Preview: $250,000 Mid-Year Spending Request

For the City Council's final (planned) meeting of the current two year session this coming Tuesday, December 8th, there are a few items of note on our agenda.

First, we have everyone's favorite vote of the year: establishing the final property tax rate for FY2016 (which started on July 1, 2015). Though this vote often gets lots of attention and occasionally produces heat, the fact is, the property tax rate at this point is really 100% baked in the cake, once the City Council approved the FY16 annual budget for the city back in June of this year.

The ONLY substantial decision that we have to make with this vote is whether or not we should tax commercial and industrial properties at the same rate as residential properties. Under Massachusetts law, municipalities can 'split' the rate and tax commercial and industrial properties at a higher rate than residential properties, taking a little pressure off residential property owners (by adding even more pressure on commercial/industrial owners). Amesbury experimented with a split tax rate in 2006-07 and it proved to be a highly unpopular experiment. The rate was 'un-split' in 2008 (when I served on the Council the first time around). I don't expect a split rate to be proposed at our Tuesday meeting.

Of much greater interest is a mid-year appropriations request from Mayor Gray for $250,000 in unbudgeted expenses. These include:

• $40,000 to update the City's Housing Production Plan
• $10,000 for lighting improvements in the parking garage
• $10,000 for lighting improvements in public safety buildings
• $35,000 for capital assessment and planning for parks and recreation facilities
• $15,000 for a ridership study for potential bus connection from Amesbury to Newburyport Park & Ride and rail services
• $25,000 for preliminary study related to larger downtown planning effort and possible District Improvement Financing (DIF) proposal
• $20,000 for Middle School energy management planning
• $10,000 to complete Open Space and Recreation Plan
• $30,000 gap funding for DPW barn cleanup
• $55,000 gap funding for EPA cleanup

You can read the full request, along with accompanying letter from Mayor Gray and memo from Economic and Community Development Director Bill Scott HERE.

All of these expenses are to be appropriated out of a Smart Growth Housing and Expedited Permitting Stabilization account that the City Council established in 2007. That account was set up to receive and maintain any monies that the City might receive in relation to projects permitted under Chapter 43D (Expedited Local Permitting) and 40R (Smart Growth Housing). The City has received incentive payments from the Commonwealth under both programs (for the 43D expedited permitting process in place for the 'Golden Triangle' area and the 40R Amesbury Heights residential development that recently broke ground on Rt. 110).

As established by the City Council, monies from this stabilization account can be broadly used to 'offset the impacts' of 43D and 40R projects. We have $350,000 in the account currently; this would leave $100,000 in the account. The City expects to receive a substantial second incentive payment soon from the Commonwealth in relation to the Amesbury Heights project ($750,000).

Most of these requests are a great example of how a municipality (or a business, for that matter) has to often spend money to make money. The Housing and the Open Space/Recreation Plans are both required by the Commonwealth in order to obtain access to certain grant and incentive programs. The energy management planning at the Middle School is expected to pay for itself in anticipated energy savings. Same with the lighting improvements. I'm pleased to see these kinds of planning requests come before the Council.

Why is the Mayor campaigning against me?

First let me say, it is the right of the Mayor to campaign for whomever he wants. While I didn’t walk door to door with his predecessor (Mayor Gray is walking with my competitor), I was an avid supporter of the previous Mayor, so *I* would probably campaign against me too, if I were him. But all joking aside, who am I and what do I *actually* stand for?

Sometimes I’m portrayed as a tax-and-spend liberal, aka wild-eyed and irresponsible, someone wanting no accountability, a ‘rubberstamp’, you’ve heard the names I and others have been called.

But the reality is, nothing could be further for the truth. I am someone who digs in deeply and takes the time to understand our city finances and our planning objectives – capital improvement plans, the Master Plan from 2004, Open Space plans, site-specific plans such as for the Lower Millyard. I spend lots of time talking to city staff, attending committee meetings (not just the ones I have to attend) and communicating what I’ve learned with my constituents. And my day job is about working with communities to help them develop intelligent affordable housing strategies.

I believe in economic development and creating an environment where businesses feel supported.

I fought hard against the split-tax (which raised taxes on local businesses back in 2006) and when I was elected for my first term in 2007, I voted to overturn it the first chance we had. And that is why I also voted in support of the two TIFF incentives for businesses that Mayor Gray has brought before the City Council.

