Amesbury Spartan Race 2014 - Comments and Questions

On August 9-10, 2014, the Amesbury Sports Park hosted a return of the Spartan Race series to Amesbury.  The Spartan Race is one among a number of very popular 'challenge'-type athletic events, where participants climb over and under obstacles, navigate hazards, carry or drag weights and objects, wade through mud pits - you get the picture.

On August 12, I walked some of the course that the Spartan Race used in Amesbury, as part of an ongoing project of citizen-mapping trails by the new Amesbury Trails group that go through various City-owned conservation and park land.  In addition to GPS-enabled devices that could track trail data to overlay later with maps, we had data downloaded from the internet of a Spartan Race participant's own GPS file.  Our primary objective was to explore and map the City-owned Merrimack Landing Conservation property that abuts Riverfront Drive to the South and various properties along South Hunt Road (including the Amesbury Sports Park) to the North.  But our secondary objective was to see if there had been any damage from the recent Spartan Race, run just days before.  My companion had seen possible damage from the Warrior Dash Race held earlier this year and he was worried that the Spartan Race may have gone through the same areas.

Here's the GPS data file overlaid a map indicating the properties that the 2014 Spartan Race ran through.  A layman can see that the Race went through sensitive areas, including a Superfund site, a capped landfill, and private and public conservation land.

We very quickly found indications that there may have been some serious impacts from the Spartan Race (the weekend Spartan Race posted results for at least 6,500 participants).  We took a number of geo-tagged pictures and decided that this information needed to be reported to the City as soon as possible.  The Conservation Commission has authority over any wetlands use violations on public and private property, the Con Comm is also the managing authority of record on the Merrimack Landing Conservation Land deed, and we were worried about the use of closed landfill property for a mass event.  Here are some of the pictures that I sent to the City, taken on City-owned Conservation Land.

The first two photos show a very wide path of churned mud cut straight through what appeared to be a wetland or at least a wetland buffer zone.  The third shows extensive trail damage from runners and tracks from a motorized vehicle (the Merrimack Landing Conservation Land deed explicitly prohibits the use of motorized vehicles on this property).

I'm not a conservation lawyer but I know enough about the Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act and its implementation in Amesbury's own Wetlands Protection bylaw that alarm bells were ringing in our heads.  At that point, we didn't know if there were also trespassing and land use violations with the course having gone through other private property (including property controlled by Waste Management, Inc.), though it was very hard to believe that they would have allowed thousands of runners to climb their capped landfill or dig mud pits and build obstacles on Superfund land. (What's Superfund?  Read more HERE.)  

Making no assumptions, however, I sent a number of the photos that I took that morning, along with the created map of the course, to folks at the City, in the Economic and Community Development Department, since that is where the City's Conservation Agent resides (oversees Wetlands Act enforcement, in concert with the Amesbury Conservation Commission).  I also submitted queries about whether or not the City had issued permits for this event on this course and what, exactly, the City's event permitting process was.

I was informed that the City had received my complaint related to the Wetlands Protection Act and that it was following up on it, including contacting the MA Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP, ultimately responsible for enforcement of the Act).  As reported in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune today [LINK to story], a follow-up investigation was conducted by the DEP and by the City and that they have determined that there were violations and an enforcement process has been initiated.  

The story also reports that the City will not allow the Sports Park to hold the Mudderella Race scheduled for next weekend.

I am heartened that the complaint has elicited such a strong response.  

Here are my concerns and questions, which I had upon walking the course and that have only intensified in thinking more about it all:

• This is not the first time that such challenge/obstacle races have been held in Amesbury (not just hosted by the Sports Park).  What process does the City have in place to comprehensively review and permit large events (held on both public and private property)? And, if we do have one, does it comprehensively manage risk to participants and the City by requiring a comprehensive review? I know that some of the organizers of previous events have worked closely with the City and folks like the Conservation Commission and public safety departments to design and execute safe and compliant events, so it can be done right.  
• But some of the same routes through Merrimack Landing Conservation Land property have been used at least by another Sports Park race earlier this year and, likely, in the past, as well.  So, are we talking about one bad actor here or is the question one of not having a robust enough event permitting system in place in Amesbury, so that we can best prevent rather than respond to problems in event designs before they occur?  I'm guessing the latter.  It is definitely the case that we have no ordinance in place the requires event permits, described conditions and requirements, and lays out a schedule of penalties for non-compliance (that would come in handy about right now).
• You can find a 2 page event form HERE that is definitely in the right direction (multiple department head sign offs, etc), but it is directed to the Youth Services Director and primarily has to do with holding events in City sports fields and facilities.  The current event form and the related regulations don't, in my mind, fully address the many public interests in regulating and permitting events that are held beyond sports field and public facilities (such as Camp Kent or Lake Gardener). I think that we are due for an upgrade in our event permitting process.
• I checked with Chief Oullette of the Amesbury Police Department about this event.  He was aware of it and the Sports Park had contacted his office with a traffic plan designed to mitigate problems from past mass events.  This is why for the Spartan Race, everyone parked at the greyhound track in Seabrook NH and and they were bussed down and back (great idea, by the way; there had been some real traffic control nightmares for some of these events at the Sports Park previously). Were other department heads or the Mayor's office aware of the event, its course and the fact that temporary climbing structures were being assembled? I assume that some folks were aware of the event on some level (you don't just sneak 7,000 people into town) but I also fear that no one had particular or clearly delineated responsibility for reviewing the various land use questions involved. This is not the first obstacle event put on by the Sports Park this year (including one that also likely had trespassing and wetlands violations) and there are/were three more coming up on their calendar before the end of the year!  What eyeballs are on these events as they roll through town and how are they vetted by the City?

