-renewal notices to non-professional teacher staff. It is our hope to identify appropriate position restorations and rehire several staff members as quickly as possible. But some degree of certainty and stability around this budget is required for this to happen. It is for this reason that on behalf of the Medford Public Schools, I ask for this budget's swift approval. As I have previously stated to you, the MPS District Administration sees our obligation to the Medford community to be twofold. First, we must present to the Medford School Committee an authentic and detailed accounting of the budgetary needs. of the individual Medford public school communities. Second, we must recognize the fiscal boundaries in which the city of Medford and all municipalities operate and be prepared to do right by students, regardless of the ultimate size of the appropriation. I am grateful to the Medford School Committee for the public platform they have provided in order for us to articulate these strategic budgetary objectives. And I am grateful to Mayor Breonna Lungo-Koehn and her team for the ongoing partnership and dialogue that we enjoy in service to Medford public school students. The members of the Medford City Council and members of the Medford community should know that these proposals reflect a portion of the district's needs and strategic priorities. And through funding the mayor's recommendation, Medford Public Schools will serve our students in the upcoming fiscal and academic year. Again, we humbly request your approval of this budget. Yours in partnership, Marie Sedgwick-Vincent. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Superintendent. Mr. Murphy, would you have anything to add at this time?
[David Murphy]: I'll just second all the thoughts of the superintendent. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. If my fellow Councilors wouldn't mind me asking three questions from the chair before I turn it over to you, is that acceptable to you? Thank you. So my first question is just if we could get into a little bit more clarification on the process around these strategic modifications that you noted. I just want to make that clear a little more clear, at least in my head. So the school committee requested 71.8 million, I believe about from the city. And then, and that was kind of what the budget process with the hearings and all of that led up to is that is that correct? Yes. And then if you could give me, when were you notified that the appropriation would be 69 million and how long did you have to make those cuts to the proposed budget?
[David Murphy]: Thank you for those questions. The specific dates, frankly, I'd have to go back and refer to various emails to get the exact timeline. But I infer from your questions, was there a need to expedite the revisioning process of the budget? And I would say that the answer to that is correct. As the superintendent said, we do have an ongoing partnership and dialogue with the mayor and her team. And that was true before and during the budget process and continues, as the superintendent said. I think May 9th was the first meeting of the school committee to present the priorities that had been collected as part of the feedback process that the superintendent referenced. And it was sometime in late May or early June when it became clear that the discrepancy between the mayor's recommendation and the school committee's request was going to be of a greater magnitude than we had anticipated. So it was a matter of weeks, I would say. The only thing I would add to that was, as part of that ongoing dialogue, there was an initial indication that the allocation could have frankly, been more dire. And then as a result of that ongoing discourse, we were able to realize some greater capacity. And that's how we ultimately landed at approximately $69 million.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So just to, would it be fair to say June 1st is about when you started?
[David Murphy]: It's definitely in that vicinity.
[Zac Bears]: And then it was presented to the school committee on June 13th and they sent it. That's how it got to us.
[David Murphy]: That's correct. I think the one sort of contextual piece that I do think would be important is that throughout the course of May, the priorities that were being discussed were based on, again, the feedback that we had received from our various stakeholders, and then also working with our current budget to see where was there additional capacity that potentially could absorb some of those priorities. So Councilor Bears referenced the $71.8 million. That is the estimated price tag of essentially the package that the school committee voted for initially on May 25th. So that would be the, I would say that if we were trying to identify the delta between the initial request of May 25th and the school committee endorsed budget of June 13th, it would be $71.8 million less than the 69. The one last caveat, and then this will be the end of this response, I promise. Within that package, we had categorized the various priorities and initiatives that would be emphasized in FY23, and there were sort of built-in contingencies where we had identified priorities that would be appropriate to grant funding. And so while as I, as you have indicated, and we've said publicly, it was a greater Delta and it was a Delta of a greater magnitude than any of us had anticipated. It was not the case that the administration was banking on 100% of the, of the request. And there were already funding streams identified to help defray that.
[Zac Bears]: Right. But it is what you would have preferred that the city or what the school committee would have preferred that the city were to allocate to the public schools. By virtue of the May 25th vote, I would say that is the position of the committee, yes. So that basically means that you were given 13 days to find $2.8 million in further modifications and shifting, I think was another word that was used. So I just want to, I just want that timeline to be, to be clear for everyone. And if I remember the school committee hearings, correct, correctly, there were even items above the 71.8 million that would have been, is it fair to say that there were items above the 71.8 million that maybe would have gone to programming or maybe even would have given the administration and the city more room to say, negotiate contracts if something had been given above $71.8 million?
[David Murphy]: So in the budget process, there were essentially six categories of priorities that were developed. And they weren't a strict hierarchical sequence. The categories were grouped around urgent priorities that would only really be appropriate for the operating budget, urgent priorities that would be appropriate for grant funding, priorities that really would only be appropriate for grant funding, and then other priorities that could go, frankly, in either on the operating budget or on the grant funding, and your, the answer to your question is yes, that in the school committees may 25 vote. what we referred to, and this is in the appendix of the councilor's budget books, in that May 25th presentation, you'll see that there was about $800,000 worth of priorities in category E that were identified as priorities that frankly need to be aired publicly and need to be discussed. And at some point, we believe that it will be in the best interest of the Medford community to invest in those priorities, but to be very candid as we were with the school committee, they are not necessarily the priorities that were particularly ripe for FY23. And therefore, if there was going to be a portion of priorities that are deferred to subsequent fiscal years, those would be in category E. It is true that that would expand the overall capacity of the operating budget, and therefore there's a variety of things, given the fluidity of the budget, that the district would have more flexibility to do. But it is not the case that we had specifically identified greater room to maneuver within the collective bargaining negotiations as a specific budgetary priority. We had said from the beginning that our priority was sustainable and competitive wage increases. And that term, as I know our bargaining partners will attest, can be interpreted differently.
[Zac Bears]: Well, thank you. My second question is, so, so essentially, at least as far as we've been able to discern from the work and effort that it's taken us to do so. The initial budget proposal which would have included the 71.8 million, but also included a number of additional funds for city side departments and other things. would have been funded with $11.25 million in one-time funds. Now this is for the whole city budget, so I'm not asking you necessarily to answer to that, obviously. The estimate was about $8 million from ARPA revenue replacement and 3.5, well, a little less than that, and then about 3.25 from free cash reserves. when, you know, essentially at the same time that the schools and all of our city departments were asked to cut those funds, basically we found out or it was thought to be that there was actually only going to be $4 million in ARPA revenue replacement to cover the budget. So that was what led to essentially almost $5 million in cuts across the city, including the 2.8 million that was reduced from the initial proposal to the proposal that's before us now as a city. Now, what was interesting to me is we found out actually last Thursday, and it was at the Boston Globe on Friday, that in fact we have almost all of that back now. We're back up to $7.2 million in ARPA revenue replacement. But the mayor said that instead of maybe rolling back some of the reductions that had been made when we assumed we only had $4 million, instead she plans to just use less free cash reserves. to instead. So keeping the budget at the new proposed level with the cuts that were made after June 1st. Would it be fair to say that it would, you know, and I think you've already answered this to an extent, but I'd appreciate maybe some details about where it may be used to say that, you know, the school committee wanted 2.8 million more, they wanted 71.8. If that number were to go back up, given the fact that this ARPA issue has been somewhat resolved, almost entirely, we're back up to the initially expected number, would the school department have, or the Medford Public Schools have places where that money could go? Yes. All right. And that's my last question. Well, my last question is this. I think you've kind of made the point already, but to say, essentially we've moved to some accounting practices that the Metro Public Schools have used in the past around revolving funds and one-time grant funds. And in general, one-time funds are not preferred. Basically all the requests that I saw in the school committee process Um, were, uh, you know, things that we would like to keep doing after one time funds run out. Right. Um, and, and I guess my question is, you know, if, if say you were to be level funded in fiscal 24 or, you know, have about a $1.3 million increase as was the increase between last year and this year, or maybe even a little less than that, you know, is the budget sustainable with the methods that have been taken to write, you know, that were requested after June 1st, you know, Are we going to be in a, you know, are these methods that you're using to kind of maintain as many services for the students as possible within the budget number that you've been given? Can we keep doing that going forward or is that not going to be possible?