Let’s talk straight for a moment. I’ve been hearing about the taxes being high in Amesbury since the day I moved here and that’s when the tax rate was 14.24.  This isn’t about tax rates, it’s about people not wanting to pay taxes; I get it. Sure the taxes are high, but most of us picked Amesbury because we could get more house for our money, can have a better quality of life for less, and it’s a beautiful community. 

The idea that I don’t care about spending is silly—I chaired an ad hoc committee in 2010 just after the housing crash to better understand our taxes and spending. I fought against an under-ride ballot measure sponsored by, among others, Councilor McClure, that would have chopped $1 million dollars off of the top of our budget, because it had no rationale behind it. And I have supported many difficult measures through the years that cut spending. (Let’s remember that the only negative budget growth that we’ve seen in the last twenty years came under Mayor Kezer.)

The difference between me and the Mayor is I’m not fixated on taxes; I’m hung up on our services. I’m focused on making sure we are right-sized, that we are talking about the amenities that matter, whether that’s at the public library, the senior center, or our open space properties. I’m fiercely dedicated to educating our children and being a steward for our conservation land. You won’t see me making false promises about cutting your tax bill. Instead, I will fight for you. I will fight for what the things that I think define a healthy and vibrant community. My family is here for the long haul.   

So, I'm not really sure why he wants me out of office. I believe that we need a strong municipal Council that is independent and free-thinking, free to support the Mayor when it makes sense, and free to question him when necessary. 

Meeting with Interim Superintendent Reese

Photo via Twitter, '@AmesburySchools'

I had the opportunity to meet with Amesbury Interim Superintendent of Schools, Gary Reese this week. With the start of the school year, he seems to have hit the ground running. I wouldn't say that I envy Mr. Reese's position, coming to Amesbury as he did after something of a tumultuous and challenging year for the District: outside reports that identified substantial weaknesses and 'opportunities for growth' (Walker and DESE reports), an unpaid electric bill that grew into a veritable crisis of confidence for many, two finance related audits (one of which is still not final), and the resignation of Dr. Robinson from the Superintendent position, only months after her contract renewal was unanimously approved by the School Committee.

It was a good opportunity to establish a connection with Mr. Reese. One of the commitments that I made when I ran for City Council two years ago was to significantly increase my level of attention to School Committee and School District matters. With the School budget representing over half of the City's operating budget, relying on a single budget hearing to primarily guide one's understanding of this complex operation (the school district) is not a good idea. In the past two years, I've either attended in person or viewed on local cable access almost all of the School Committee's Finance Sub-Committee meetings regarding the annual budget. This past year, I met directly with all but one of the principals and both the Superintendent and Ass't Superintendent to understand the details of and rationale behind their various budget requests.

At a recent School Committee meeting, Mr. Reese present a year-long 'Entry Plan' to the School Committee. You can read the Plan HERE. The purpose of this plan is to guide Mr. Reese's work during this year as Interim Superintendent, as well as launch the District as a whole into a broad Strategic Planning process. Of course, the lack of a comprehensive District-level Strategic Plan was a short-coming noted in last year's DESE report. This basically means that his primary task this year will be to deliver this plan by the end of the school year. Here's how the Entry Plan describes the final phase of his process:

Beginning in February, a strategic planning committee will be established and will meet to review the key findings and to develop a strategic planning document. The strategic plan will utilize data to highlight the current status of the schools in meeting the needs of our students. This data will be used as the baseline for establishing measurable goals, the action steps that will be taken to achieve those goals, the individual(s) responsible for implementation/ monitoring of progress, and the ways in which progress will be measured. This plan will be presented to the school committee, school staff and the community in June 2016. [emphasis mine] 

Mr. Reese asked me what my priorities were for the District in the current year. Speaking as a Councilor (and less as a parent with a child at CES), they are:

• Prioritized, coordinated and strategic responses to the myriad reports and findings that have landed in the past year 
• Enhanced communication with the City Council (suggested a regular memo addressing budget/finance issues and progress addressing the various reports) 
• Improved budget process and budget documentation 

I was able to spend a few minutes with our Assistant Superintendent, Deirdre Farrell, as well. They have a lot on their plates but both were upbeat about the coming year. Mr. Reese's Entry Plan sketches out an ambitious program of listening, dialogue and information gathering from a multitude of stakeholders between now and January. For the time being, the wind coming from the community and from the City Council is positive and I hope that as a District and a community we can work together to support this comprehensive strategic plan development. The Plan won't be done in time to fully inform the school's next budget, but I hope that this process can help guide the budget process nonetheless, in terms of priorities and strategies in a constrained financial environment.

What I Do and Why

I've had great opportunities in my career and life to work and serve in the communities where I live and currently, across the country.  I want to talk about some of what I have done for a living, what I've learned, and how I think these experiences have been and would be reflected by me as a Municipal Councilor.

2012 Town Park Playground Build; it was just a little rainy!

I have always been interested in public service and the nuts and bolts of government. In college, I interned in my Congressman's Washington, DC office. I graduated from Gordon College in Wenham, MA with a major in Political Studies and spent the summer of my senior year traveling with a study group to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, back when the Soviet Union still existed. 

From there, I went to graduate school at the University of Virginia for Masters and Ph.D. degrees in Religion and Literature. Before and after graduate school, I spent time working with homeless individuals and families here on the North Shore of Boston. On a daily basis, I was working with individuals and families who were struggling with poverty, mental illness, HIV/AIDS, addiction, systematic marginalization, and high housing costs. I ended up pursuing a career in social work and community development, rather than in teaching.

In 2001, I started working in Boston for an organization that worked with local governments and non-profits around New England to plan, develop and manage supportive housing for very low income people living with HIV/AIDS.

'Green' roof, Whipple Riverview Place, Ipswich MA

I also joined the Board of a North Shore affordable housing organization, the North Shore Housing Trust (which eventually merged with Harborlight Community Partners, in Beverly). While I was involved, we completed a affordable home-ownership project in Gloucester and the preservation and renovation of a historical Ipswich property as a 'green' elderly affordable housing building, complete with a soil roof, to prevent run-off into the Ipswich River.

Revision Urban Farm, Dorchester MA

Most recently, I worked as the Director of Housing for a large sheltering organization in Boston, Victory Programs, where I oversaw an urban farm. two family shelters (one, for mothers in recovery), transitional housing, and permanent housing facilities, serving hundreds of homeless and formerly homeless households a year. And I managed several million dollars in annual budgets and more in capital assets.

Now, I'm working remotely from home for a company (Cloudburst Group) that supports local and state government around the country in planning and running effective systems of services and housing for homeless and at-risk of homelessness households.

So, I tried out academia and it was not for me. What was 'for me' was digging in with people to learn about their goals and their challenges. Working with them as they navigated forward. Changing systems and resources to be more responsive to the needs of the community and its more vulnerable members. Looking at what 'is' and being a part of developing lasting solutions ('what can be'). I've learned that healthy, sustainable communities are made up of many parts and that it takes a lot of care and attention to keep them healthy. I've learned the importance of operating from your principles and of being willing to adapt those principles, the more you know and learn. And finally, I know that the number one asset that a community has going for it is its own caring and engaged citizens. Whether it's working on a zoning ordinance, helping build a playground or trail bridge, or digging through budgets and audits, it is that care and engagement that I bring to the table and have to offer.

Tax Increment Finance - DesignWerkes, Inc.

The City Council has been presented with a second Tax Increment Finance (TIF) proposal by Mayor Gray. (The first, you will recall, was for the new hotel going up on Elm St., by Stop and Shop, approved last summer. You can read my blog post about that proposal HERE.)

TIFs are a tool authorized under Mass. General Law that enables municipalities to offer businesses and property owners exemption in part (or full, for that matter) from municipal property taxes, for a defined period of time. NOTE: the exemption is applied to the increased value on the improved property, not on the base value, which the City will collect either way. You can learn more about TIFs HERE.

The basic idea is that Amesbury can offer exemption from property taxes to a business or property owner in exchange for some perceived economic benefit to the City.

In 2014, the City Council approved TIF guidelines for the City of Amesbury that defined where in town and under what circumstances the City would consider offering a TIF incentive to a business or property owner.

Steven Kille, CEO of DesignWerkes, Inc., 8/4/15 Site Visit

This particular request comes from Steven Kille, owner of DesignWerkes, Inc. DesignWerkes is a design and machining shop that has operated in Amesbury for about 20 years. The company is currently located at the Boston North Technology Park on Rt. 110 (just west of Leo's Super Bowl) and employs about 25 people.