[David Murphy]: I think to balance the budget on the timeline, it's not like we had one tactic that we just repeated 2.8 million times, right? There were a number of strategies. One of those, just to be very frank, was a, and this is a process that goes on day in and day out in the district throughout the fiscal year, but when you find out that you've only got a short period of time and there's a likelihood of not having the funding you were anticipating, It is a forcing mechanism with respect to scrutiny. And that scrutiny, I think, is something that we, as the administrators, have a responsibility to the community to do on a daily basis. But between late May and June 13, we had a responsibility to do it with a greater sense of urgency. There's no question about that. And so I think that is a responsibility we have in order to ensure that those investments are sustainable, period. If the question is, are there things that we are doing in order to operationalize this budget at $69 million that it would be imprudent for us to do in perpetuity? I think the answer is yes. And I think there are variables that will have to change. There are variables that will have to change internally. we will have to examine all priorities, we will have to examine all structures, and we will hopefully be able to expand capacity in one way or another so that some of those investments that I referenced earlier that are more aspirational in nature in this budget can be put into practice in the years ahead. So not everything we're doing to operationalize FY23 is sustainable in perpetuity. That is definitely true.
[Zac Bears]: Well, thank you for your answers. And just to editorialize for a moment, I think I speak for a lot of people in this room, maybe behind this rail, and I think across the city, when I say that, you know, even before the cuts that have happened since June 1st, or the adjustments or modifications, whatever you want to call them, the reductions that have happened since June 1st, there was even more that we would like to be doing for our public school system. There's now an opportunity to try to get us back up there a little bit. and maybe even potentially avoid some of the less prudent options that we've been forced into using to try to make things work this year. And I think it just really makes the case that the city and the community to get the public school services that our students deserve and that our staff and educators deserve, that we could be doing more to do that. So I really do hope that the executive leadership of our city will make the decisions necessary to do things better. Thank you to my Councilors for your deference and thank you again for answering my questions. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Council President, appreciate it. Just a couple of questions before, I'm not gonna take up too much time, but the budget book, I know that there was some confusion on what was sent out digitally or, Usually we get the list of the names of teachers and the schools. Is that not in this? I didn't see it in mine. Some others have gotten it, I haven't.
[David Murphy]: All Councilors should have received the budget book with the incumbent personnel listed on June 15th, electronically.
[George Scarpelli]: Digitally, so the book that we have right now.
[David Murphy]: We can certainly provide a hard copy of that as well, if there's any requests.
[George Scarpelli]: Like I said, digitally we're having issues with, Some emails are going to my city council account. I don't use that city council account. So I know I've been missing some emails. So some of us get some things, some of us don't. So when you get a hard copy, then you realize that there's something missing. Because I'll be honest, when I was on the school committee, that was a very, very big part of how I looked at our budget because there were, geez, might've been names on there that were added to the budget to the bottom line that had retired. And then you roll it over and all of a sudden, you know, when there's $400,000 in the account that, oh, there was a clerical error. So to me, it's very important to see who's losing what and what schools. And I think that, you know, Councilor Villes brings up some great points. I think that it is important that, you know, we look to see what is going on with this money and try to make sure it goes back to the school system for one, in my view, one group, one group, all those people behind you. Because I think what we're seeing right now and what's frightening to me, Working for municipality, working with public schools partners and different parts of greater Boston league, greater Boston area, you're seeing them thrive. We're seeing Everett for instance, adding 30 professional teachers to schools, so they could support their, their active teachers that if there is an issue. with a teacher that has to leave because of COVID. There's a licensed professional to step right in so the kids don't unhurt and they don't fall back even further than they are. So I think it's important that, you know, negotiation, negotiations is personnel matter. I'm sure you all do what you have to do to make it happen. But the one thing I will ask for with this money that has been found is that it be sent back to the school system enough so the teachers can get what they deserve so we don't lose the teachers that I'm hearing we're losing because, you know, there are teachers that have made inquiries in some of them, and they're gladly taking them. So I too will be supporting Councilor Behr's recommendations to the mayor that some of this money has to go back to the teachers, not to the school committee, not to the city, not to the school department, but back to the teachers to help with negotiations. So we don't lose any more great teachers because it's getting thin. We see it. I see it in my profession. I'm sure you see it every day in your profession. We're losing great teachers. They're stepping away. and we can't have that. So I know whatever we can do to assist in negotiations and that part to boost whatever we need to keep our teachers there, I hope the mayor's listening to us and understanding that we're all taking a hit and we know that. But one of the hits we've taken more often than not, especially through the pandemic, is our youth and our students. We all know that. and to make their lives more uncomfortable, more unstable, and losing more teachers. I think that we need to find a way for this council, now that we found some money, funny, that we found some money that we can give back, that we do that. So I hope we're all in agreement with that. And I'm gonna leave more of my questions till later. I know that I don't wanna monopolize our time. We have a lot of questions. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpellilli. Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you vice president bears and thank you both so much for being here today to present the budget really appreciate it really appreciate your time I know this has been a. Every budget season is onerous i'm sure this one slightly in particular, so thank you so much for all your efforts up to this point. I have just a few questions and they're all kind of towards the same points is and questions as we've already been making. In no particular order and going through the budget book. I know that a lot of the reallocations and maneuvering that impact personnel that impact administrative that impact supplies, it impacts everything to a certain extent. I know that the biggest costs tend to be personnel. I also noticed that there are several departments in which it seemed like there had been a very laudable fine-tooth comb taken to instructional supplies, classroom consumables, and the like. My question is, I know that it's very common, not just in Medgar public schools, but across many districts for classroom instructional supplies to occasionally fall on the teachers' out-of-pocket expenses to kind of fill in the gaps. And I'm curious if, the need to tighten the belt so much in this budget will have an impact on that type of burden for teachers in our schools.
[David Murphy]: I mean so to your to your point, Councilor. There's no school district, I think, in the country for which they don't suffer from the phenomenon of teachers needing to have out of pocket expenses to fund supplies and materials and that's something that I think, frankly, as a profession and as a field, we should be looking at a societal level, like why is that the one place where that happens? I think to some degree it's probably trippable to the passion of the educators who, regardless of how much money we give them to pay for supplies, they're going to go into their own pocket as well. So that's sort of the Um, but it happens too much. There's no question about that. It happens too much here. It happens too much elsewhere. All of the supply lines, to the best of my knowledge, and this is something I'll be happy to go through it more closely yet, but it's a concern that is shared by the superintendent administration, particularly the building principles who oftentimes are on the front lines of, of working most closely with educators who are making the sacrifices that you're, you're referring to, to the best of my knowledge, all of the places in which those types of supply lines were modified or reduced were in places in which there were a pattern or there's maybe some some of the short term pattern of unexpended funds. So there are the way the budget is constructed, as I'm sure many of you know, from from doing this year, and then you're out, there are different types of supply lines and material lines within summer and departments, academic departments, summer at in school budgets. And so it's not uncommon over the course of the year to have unexpended funds in some of these various accounts. And so some of the places just The first one that comes to mind is professional development. It's not supplies, but it would be true for some supply lines as well. There was a $35,000 line item in the district-wide department of the school budget that, due to the amount of grant money that has been coming in, and because of the professional development line items that exist elsewhere in the budget, we saw that it was not being fully exhausted over a multiple period of years. That's not necessarily a bad thing, because as most CFOs will attest, you don't necessarily want to land the $69 million budget on the penny. There has to be some cushion to make sure that you're not finishing in a deficit. But when we saw those patterns, those are places that we were able to make some adjustments. And so it may look as though there's less in the supply line, but typically that would be because it was unexpended funds over a period of time. So my short answer is we're doing everything we can to minimize that. And that would be true with or without the budget challenge.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you for that answer. I appreciate it. And, you know, obviously if there's areas of fact to be trimmed, it's understandable that we looked at first. I think it almost goes without saying in a context where we're I know some of the basis of negotiations is a 2% COLA increase in a circumstance where we're looking at 10% inflation. It's those little accumulating paper cuts. No question. I'm sure it's a shared concern, but thank you for that answer. And again, just towards the overall theme, I was in the curriculum section on the English learner program, really jumped out at me, 37% increase in enrollment from last year to this year. That's a huge spike. I mean, it's great to see, nothing wrong with that. I know it's also a very like resource intensive area of study. So again, towards that same point of doing all we can this year, but then looking to next year and making sure that we have sustainable funding streams. I'm feeling concerned about the outlook for continuing to support a growing program, a resource intensive program. And I know English learning isn't the only department that fits those criteria.
[David Murphy]: No, but it's a pronounced one. And I think we appreciate your raising it because it stands out in various ways. As you say, we had significant spike in enrollment in the newcomer program. That's at our elementary level students with the most intensive English learning needs. And you'll see in the appendix that we presented to the school committee that identified in category B meaning an area that we would prefer to be in the operating budget, but we are prepared to expend grant funds if necessary, our four additional FTEs to be staffed at the McGlynn Elementary School to open up a new newcomer strand. The reason for that is for exactly the point that Councilor Collins is making, is that our budget has to reflect our enrollment needs. And so as our English learner population increases, it is not an option for us to just have more students in a classroom. This past fall, we added an FTE at the Mississippi Tech Elementary School for this exact reason. And it is directly we believe it is directly related to the pandemic, and that we have students who are coming in who have not had the same type of structured educational settings that would have been the case were it not for COVID-19. And due to that nexus with COVID-19, we are prepared to expend ESSER funds that have been allocated to us by the federal government to staff that strand. Now, your point, that's not recurring funding. That funding is going to expire. and the need may not expire. So one of two things is going to be true. We are going to migrate that to the operational budget for purposes of retaining that staff or the need is going to dissipate over time, which may also be the case. And there are many districts that are expecting that to be the case that we won't need this level of intensive EL services over a long period of time as we get further away from the disruption caused by the pandemic. So that is sort of, it is the relation to the pandemic and the hope that this is temporary in nature is essentially why we've chosen to utilize the ESSER funds for that particular personnel challenge next year.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. That makes sense. And I certainly appreciate the context there. And it certainly sounds like a, to a T appropriate use of ESSER funding since it's pandemic related, just to bring this back to the overall theme, at least in my mind, again, and certainly it's as consistent with what you said. You know, speaking of preparing for multiple contingencies, certainly would be helpful if the need would dissipate. But if it doesn't, you know, thinking ahead several fiscal years, I want to make sure that we can support the Medford public schools in fully properly lawfully supporting that need in our future budget cycles, which is why I want to keep raising that point as we work to finish this one.
[David Murphy]: We appreciate that, but frankly, to go back to the point that Councilor Scarpelli made earlier, that is also why that if additional capacity is identified and, you know, as I said, our dialogue with the mayor's office is ongoing, I'm confident that the mayor and the team know our position with respect to the open arms with which we would welcome additional support. but it means that we have to be thinking along the lines of what are some of those challenges that we've bridged for FY23? And we think we'll be okay because some variables might change and the need might decrease. But if the need does not decrease, then we're going to need that capacity to address those challenges. And that will have to be our first priority because these are obviously some of our most vulnerable learners in the district.
[Kit Collins]: Right, well, I appreciate the emphasis there, and I think that's exactly where the focus should be. Just my last question for now. I didn't see this included in the budget book, so maybe it's not something that's routinely included, but I was curious if there is a summary in this proposal for the Delta in paraprofessionals district-wide last year in a typical year versus what's included in this budget.
[David Murphy]: So did you say for paraprofessionals? Yep. In terms of staffing levels, I don't know that that specifically is itemized, but I think depending on sort of the specific questions, something could provide. I mean, I think it's well known probably that we've had a significant challenge filling all of our paraprofessional positions over the course of this year. It is a challenge that we met over the period of time and we are much better more well-staffed today than we were at the beginning of the school year. But the nature of that work and the nature of the economy, frankly, is it's something that I think we have a lot of concerns about going forward next year. And it's something that we have to keep a very close eye on. But I think I'd have to think a little bit about exactly how it would be organized in the context of the current structure of the budget, but certainly something we could provide additional information to the council on if that would be helpful.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I appreciate that. And certainly understanding that there's many factors for the difficulty in filling those positions. Just once more to bring it back to the big picture before I pass the mic on to me, that's yet one more reason why in this conversation about fiscal 23, very interested about bringing in that perspective of how do we increase our capacity long-term overall so that we can be offering a more competitive environment for the type of support staff that our teachers and students need. But I'll leave it there for now. And thank you so much for your answers.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I just wanted to say first and foremost, I appreciate all the work that you, the administrators and the educators have put into the school year. I know it was particularly difficult to come back from remote learning to classrooms with children who hadn't been in an in-person classroom for a while. I know that from my own experience, but I know that from talking to you guys, it's been particularly difficult. given strenuous budgetary times for our city, I know it can often feel like you're being underappreciated in the city. And I just wanted to say from my end, I highly value all the work that you're doing. I want you to know that. I was also, I wanna note that I support Councilor Scarpelli's idea to reallocate that extra money that we found to the schools because God knows we need it. But also, I ran on the platform that was first and foremost on making our making sure that our schools were well funded and that we, the schools didn't have to suffer the brunt of any budget cuts. And unfortunately, with the budget that's in front of us, that's what, you know, what we're seeing. My hope is that the executive leadership of the city decides to invest more in our future and in our education. But with that being said, I did have a few quick questions. I'm sure I'll have more questions that pop up and other questions that have already been asked or will be asked by fellow Councilors. I guess the first one is with regards to the paraprofessional answer. You mentioned some worry about staffing. Do you think the root cause of that problem is pay related?
[David Murphy]: I think it's multifaceted. Certainly it's a factor. It's always a factor. But I wouldn't attribute it to one thing. And I think that would be more speculative than I would be willing to do.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. I also noticed in the block for finance, PR, and HR, and technology, there's a $30,000 cut to the technology servers and equipment line item. Is that $30,000 being covered by grants?
[David Murphy]: Yeah, thank you for that. So we had a significant project that we undertook in FY 22 to replace the virtual network of the district. It provides greater internet security and has led to some greater efficiencies with regard to our internet support and service that we provide to the majority of the district, three elementary schools aren't actually affected by it, but we're the largest concentration of our students are at the middle school campus and at the high school. This infrastructure project supported that. And ultimately, there were capital improvement funds allocated by this council in August or September of 2020 that made that project possible, to which we're, of course, grateful to. view into the city. But as a result, looking forward to the forecast, it's our expectation that most of the investment we have on that side are going to be capital in nature. And therefore, we felt it was a place in which we could make that reduction without feeling a negative impact on the organization. It is also possible that there will be internet technology maintenance type issues that will come up and we'll think, well, it would have been great to have that $30,000, but it would have needed to come from somewhere else in the budget. And so that was just one of the sort of compromises or modifications that I referred to earlier.
[Justin Tseng]: And I have another question that's by definition capital related as well, more related to textbooks. I realized, I noticed that there were cuts to textbooks in line items throughout the whole budget. I guess my question is, is your district wide plan or assessment as to, you know, when we need to be replacing textbooks for different departments, whether this cut that you've had to make affects that at all?
[David Murphy]: Yeah, it's something that has to be looked at on a year to year basis. So sometimes when you'll see a reduction, some of those lines, it's because a department is coming off of the implementation of a particular curriculum initiative. And therefore in this fiscal year, there's not the expectation that we're going to have a sizable budgetary impact in that particular area. That's not to say that in a succeeding fiscal year, there might not be, uh, an initiative that's at a different point in time. And therefore, that number would need to go back up. But it's essentially based on an assessment of what the individual departments will need coming up in the fiscal year. But I think to the question, to Mr. Councilor Behr's final question earlier, the question as to whether each of these various maneuvers we've made to fit the budget into $69 million is sustainable. I think that's an example as to why the answer's no.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I guess sticking with, this is my last more capital related question. I noticed that there was a cut to security infrastructure.