It has been a very fast moving request and process. On July 24, the Council President announced a Special City Council meeting for July 28, to be held immediately before the regularly scheduled Finance Committee meeting. We met and referred the measure to the Finance Committee meeting that took place minutes later. Economic and Community Development Director Bill Scott gave us a presentation on the request; Mr. Kille also spoke to us. Both answered our questions about the proposal. We are scheduled to take a final vote on the TIF agreement this Thursday, August 6. (Tight timing is in an effort to get in the State's pipeline for their consideration and approval of the TIF, which is part of the process.)

You can read Mayor Gray and Mr. Scott's cover letters, along with the details of the TIF application HERE.

My initial reaction to this project was the same that I think should be brought to any TIF request (this is the City's second): "Why should this business/property owner get a break on their property taxes when other businesses/owners don't and won't get a break?" One of the guiding principles of Amesbury's TIF standards is: But for this support from the City, this project would never happen.

In this case, Mr. Kille is looking to move from Boston North to a vacant industrial building at 2 Industrial Way (off Monroe St. and on the same campus of Amesbury's very active medical marijuana grow site). He is hoping to expand significantly, tripling his potential production space and adding new production lines and large machines. His company focuses on manufacturing key components in the conversion drives within hybrid municipal buses. The demand for his product outstrips his current capacity and he's looking to expand rapidly.

Machined product in production, from 8/4/15 site visit

All noble and good but again, why this property and why this business?

In this case, for me, the compelling argument FOR granting this TIF property tax exemption is not as much about the business story (which is an excellent story, by the way; Mr. Kille is very passionate about his business). Rather, it is about the site at 2 Industrial Way.

If you drive by 2 Industrial Way, you'll see that it has become something of an eyesore and a dump and this right at the entry way to one of Amesbury's few industrial parks. The building is literally falling apart. It has laid fallow for a good number of years (I can't speak to why or why not the current owners have not been able to lease it or why they haven't kept up with this investment).

Mr. Kille is basically proposing to invest substantially in this property to not only get it to code (again, it's literally falling apart) but to upgrade all of its energy-related systems to current state of art technology for energy efficiency.

What's the projected value of the tax exemption in this TIF? $191,368, spread out over 15 years. (75% of property tax is exempt in first 5 years, 35% in the second 5 years, and 10% in the final 5 years.) Actual value could go up or down, depending on future valuation of the property and future property tax rates.

What's in it for the City? Retaining and creating good paying and benefited jobs. As part of the TIF deal, the business must expand to 40 employees within 5 years. Also, a low-performing industrial property that has failed to attract use and investment in recent years receives significant capital investment and increases in overall value.

What about the property that DesignWerkes is leaving? Is this just robbing Peter to pay Paul? Boston North enjoys a decent occupancy rate and DesignWerkes is one of dozens of companies that do business at the Park. Their leaving should not negatively affect the value of that property (DesignWerkes leases space at Boston North).

What if DesignWerkes fails to perform or moves? The TIF agreement, like the one with the hotel, will have claw-back provisions that protect the City if the TIF's designee fails to perform in some manner.

So, the City gains at least 15 new jobs in the community and, most importantly, sees an under-utilized property revitalized and expanded. In my own assessment, the City gains more than it gives up in this deal and it is a good example of the ways in which a local government can support businesses that might otherwise leave or never choose to locate in Amesbury.

FY16 Amesbury School Budget - Final Vote, Final Thoughts

On June 9, 2015, the Amesbury City Council voted on the city's annual budget. The vast majority of the discussion around the FY2016 operating budget was regarding the budget for the Amesbury Public Schools. There was a packed house in attendance. A good number of citizen's spoke during the budget's public hearing, all on the school budget and almost all in support of the budget approved by the Amesbury School Committee back in April.

At issue with the school budget was the difference between the budget amount proposed by the School Committee and the lower amount included by Mayor Gray in his total city budget. I joined At-Large Councilor Anne Ferguson in voting in support of the School Committee's amount and against the Mayor's number. (The School Committee's approved budget failed 2-7.)

You can watch the video of the public comment and the Council's debate HERE on the Amesbury Community Television website. [Link will open up a browser-based video player.]