[David Murphy]: I believe it was regarding the replacement of security cameras and... Same answer as technology, that there will actually be greater investment on that front in FY23, but it'll be the recommendation of the administration to the school committee will be that it's the capital funds that are at their disposal as opposed to the operating budget.
[Justin Tseng]: Um, okay. Um, I guess my next question is regarding transport. I noticed that there were some cuts to, um, athletic transport. I believe that was maybe 25 K and then or less than 25 K. And then there was 25 75 K out of people transportation. Sure.
[David Murphy]: Um, the last part of the question one more time. I apologize.
[Justin Tseng]: Oh, so I was just wondering, will there be cuts to transportation services for?
[David Murphy]: There will certainly be no cut to service anticipated as part of this budget. Some of the changes in the numbers are a reflection of identification of capacity within other line items. So, essentially, the line item in which in FY 22, it would, you would look at it and think that is for our primary transportation vendor Eastern bus. That number turned out to essentially be over budgeted and therefore we were able to reduce some of the numbers elsewhere in the budget. that is part of what, frankly, that would have occurred, that scrubbing would have occurred with or without this particular set of budgetary challenges. But it's that, that is to the best of my recollection, that that is what that's attributable to.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Thank you for that answer. I want to yield some time for my fellow Councilors to ask questions. I have more questions for you, but I want to make sure everyone has a chance.
[Richard Caraviello]: That's a career. Thank you, Mr. President. I know, this is my 11th time doing this and sometimes CCS sometimes side of this. This is a little bit more more difficult ones. And, you know, we talked about, you know, our school and, you know, and putting them new schools and new things. Well, our school is only as good as the teachers we have in it. So whether we have a new building or an old building, If we don't have good teachers, it doesn't make a difference what kind of building that you have. I support Councilor Scarpelli's motion to put some of the money back so we can retain our quality teachers in our school. So that's the first thing I'm gonna start with. So I'm looking at some, I was on the council when we started, when we made the commitment to the vocational technical school. with all the improvements. And part of the goal was to bring in children from other schools to help raise money. And where are we on that? Are we bringing students in from other cities and towns?
[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: The answer to that is yes, but we also have our own increased interest in vocational programming. So next year we will have approximately 600 students of our 1,300. participating in vocational programming. So the amount of spaces that are available in particular programs is limited. So we still continue to have partnerships with a few districts, but we have so much interest within our own students first, our Medford students, that some of the programs, you know, electrical is one of them where I think we've like tripled enrollment there. So that's a particular program where there's such great interest we've added educators on the vocational side of the house. So, We want to make sure that we take care of our students first.
[Richard Caraviello]: We're also seeing growth in that end.
[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: Electrical, significant growth. Culinary, health assisting, where the numbers, students are showing greater interest. I mean, we have 15 different programs, but just off the top of my head, I know- What's the status of our culinary program now?
[Richard Caraviello]: Did we replace the teacher who passed away?
[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: And how are we doing there? Is the cafe open for the public? Are we outsourcing? Are kids getting jobs?
[David Murphy]: It's a highly successful program.
[Richard Caraviello]: I know the success of other cities and towns. I've been to events that they've held. I don't see anything happening in our vocational school.
[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: We had primarily staff would use it during lunches and things. We haven't gone back to the way we were pre-pandemic. I think probably starting for next school year to be able to start, you know, having the the public come in in much larger numbers. And we've rearranged vocational programming. So we have the new cosmetology studio upstairs. So there are things where they would like to offer packages where you can get an oil change and eat or go get your hair done. We're trying to do that. So next year will be the year where we'll start, I think, pushing more community outreach.
[David Murphy]: Which I mean, part of the reason that is important, obviously, is that attracts more students. So as students hear of the reputation of some of these programs, they become, they're more likely to get engaged. And in order to have the staffing structure that we want, we need that continued interest. So there are some programs that have waned in terms of popularity, but the commitment by the district to make sure each of those programs has the opportunity to thrive. is certainly still there so much so that to the superintendent's point about expanding capacity for Medford public school students. One of the other things that needed to be done in this budget was we're prepared to tap some of the tuitions that were the revenue that was generated from out of district tuitions will support an additional at least one additional FTE, which will in turn support students, Medford students, increased interest and in this case, health assistance, but potentially a couple of other programs that we're seeing some uptick as well.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm looking at your maintenance budget and you have, you know, you get a small increase there, $26,000. Is this going to be enough money to maintain the buildings. I know I know we've had issues over the years. It is already money and anybody built into this for any kind of upgrades if anything.
[David Murphy]: Yeah, I mean, you're in black 41 right now. I have concerns and those are concerns that we have relayed to the city administration that the 69 is very, very tight. They are aware of that. And as I said, that's a conversation that's ongoing and we appreciate that partnership, but we actually increased, it was either 150 or 200,000 based on utility bills from this year that is attributable in part to some of the modifications that were made to increased air quality. And I'm sure also attributable, obviously, to inflation and the economic circumstances. But if those conditions, economic-wise, continue to worsen, then, yeah, I think there is risk that that funding isn't sufficient. Now, maybe there's other savings that's realized based on unexpended expenses. But I think it is accurate to say that this is a very, very tight budget.
[Richard Caraviello]: Why is the McGlynn School the only school that has a contracted cleaning service?
[Marice Edouard-Vincent]: In the high school.
[Richard Caraviello]: In the high school, but why come the other schools don't have a contract cleaning service?
[David Murphy]: Well, frankly, I wasn't here when the decision was made, and the contract with the cleaning service is expiring in the fall. And so that will be a decision that the school committee will have the opportunity to make at that time. But the size and complexity of the campuses, I'm sure is at least one of the reasons.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I'm seeing the cut in the health services. This $45,000. Yeah, I mean, I would think get especially, you know, let's have a substance abuse program.
[David Murphy]: It's not in the substance abuse program. The $45,000 reduction in the health services block is attributable to a Medicaid administration position that ultimately was unfilled. And it was a determination by the administrators in that area that those responsibilities could be absorbed elsewhere without having to bring on what would have probably have amounted to a 0.5 FTE. That was the initial plan going into FY. it would have been administrative support of some kind, yeah. And so that work has just been absorbed elsewhere in the budget, and so it was $45,000 that was unexpended in FY22, and therefore was one of the modifications that was made preparing for FY23.
[Richard Caraviello]: And one last question. I'll come back later for this stuff, but what are we doing to, in these crazy times that we live in, to ensure the safety of our students? And when all this all the things we know the great things we see on television, the cities. We have teachers being trained. Are they getting extra training. We bringing in security to protect the children's schools. I mean, I just see it looks like they all have one one person in each building.
[David Murphy]: There's one security monitor at the door of all schools and then in the in Medford High School, given its size. There are either I believe there are four individuals that were varying shifts but our work in that area. So I think all I would say, Councilor, is that it is our first priority. It's one that I think in Medford and anyone else who works in this field recognize that the risks and the dangers have evolved over time. And it's something that has to be factored into all of our decision making and making sure that we're creating school environments that are in a variety of ways, secure, safe and affirming to all of the students that are there as well.
[Richard Caraviello]: I know in the past we've talked about the doors, the locking system on the doors, are they all upgraded to a standard that people won't be walking in and out of?
[David Murphy]: Yeah, I don't want to get into like the sort of an itemized list of the specifics of security measures. Have we upgraded those systems? Upgraded from when? I'm not exactly sure what the time. I know in the past we've had problems with the doors locking and you know people just kind of going in and out of them. I think it's something that we have to be continuously committed to improving.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I think Councilor Tseng asked about the obscurity of the cameras. Is there adequate cameras in every school to monitor?
[David Murphy]: Again, I think it's something we have to be continuously committed to improving. So there are definitely improvements that we need to make, but there are certainly cameras in every building. And I'll come back later.
[Zac Bears]: go to Councilor Collins and Councilor Knight.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. A clarifying question for you, if you don't mind. I know that the recommendation in front of us is about $69 million. I saw in one of the budget presentation slides that the total for category A priorities, plus fixed costs, plus the 2% cost of living increase, that amounts to over 71 million. So my question is, is that correct? And does the $69 million proposal in front of us, just simply the fixed costs plus the 2% cost of living upgrades, are there any of those category A priorities that are able to fit into this budget?
[David Murphy]: So category A is the priorities that were identified as both most urgent and appropriate for the operating budget. And it is not the case that the $69 million will support all of the priorities itemized in the category A presentations made to the school committee. The additional FTE in the special education, certified in special education at the high school, it will include that. That's something that we did retain despite all the other changes that were made. There were 4.0 FTEs and math coaches at the elementary school that are, the vision is for them to be help with the implementation of a new math curriculum that was adopted this past spring. Our working plan right now is to have two FTEs that will be split between the four elementary schools and for those to be grant funded at least at the beginning. To go back to the point about what's sustainable and what is not, this would be a portion of our planning that I think would be fairly characterized as not particularly sustainable. I would also say that in the event greater capacity is realized, either with that number going up or realizing other expenditures within $69 million that potentially can be recouped. And there's always something that we can find in $69 million, but whether there's $140,000 to spend toward two math coaches is frankly an open question, and I don't know the answer to it yet. But in the event we do identify that capacity, I would anticipate that being the first of the personnel priorities that would be addressed based on them being category A. And it's something that the school committee heard us say many, many times, which is that we've already made the investment with respect to the math curriculum. We want to make sure that we're capitalizing on that investment and making the most of it, both in terms of the impact it will have on students at the elementary level who are coming back from a major disruption to their mathematics education, but also for members of the community who want to know that when we pony up significant money for a new math curriculum, that we're also having the staffing structure necessary to make the most of it. And so it doesn't include everything. It does include some. Others we found contingency planning for. And in the event we're able to do more, that will be at the top of the list.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you for that clarity. I really appreciate that. And I, of course, across this whole process, really appreciate your work, your nimbleness with finding, trying to find as much grant funding revolving funds for what doesn't fit into the $69 million number. Just again, to very intentionally belabor the point, you know, I know that category A is just the very top layer of the wishlist and students and teachers deserve everything on that wishlist. And we need to be thinking about the things that we really inconceivably can fund. this year, how to expand that pie for years forward. And I think the analogy of being able to actually capitalize on a previous investment is a very apt one, widely across the school budget and across other city departments as well. So I really appreciate that. I think that that has to be how we're thinking about investing this year and years forward. We have great bones. We need to make sure that we make good on the fledgling investments that we have made. So thank you. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Point of information, Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I think is it maybe you can give me some give me some direction because the budget book we said the PD has been trade cut. And we're going to look at mostly grant funding to try to help that. Now as a former teacher I remember being a physical education, health teacher that's pays a very important part in the educational process now. And I still remember sitting through Chicago math. And that was the fact that we just had to put teachers in some places just to fill the professional development requirement. So using the math coaches, for example. What is the criteria that math coaches are all trained in this curriculum to support our elementary school teachers? Is that what I'm hearing?
[David Murphy]: That's certainly the vision of that investment, yes.
[George Scarpelli]: Okay, so it hasn't yet.
[David Murphy]: We don't have math coaches right now. This is a funding priority.
[George Scarpelli]: Right, so I know we lost them, correct? We lost them last year's budget, so this year we're trying to bring it back. Two years ago, so we're trying to bring them back now.
[David Murphy]: Yes, in association with this new curriculum.
[George Scarpelli]: Right, but without the budget, professional development, I think that's kind of scary that how we're going to ensure that our professionals are going to be trained in what we're offering them if we don't have, we know as well as I do that grants don't always come into the cookie cut that you're asking for. So it's a little frightening to hold that.
[David Murphy]: I just want to be clear. When I spoke about the professional development earlier, there's professional development line items at various portions of the budget. there's one $35,000 professional development line that was going on expended. That is something that we've moved. It's either, it's frankly, it's either Essar or revolving funds. I'd have to go back and look. We're still going to do it.
[George Scarpelli]: So it was moved to Essar.
[David Murphy]: We're still doing that. It's just that it's, it's, it's how we balance the operating budget. But I think to your point, councilor Scarpelli, I think that separate and aside from where there's funding and what we do for investments, it's our obligation as an administration to make sure that educators are going to relevant professional development that is making not just the most of the community's money but of educators time and I think that's something that is a priority that's shared throughout the administration.
[George Scarpelli]: I appreciate that and the last thing I know that Councilman Collins brought up I believe Councilman carb yellow. M. H. S. Security. I know we lost a huge retiree, correct? And security in Medford High School. One of the best people I know. So we're not filling that with an act. Actual security specialists. It's really just door monitors. We're really not.
[David Murphy]: So gathering the Mr. Mazaker, as you say, retired after an extended period of devoted service to the Medford Public Schools. I only had occasion to work with Bill over the last couple of years, but I would echo your comments, both in terms of his commitment to the district and particularly his commitment to the students of the district. That was something that was palpable, frankly, even someone like myself who only had the opportunity to know him for a very brief period of time in his work in the Medford Public Schools he visits on occasion, which we're grateful for. But we are in the process of identifying how all of the resources with respect to security monitors, our security technician, as well as the work that we have, our ongoing partnership with the Medford Police Department and the school resource officers who are also in our schools essentially every day and working closely with our administrators.
[George Scarpelli]: So to that point, we do have a student resource officer in the building? Correct, we have two. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Thank you.
[Adam Knight]: determine microphone or not. Mister Murphy looking at the budget here and it's a financial items a question to you. We have an item called the school committee legal salary in the amount of $66,325. I can explain that expenditure goes to is that for. Mister Greenspan's contract.
[David Murphy]: Yes, Mister it's that's going to turn.
[Adam Knight]: And what functions of Mister Greenspan provide to the school department does he provide contract negotiations does he provide financial background compliance with.
[David Murphy]: If he's watching I don't want to leave out any of the specific responsibilities that he can hold me accountable, but he advises both the school administration and the school community on a wide variety of legal matters. essentially functions as a general counsel, collective bargaining personnel matters, and a variety of other what in his field would be referred to as school law matters that will come up on a day to day basis. Are you aware of any other department in the city that has their own legal counsel?
[George Scarpelli]: I'm not intimately familiar with other departments. Mr. President, I hate to cut counsel night off, but working with our legal counsel, Mr. Greenspan, it's it's it's a process where exactly why we need here at the council. He is probably one of the best people to have. He's no nonsense. He's a person that that supports both the education process and the legal processes. It keeps everybody in line. I know that he was invaluable to the school committee. We could call him any day to make sure that we were upholding our responsibility to the school committee. So I know where you're getting at.
[Adam Knight]: You're reiterating my point exactly. This is what we need. We need counsel as well. And I've had the opportunity, I've known Howard great spirit now for, geez, going back to at least 2007. I've sat across the table with him. I've negotiated contracts with him as an employee representative for the union. So I understand Mr. Greenspan's role and what he does here. It's also been brought to my attention that there has been some various legal matters that have been settled on the school side, whether it be surrounding grievances, arbitrations, and the like. I'm looking in the budget here and I don't see a line item that you have to fund that stuff. Where would that money come from? Would that be a request for a supplemental appropriation to the city? Potentially, it could be.
[David Murphy]: As Councilor Knight has stated, the school committee has entered into settlement agreements on at least two occasions, I believe two occasions only, I shouldn't say at least, over the course of the last fiscal year. Some of that is covered by the city's insurance carrier and for that reason is not reflected in any of our budgeting documents. There are other pieces that, due to the nature of the settlement, It's structured over multiple fiscal years. It's also portions are essentially incorporated into what we would refer to as our fixed cost increases, and that that's why it's not necessarily identified as a specific line item. But certainly if there's any information to counsel.