For FY16, Amesbury public school budget will represent about 55% of the total operating budget for the city. The School Committee had approved a budget of $29,247,025. Mayor Gray proposed $28,957,496. The difference between the two budgets was $289,529 (or, 0.9%).

As I've already written about (HERE, HERE, and HERE), the building Principals and the Superintendent were asked to put together planning documents, identifying needs for FY16 to be backed up with data. They were asked to narrow it down to top two priorities each, for a total of 10.

The Mayor's budget would cover about 3 of the 10 requests.

We were all provided a packet with extensive information about the requests and I'd also taken the opportunity (along with some of my colleagues) to talk directly with the Principals and the Superintendent.

Here's why I fully supported the School Committee's budget request and why I voted against the Mayor's.

At Amesbury Elementary, voting for the Mayor's request meant choosing between having 30 student size classrooms in Fourth Grade OR not hiring an additional Special Education teacher to work with a growing SPED population (107 out of 446 students, that's 25%) next year. (Or none at all, since at least one building won't be able to fund either of the 'top two' priorities.)

At Cashman Elementary, voting for the Mayor's request meant choosing between adding partial time hours to the 0.8 teacher we have for ELL (English as a Learning Language) students just to come near the basement of recommended teacher per ELL student ratio OR also an additional SPED teacher in response to numbers and need. (Or funding none at all.)

At Amesbury Middle School, voting for the Mayor's request meant choosing between adding an EAST (Exploratory Arts, Science, and Technology) teacher (so that the school could stay above the minimum 990 hours 'time on learning' requirement) OR an additional SPED teacher to handle a rising cohort of students from the elementary schools who require educational interventions. (Or, funding none at all.)

At Amesbury High School, voting for the Mayor's request meant choosing between full-time Math teacher (in order to offer 4 years of math at AHS, per MA standards) OR a full-time Tech Ed teacher (cut last year), so that offerings in STEM curriculum could be expanded (including support for the Robotics Team). (Or, funding none at all.)

Finally, in the Central Office, voting for the Mayor's request meant funding neither of the Superintendent's requests for additional staff: one Administrative assistant for the Superintendent AND one 'Special Schools Accounts' Bookkeeper, under the Assistant Superintendent. Regarding the former position, we currently have what must be the highest paid minutes taker in the Commonwealth, since it falls to the Superintendent to take and produce official School Committee minutes. Regarding the latter, given the uproar that resulted from the unpaid electricity bill affair earlier this year AND given the findings of the DESE report that noted the inadequacy of our financial and central office book and record keeping staffing,  supporting these positions and certainly the bookkeeper was about as obvious as could be to me. But my colleagues were essentially unanimous (with the exception of Councilor Ferguson) in being clear that no new admin positions were supported, in terms of the budget request.

The requests were data-driven and most strategically valuable to the City in order to actually save the City money. The concentration of professional special education resources in the lower grades is part of an explicit and long-term strategy to provide in-district educational opportunities to students, to retain them within our district and to avoid (often very expensive) out-placements.

'Penny wise, pound foolish' was the phrase that kept going through my head about all of this. In the end, I could not vote for a budget that I felt wasn't fully responsive to the conditions and needs that exist in our schools. And for any of these new positions, we're not talking about fancy programming, we're talking about bare basics to keep afloat.

It's an election year and you'll hear a good bit in the coming months about how there were no reductions in positions in this year's budget and that we should be satisfied with that. I am in fact pleased that neither the Mayor's nor the School Committee's budgets reduced positions. But as one citizen who spoke at the budget hearing put it, after a decade of (almost) continuous and dramatic contraction of positions, offerings, and programming at the schools, this is a bit like going to the doctor after having most of your toes cut off and the doctor says, "Good news! I'm not taking another toe off this year!"

During his remarks at the hearing, the Mayor addressed me directly and asked, "Councilor Sherwood, do you think that your colleague next to you doesn't support the schools [because she was not supporting the School Committee budget]?" I replied that "No, of course I don't think that she did not support the schools, just because of that."

But, I will say that in the end, I had very clear differences of opinion with most of my colleagues and the Mayor about what was and was not acceptable for our schools next year.

To me, the devil's choices listed above were not acceptable; to most of my colleagues and to the Mayor, they were. I say that knowing that my colleagues acted in good faith but also knowing that I disagree with their choice in this.