[Adam Knight]: would like on that we certainly if you could just provide us with a report, just outlining, you know, what cases have settled how much the cost is and then where the funding source is going to come from what has come from I think that would be helpful to us for him and I think the full financial picture. Thank you. Also, Mr. President, through you to friends here. You know, I truly believe that the success of our public schools is the catalyst for the success of our community and the success of our city. When you look at, you know, the impact that public schools have in a community, they drive up property values, right? Which in turn generates a new tax base, expands revenues for us, right? I've never fully understood the methodology that's been used here in the city of Medford to determine the school department's appropriation to funds when it comes down to city budget. And it's really been a mystery to me, but the one constant through all of it, no matter what the budgetary constraints have been, The one catalyst for success has always been those people with their boots on the ground in the classroom, in guidance, in athletics, that are there with our children every single day. I think that the teachers in the classroom are the ones that make the biggest impact on our children's life, top to bottom, right? When you think about how much time a student spends in school, right? $1,500 a year, right? It's almost more time than you could spend with your own child because they're at school for 10 months out of the five days a week, right? So the teachers in the classroom spend a great deal of time with our children, the people that we trust. I support Councilman Scarpelli's motion to reinvest money back into the classroom, to support and retain the good teachers that we have here in this community, to keep some of that institutional knowledge that we have here around. When we look at the school department's budget, because of the way and the methodology that we use to determine the appropriations, what we've seen time and time again is really a level funded budget that gets tweaked here, gets tweaked there, gets tweaked here, gets tweaked there. When the pandemic struck, I called on the mayor to present us with a zero-based budget, to break it all down and build it back up again. to determine what our community values are and what our community needs are going forward now based upon the snapshot in time. I've always believed, I'll say it again, that the success of our community is contingent upon the success of our public schools, and that's where we need to be investing money. So I wholeheartedly support Council Member Kelly's motion. I thank Mr. Dickinson over there for finding the $4 million. He must have been working very hard. He's like Lee Majors, we're going to call him. He's Lee Majors. He's either the $6 million man or the fall guy. We'll see what happens at the end of the year. At the end of the day, I'm very excited to see that we have an opportunity to restore some of these funds and to provide community with a little bit of fiscal relief and a little bit of more fiscal certainty. I'm not too pleased with the overall scope of this budget that we've seen here from the administration, nor am I pleased with the process. What I am pleased about is the fact that we've all recognized that there are deficiencies and there are certain things that we're all rallying around and one of those things is the people that are in this room right here. So I want that to be clear that this is something that if this budget is going to get through this council and pass with a vote for me that it's going to have to address some of the needs that are coming up and some of those needs are going to have to be handled at the collective bargaining table with dignity and respect because that's what they deserve. They deserve the right to bargain. They deserve the right to bargain in good faith and that's what they should get.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. My colleagues would indulge me unless, do you have any followups? Thank you. Appreciate all the questions from my fellow councillors. And I do hope we will have some time for public participation. So I'll try to keep this as brief as possible, but I just want to really, again, try to scope the picture of the situation that we're in. As I read it, I just found it was 68.2, right? That was about the operating budget for fiscal 22. 67.4, I believe. 67.4, okay. Yep. Well, that's not what I have here.
[David Murphy]: Well, that makes these numbers even worse. You may be looking at the numbers that include some of the offsets on the city side, administrative costs and things like that, that ultimately do count toward our NSS. the budget book that you saw last year was 67.4. That was inclusive of the 3.7 million of ARPA funding.
[Zac Bears]: All right, well, and I apologize, Tom, my former math teachers for doing it on the calculator right now. So that means that you requested, or the school committee requested 4.4 million more in fiscal 23 than fiscal 22. and instead is receiving about 1.6 more. So it's 4.4 million was the request, 1.6 is the actual growth.
[David Murphy]: That sounds about right.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. It's just 69 minus 67.4. It's less than it was asked for and less than what we, you know, would be. All right. So again, I just want to put that in scope. That's a significant amount of money that was requested and not being appropriated. What is the, if you have it, you know, I know this is a difficult question, but just about what is the annual fixed cost growth for the, for the budget?
[David Murphy]: It varies. I mean, it's driven primarily by steps and lanes and increased costs and special education, primarily tuitions and transportation. So it is, it is a really difficult number to sort of like put a sort of a dart on. But, you know, In a given year, approximately $2 million is not unreasonable to expect, with about half of that being steps and lanes, contractual increases, and another half being, this year, for instance, we're estimating 750,000 on increased fixed costs and special education. That could change in November very, very quickly. So it's a hard thing to really nail down. that if the point is that like this increase does not appear to fully accommodate the, what can be presumed in any given fiscal year to be the increased fixed costs, I think the answer to that's yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so we're not even necessarily meeting fixed cost growth, nevermind. trying to add above that.
[David Murphy]: Additional priorities, initiatives, or in our case, particularly in 2022, 2023, additional needs and challenges that we've identified that are necessary in order to support students in this context. One of the refrains you heard us say a lot last year was, we don't want the COVID-19 disruption to define the academic careers of students in the metropolitan public schools during this period of time. That's still true but that risk is still there, which is just I just want to be very candid because I genuinely appreciate and respect the advocacy both from the school committee, and from this council, and as I've said the dialogue and partnership that we've had with the mayor's office. But additional funding, to be clear, our challenges and the staff we need are going to exceed any funding that could be appropriated. And so I don't want there to be any misconception that somehow some of these other variables are going to magically become easier to work through if in the event there is some additional investment that's recognized. Because these challenges are, are of a magnitude that is is going to exceed anything that we could reasonably expect at this point.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I think that comes down to the definition of reasonably expect not to, and I understand that what you see as reasonably expect is what you know I'm not surprised that the person who's writing the budget has to reasonably expect the worst case scenario, but quite frankly, the status quo worst case scenario in this city has been happening for far too long. And the impact on the city, on the schools, on our city departments, on everything, you know, we got teachers in here. I have teachers who have been in this district for 20, 30 years, who taught me, who taught my sister, who love this city, have wanted to spend their whole careers here. And they're saying, I don't know, man, I don't know if I can stick it out. And, you know, and then we ask them to go drive home on broken roads and then they can't afford to live in the city either to boot. So, you know, and I understand that that's, you know, you're in the position that you're in, you get the appropriation that's sent to you by the mayor, but that appropriation needs to be higher. So I want to ask a couple of more questions. And these are some guesstimates here. You have the 2% COLA at 1.1 million. I estimated that over three years at 2% for your whole staff at like 4.1 million. Is that fair?
[David Murphy]: I would guess that's a little high because the 1.1 is the FY23 number. And so there's a number just slightly less than that, that would be the retroactive to FY22, provided that it would be a, that would be there too. So I think for that reason, I guess, I don't know the number off the top of my head, but it would be a little bit lower than that.
[Zac Bears]: And then, based on that higher number, you're saying, I did 3% across every contract and I came out with 5.2. That's over the whole three years. So we're talking like a million dollars over 1.1 million over three years is the difference between 2% and 3%. At least that's what I'm, again, back in the napkin, happy to have a math teacher check it, but yeah.
[David Murphy]: I don't think those numbers are way off, except that I think that in a vacuum, they can be misleading in terms of the overall budget. I'm not going to engage in collective bargaining.
[Zac Bears]: I'm trying to put the numbers together for a future budget, because we have a structural deficit in the city. We're not even meeting the fixed cost growth of our public school system in the next year's budget from the previous year's budget. We've been asking you guys to do more with less as long as, I mean, I remember, you know, George was on the school committee when I was in high school. And I remember when we lost, you know, the marching band instructor and, you know, when teachers were doing more with less. It's been decades that we've been asking our district to do more with less. If you look at, if you took your budget and adjusted it for an inflation, you're getting like $250,000 more a year for the last 16 years. It's not any way to run a school district. So I'm just trying to get that. I'm not asking to engage in collective bargaining here at all. I'm just trying to get the numbers straight in my head. And I guess my real question is if, if this council and the mayor collaboratively went to the voters of this city, and said, we would like you, we would ask you, and we believe that we need for these purposes, for funding our schools, for funding our library, for doing more for our DPW, for doing more for the basic level services of this city. And we could meet your fixed cost growth. We could maybe fund A, B or B and C out of this. Is it not, you know, if we can meet all that, Would it improve the lives of public schools? Yes, it would significantly improve the lives of our men for public school students and our families. And would it even potentially be possible that we could find another 300 $400,000 a year for the workers to I mean,
[David Murphy]: I'm not going to comment on sort of like the community's decisions with regard to tax rates. I just think that's inappropriate.