During this budget season, I heard from A LOT of neighbors, constituents, and friends about the Amesbury school budget. Outside of the budget hearing (where three people spoke in favor of the Mayor's budget), every single one asked me to please support the School Committee's request.

To close, I'd like to share a story and comment shared by a friend with substantial connections to the community (shared here with permission). It should stand as a cautionary story for all of us.

My son saw the budget battle last year and the seemingly careless way in which the HS almost cut foreign language so far that its graduates would not be attractive to competitive colleges. So he led the effort to look for an alternative. I tried several times to encourage him to have an open mind about Amesbury High School or to consider Whittier. He applied to [several other schools] and was accepted at one with financial aid that makes it feasible for him to attend. So that's what he's doing. Don't think that our kids aren't paying attention to the ways in which our schools are supported or not supported by the community.

 ++++++++++++++++++++

Voting for the School Committee's budget request: Councilors Ferguson (At-Large) and Sherwood (District 6).

Voting against the School Committee's budget request: Councilors Sickorez (D1), Bartley (D2), Moavenzadeh (D3), Lavioe (D4), McMilleon (D5), McClure (At-Large), and Bezanson (At-Large)

FY2016 School Budget - Amesbury High School

I continued my meet and greet with Amesbury Public School Principals and Administrators today. Trailing in behind a few (ahem) tardy High Schoolers, Councilor Bob Lavoie and I spent some quality time with Principal Roy Hamond first thing today. As with previous visits, the focus was on trends in the current student population and the rationale behind the 'Top Two' budget priorities that each Principal was asked to develop for the FY16 budget.

[So far, I've had the chance to meet with Superintendent Robinson, Assistant Superintendent Farrell, Principal Helliesen (AES), and Principal Curry (AMS).]

As I wrote previously, "[f]or the budget development process, the Mayor asked the Superintendent and her Principals to tie their school budgets to building-based Student Achievement Plans (SAPs) and to quantify and support any request above 'current' services with a priority ranking, a cost ranking, a data-based rationale, and a clear connection to the Goals and needs in the SAP. The School Committee's budget process clearly benefited this year from having this sort of exercise. The Principals and the Central Office rose to the challenge, articulated a number of worthy new priorities and narrowed it down to 'Top Two' priorities each."

First, some numbers. This chart shows enrollment trends from FY11 onward. AHS has seen a decline in overall enrollment since FY11 but note that FY16 is projected to be back at the same FY11 number of 644. During that same time, the number of teacher FTE's has dropped by 7.8. So, with current staffing levels, we would have to educate the same number of students as in FY11, but with 7.8 fewer teachers (15.6% fewer teachers than AHS had in FY11). (The diagonal lines running between columns indicate the progression of a particular 'year' or cohort of students through grades 9 - 12.)




 Dropout rates have really tightened up in the past 10 years:



Looking at the long-term enrollment trends report on the MA DOE website (hat tip to Rob Chamberlain), you can see that between 8th and 9th grade is when year after year we see a real cliff in terms of folks choicing out of Amesbury. [Open and select 'Amesbury' on the Long Term Enrollment Trends spreadsheet.]

These numbers are reflected on this table, shared by Principal Hamond:

 

All of this gets us to Principal Hamond's 'Top Two' budget priority requests for FY16.

First, he is requesting a 1.0 FTE Math Teacher. With expected enrollment combined with Commonwealth of MA 'Mass Core' expectations that students receive Math instruction in all four high school grades, AHS will not be able to meet this requirement with current staffing. Students are able to meet Amesbury School Committee Math requirements for graduation but AHS will be unable to meet MA DOE expectations for the school, which exceed School Committee requirements. Keep in mind, AHS will need to serve the same number of students as 5 years ago, but with over 15% fewer teachers, which puts real constraints on our ability to have enough classes available across grades.

Second, he is requesting the re-instatement of the 1.0 FTE Tech Ed teacher, cut from last year's budget. The rationale is similar: offer blocks/classes to a larger student population next year, including in this 'electives' area. Additionally, this position would support the expansion of STEM programming at AHS, including the staffing support for the Robotics team.

As with previous visits to Principals in order to discuss their requests in detail, I was struck by the fact that the requests were well reasoned and data-driven. In this case, the motivation is support AHS's response to an increased enrollment and maintain its ability to offer adequate number of class blocks to satisfy student demand and meet state requirements.