[Zac Bears]: Well, the community decisions around tax rates directly impact your ability to create a budget.
[David Murphy]: They do, but our responsibility is to create the budget. based on the capacity that we have. The answer to your question is yes. The reason that Dr. Edouard-Vincent and I work in the field that we do is because we happen to believe that the engine of any community, whether it's a small suburb or a large urban district, That what is going to dictate the quality of life for everyone, whether you have kids in the system or not, is the opportunities you afford to your children and young adults. That's something that we believe so strongly that regardless of what comments we make here, we've decided to do it for a living. That is a deep philosophical belief. But it is also our responsibility as the professionals to make sure that regardless of what decisions this community makes, this public school system functions at a high level and affords the best quality opportunities possible to students.
[Zac Bears]: Well, I appreciate that answer because, you know, I know that you're not the one who is going to end up making a decision if this council chooses to ask. and work with our community to do more for our schools. So I understand that I'm asking you a question.
[David Murphy]: It will be our responsibility to make good on it. And whatever, whether you give us $69 million or whatever that number it is, it is our responsibility to make sure that every single penny is spent on behalf of students and improving the quality of their education. But that also might mean making unpopular decisions or pointing out facts that not every constituency is going to like.
[Zac Bears]: And that is also part of our job and we'll have to continue to do that. I understand that. I guess really the point that I'm trying to make. is that I think it's about time that this community gave the resources to our public schools and our city departments so that you can make good on good and not make good with bad. And that's what I'm hoping that when this council, through the rest of our budget process over the next few weeks, seven days, you know, it's been a rush of a month that over the next seven days that we can actually set us on a path to do that. I know that's not your decision. That decision is not within your purview, but what I'm hearing is that if the money came, we could do more for our students, our families and our educators and our staff. And that's what we need to do. So that's true. I believe that this council will be unified in making that case. I personally believe that that your administration and that our team and all of our staff and educators across our city, if provided the resources that we should be providing, could do good with more.
[David Murphy]: We could and we are very grateful to you for your advocacy and for this honorable body's work and the support that you've provided to our educators, our families, our team, and most importantly to our students.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And again, I just am hopeful that we can get there sooner rather than later. Councilor Scarpelli. in terms of the actual number. I'd have to, your microphone's on. Councilor Scarpelli's question to anyone who's listening was about charter school reimbursement.
[George Scarpelli]: We haven't yet?
[David Murphy]: We don't have it yet? It's in flux to some degree because there's some ongoing debate about it, but I can send that along with the report with the settlements that Councilor Knight asked for.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. And I do make that as a motion to the record that we ask the mayor to revisit the additional funding that to support the assistance and negotiations for our teachers to move their process in a positive light. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, could you read back the motion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I have before the microphone got muted, that Councilor Scarpelli moved to ask the mayor to revisit the additional funding to support teachers, and then I lost the feed.
[Zac Bears]: If I may, Councilor Scarpelli, I think it was a motion to request that the mayor appropriate additional funding, looking at the increased estimate of ARPA revenue replacement to support, and I'm gonna say it this way, all of our educators and staff in our public schools.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, hang on. I just wanna make sure I have this right. Councilor Scarpelli moved to ask the mayor to appropriate additional funding to reflect the increased ARPA funding in a way that supports all of the educators in our public schools.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, and I believe Councilor Scarpelli wanted to add through the negotiation process to that motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, hang on. Okay, got it.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, you may please call the roll. Actually, the motion is approved by Councilor Scavalli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And here comes the roll call. Vice President Bears, I'm gonna call you last because you're presiding. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins?
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell is absent. Vice President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. And again, I don't want to be a buzzkill, but I just want to remind everyone watching or here that we can only make recommendations to the mayor and hope that she accepts those recommendations. We wish that we had more power than that, but our city charter does not afford it to us. Any further questions from, go to Councilor Collins and Councilor Tseng.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. And not really a question, not really directed towards you, but just for the record, while we have you, I know we're getting to public participation and getting towards the close. I just wanted to stay for the record in the spirit of Councilor Scarpelli's motion. I think that the values undergirding this whole conversation, at least in my perspective, is that teachers and all staff deserve a lot more than we as a city are currently able to offer. And that doesn't sit well with me. We need to, fund our values so we can act on them. Values of pay equity, representation in our schools, teacher to student ratios, so much else. If we don't act on our values, they really don't matter. They really don't count for much. So I just wanted to state that for the record. I really thank all of the teachers here, every student and family member and staff person involved with Medford Public Schools who's been engaged with this process. We really appreciate it. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Cohen. Councilor Tseng. On, you know, in that vein, I think it's very clear that when teachers have the resources to, you know, to do well, when they win, students and families win and our city wins as a whole as well. So I think that's, again, really important to note, you know, you guys are the reason I'm here. I was in your classrooms no less than five years ago. And so I wanted to make sure that you knew that, you know, we as a city council do support you guys. And we won't stand for a budget that allocates, you know, what would functionally be a 10% cut to the services of the school district, given inflation, when adjusted for inflation, you know, It's not anyone's choice in this room, right, that we have this budget number right now. My hope is that the executive leadership listens to the council and listens to our families and our teachers and our administrators and really ups that appropriation to the schools. I did have a few quick questions, excluding the ones that have already been asked. I was particularly concerned about the COLA and things like that. We're getting to. running out of time, so I just wanted to be quick. I saw that there were cuts to the line item for contracted health services. Is that money also being, are the services we're providing now also being found in different line items?
[David Murphy]: Contracted health services? So contracted services is a line item that appears in several departments, and frankly, it can mean a variety of things. Typically it is some type of work outside of the scope of the duties of our full-time FTE personnel. Medford, historically, has had a robust investment in health services that Almost all schools have a 2.0 FTE as a school nurse. It's not something, frankly, that a lot of communities can say, and I think it's a testament to the community of Medford understanding the comprehensive nature of educational services and the well-roundedness with which we have to approach that work. We have, in addition to that, in addition to the historical commitment provided a significant amount of ESSER investment in having additional district-wide nurses, which is part of how we were able to execute our comprehensive COVID testing program in partnership with Tufts University. I frankly would have to go back and look and see what that specific reduction is. But the only reduction that I'm aware of in health services is the $45,000 investment of the Medicaid administrative services that I referenced earlier, and a reduction in ESSER-funded FTEs because we're not running the testing program anymore, and we're sort of trying to right-size that. We are still increasing the nursing services FTE allocation from the pre-COVID levels by way of a full-time nurse at the Curtis Tufts High School, which is made possible through the tuition funds that flow into that building, as well as one district-wide, we would often refer to as a floating nurse, to provide for some additional support related to the lingering effects of the pandemic.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. On the subject of health, could you give us a little bit of insight into what this budget provides for in terms of mental health services?
[David Murphy]: Sure. So in category B, there are three additional adjustments. Category B, which is again the priority as presented to the school committee over the course of their budgeting process, in which we found investments that we are preference would be to charge to the operating budget that we see as Sir appropriate and there are 3 star just a Councilor positions that will provide a variety of stuff services and support as they do every day in our schools and that will help bring our ratios which are already favorable in terms of national standards. but they'll be even more favorable based on that additional investment. I believe it will be an average with the exception of the high school, which I would say is more a 2.0 adjustment Councilor ratio at each school with that investment.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. In terms of school meals, I know there was, you know, we received money for school meals. When that money expires and if the state doesn't do anything, is there a plan for how, what that would look like?
[David Murphy]: So as I imagine, The council is aware this is a priority that has been championed on a principal basis but in a very passionate way by the Medford school committee for an extended period of time and as I understand that time preceding the pandemic and certainly my time at Medford. And there was discussion with our administration and the committee that with the federal mandate of free lunch for all students expiring at the end of this school year, the magnitude of the challenge of providing free lunch to all students is difficult both from a budgetary perspective in terms of just not being able to have the financial resources to do it internally within our budget. but also from a planning perspective, both the schools and the city, there's so many variables have been different over the last two school years. First, with only 60% of the students in person over only a portion of the year. And then this year with 100% of lunch being free, it's very difficult for us to put a price tag on what that would cost at the local level. I think the estimate I gave to the school committee was somewhere between 650,000 and 1.1 million. And, you know, it is not a good feeling, frankly, as in my role to come before the school committee and say that I've narrowed the price down to somewhere within $600,000. And so, what the committee has voted is to ensure that we will continue to communicate to the city. that it's our expectation as a school district that this community will find a way to do that. But we have been very clear with the school committee, and I think that the city administration would feel the same way, that this is a problem that really needs to be addressed at the state level, that municipalities do not have the capacity at this point. And we can talk about why that is, and there are reasons for it. But at this point, a municipality trying to take on this challenge as an individual community is a tall order, and it is something that we have ongoing dialogue. We've consulted with administrators in the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. I've had a number of conversations with my counterparts in other communities, and it certainly, if the state fails to put this into their budget, it is something that we will need to spend a lot of time working on in the summer, and all I can really commit to is communicating openly and honestly with the school committee and with the community as to what it is we'll have the capacity to do. And again, it's my hope that when the final FY23 budget for the state is adopted, this will be included because it is really not something that I think can appropriately be addressed at the local level.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you for the answer. Do you know of any municipalities that do handle that or?
[David Murphy]: Well, there are other communities that based on their demographics, lunch is free and they qualify for that. Certainly Boston's the case, and I believe Lawrence as well, but I don't know of any others of our size for which that would be true.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: And then the last, just if I, oh, sorry, last one.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, this one should be quick. I noticed that there wasn't, is it true that there's no director of fine arts position in here or?
[David Murphy]: So we are moving to a teacher leadership model. We have identified the candidates. I don't believe the superintendent has actually announced that choice publicly. And I believe there was departments maybe learning of that imminently. So I don't, I think we'll probably not comment on that right now, but there will be individuals that will be serving in a coordinator role, both for the art and music departments, respectively.
[Justin Tseng]: I understand. I just heard a concern over the weekend about that. And, you know, parents, teacher parents, they were wondering if that was too much of a responsibility for a teacher to take. It's the norm in most districts. Okay. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I'm going to go to Councilor Caraviello in just one moment. Just for folks who are here, we are going to go to public participation after the Councilor's questions, but I do want to encourage all of you, this Council will be voting on the actual budget, likely next Tuesday, and we need to hear We've heard tonight the situation that we're in in the public schools. There's a lot of situations across the city that are similar. What we really need is for folks to come next week when we will be considering the budget. So we will take public participation tonight after this, but I really want to encourage people to come next week if you can. I know it's the end of school on Thursday, so I'm sure people have plans. also to come if possible by zoom. There is a zoom link. We really just want to hear from people what the impact of this budget at this level is going to look like for our community. So I just wanted to get that out there because we're past seven and I know people probably have other plans, but I just wanted to say it before people start to leave. So I'm pleased if you can come next week and say what it, what it would mean for us to have a better budget than the one that's before us now, I'm going to go to councilor Caraviello. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Richard Caraviello]: Just a couple of questions. Um, Where are we with the Curtis Tuff School? Is that going to be funded going forward? Yes. And I know we take students from outside the district also.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Richard Caraviello]: Has that been a help?
[David Murphy]: Yeah, it I mean we don't do it for purposes of making a profit obviously, but the as a result of those tuitions were able to increase the nursing FT passing the school from a point either I believe it's from 0.4 to 1.0.
[Richard Caraviello]: My 6 to 6, you know, I know there's not a lot of students there, but it's a good program and it you know for those few students and the but this is going to say something of inclusion. Now, five out of seven Councilors that sit in this room right now are educated by teachers in the room now, former teachers. Two Councilors have children still in school. I have grandchildren in school. So not only do we care as elected officials, we care as parents, and we care as grandparents where our kids are going to go going forward. And, you know, I'm one of the lucky ones that got to go to that school when it was brand new. I graduated out of that when it was a brand new school. And, you know, I know other kids, I know Sean, because we're the old people in the room. But, you know, we can't, this group cares, you know, we care as parents and then grandparents to know where our children are going to go. Further, you know, and someday, Councilor Tseng and all the other Councilors, they'll have children that maybe will, you know, go to the school and hopefully it'll still, we want it to thrive and, you know, and always do better than it's doing. You know, we can say, you know, and like you said, there's never enough money for the school. You never know, you know what I'm saying? We can always, there's always needs they can have, but I can promise you this, you have the support of this council for what you need, and we're gonna do the best that we can. Like I said, not only are we elected officials, but we're parents and grandparents of children that are in the school, and we want the best for those kids, too. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Let me go to zoom really quickly. I do see chief of staff Nazarian, if you. My apologies I haven't been looking at the zoom screen. Happy to recognize you.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you very much. Vice President Bears I and I appreciate obviously the fact that the city council members go through their questions first I have had my hand up so I just want to mention that, you know, this isn't specific to any of the votes or any of the other discussion that's taken place but I want to clarify an important point. In your comments at the start of this hearing, Vice President Bears, you summarized that Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn was proposing to use one-time funds in excess of $8 million if the ARPA revenue replacement number was higher. I believe you also suggested that the order of magnitude may be over $10 million that the mayor would have allocated in one-time funds when you referenced the amounts of about $7 million and $3 million. Assuming I understood you correctly, this is false information. To be clear, the mayor has said since she addressed this council at the first budget hearing that the city needs to wean off of one-time funds. And it's important to take into account the timeline in which the city will have ARPA funds available and how that affects the trajectory of revenue options to the city. ARPA funds cannot be obligated after December 31st, 2024. As a result, the city will have two additional fiscal years to use ARPA funds to replace revenue. During that time, the city has to be mindful and planning properly to reduce its reliance on one-time funds. In summary, I'd ask the council and the public to please review the June 7th meeting where the mayor made several statements as to the importance of the city reducing its reliance on one-time funds. And the new information about ARPA funds doesn't change the nuance here that whether ARPA or other one-time funds, it's her objective to ensure that the city's taxpayer dollars are being carefully considered to get back to pre-pandemic budget structure where the city's costs are below the city's reoccurring revenues. At present, due to the economic impacts of the global pandemic, the city's costs are outpacing its revenues. The tough reality is that the city and all Massachusetts communities are generally constrained by Proposition 2.5. That said, the mayor and several key staff have been working for the last two and a half years to increase revenues, and additional information on that is available on the city's website in the FY 2023 budget book. Again, it is and has been the mayor's message since the first budget hearing that we need to taper off the use of one-time funds. Thank you, I just wanted to clarify that so there wasn't any misunderstanding of the mayor's approach, an important message shared with the council and public.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam Chief of Staff. I just want to note that the City Council was provided with a draft budget of over $205 million that would have relied on $8 million in ARPA revenue replacement and $3 to $3.5 million in free cash. So that's what we were initially seeing. That changed on June 1st. Whatever anyone else wants to say, that's what happened. And so that's what we have. If folks don't mind waiting five or 10 minutes, we are running over into our regular session. We'd be happy to take public participation first in our regular session. If folks on Zoom want to participate on public participation as well, would folks mind waiting five or 10 minutes? Okay, because we'll have some more viewers on the regular session where we have to move Zoom rooms, as I'm sure you are all very aware what that means over the last three years. So if folks wouldn't mind, could we have a motion to adjourn and then take the motion to adjourn? Councilor Caraviello is seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor?
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Zac Bears]: All those opposed? Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. starting the regular session in a few minutes and we will take public participation first so that everyone can have their voice heard.