From my end, I've reached out to the Mayor indicating my concerns with our current process and indicating my interest in working with his office to improve it.  I haven't heard back from him yet so I'll be filing a proposed event permitting ordinance for our upcoming September City Council Meeting. I look forward to working with the Mayor, my colleagues on the City Council other stakeholders (such as the Chamber of Commerce) to develop this ordinance. 

My take-aways from this are: we have a system for permitting events in place that clearly has some weaknesses, that the Spartan Race may have been a 'wake up call' but it does not appear to be an isolated event, and that we can protect Amesbury's interests better with a more robust event permit management system in place.

FY15 School Budget, Part II

A week and a half ago, I wrote about the petition that was circulating among Amesbury residents, asking the School Committee to issue a new FY15 School budget recommendation.  Doing so would allow the City Council to debate and vote on a higher amount, an amount that would let us avoid some or all of these planned reductions:

• limit the ability of graduates to enter most colleges and universities, through the reduction of foreign language offerings to 2 years only (most require 3 or 4 years);
• eliminate the option for high school students to earn college credit through the Early College program at Northern Essex Community College;
• eliminate technical education classes at the middle school and high school; and
• eliminate consumer science education classes at the middle school

The potential impacts include:

• increase the number of study hall blocks at the Middle School;
• strain our capacity to meet the Commonwealth's 'Time On Learning' requirements, requiring us to upgrade 'Curriculum Enrichment Blocks' to creditable time, to substitute for the loss of actual class time with a full curriculum; and
• require our already strained administrators to spend more time monitoring study halls and cafeteria blocks, rather than performing their duties as administrators

In the 2 week period from May 19 – June 2, almost 2,000 Amesbury residents signed a petition asking the School Committee to make a new recommendation.  The petitions were presented to the School Committee at their June 2 meeting last week. 

We already knew that the MA Senate had taken up Sen. O’Connor-Ives’ request for funding of an Early College program through Northern Essex Community College.  Chances seem good that it will remain in the final budget that comes out of conference committee with the House and will be available in the fall to area high school students, including from Amesbury.

The bad news is that on June 2, the School Committee did not take up the question and reconsider the issue.  The good news is that the Mayor and the administration have been working to mitigate some of these reductions by other means.

Specifically:

• Free up $45,000 by moving the cost of the School Resource Officer out of the School budget and into the Police Department budget
• Requesting $35,000 in ‘Free Cash’ from the City Council
• Identifying $40,000 in new savings and/or revenue within the School budget

The Early College addition to the Commonwealth’s FY15 budget and the re-allocation of the SRO officer takes care of about $90,000 of the $330,000+ needed to avoid these reductions.

Regarding the use of Free Cash for funding on-going expenses such as personnel, I believe that it is usually bad policy.  On principle, I would not normally support its use in this way.  Funding personnel with free cash essentially compounds the real cost of that position.  We add the future personnel costs to our operating budget base, without allocating corresponding revenue to fund that base this year and beyond.  It’s like finding a $10 bill and deciding that you can therefore add HBO to your cable, which works great until month 2 comes and you don’t actually have the cash flow to cover it.  That said, the proposal has the virtue of being a very low amount in the big picture ($35,000), not even the value of one teaching position, so the committed sin is minor and progress is often comprised of such choices.  

Finally, regarding the $40,000 that the administration will be aiming at finding, it is fair to say that this amount is speculative and a 'work in progress.'  Assistant Superintendent spoke about a potential $20,000+ from rental fees to Lesley College, which would be great.  No other substantive revenues or savings have been identified yet.

We have confirmed that the APD will be absorbing the cost of the School Resource Officer and I am sure that Mayor Gray will make good on his word and will bring a $35,000 Free Cash request to the Council very soon.  

That would get us $80,000 firm towards the list of 4 positions set to be eliminated.  

An additional $40,000in revenue/savings would get us to $120,000, or not quite 2 positions. 

I met with Mayor Gray last week to discuss these proposals.  While neither of us was pleased with the reductions and the impacts, we agreed to disagree on the solution.  He was firm that he did not support increasing the School’s proposed FY15 budget beyond the current amount and I, that I did.  As I wrote in my last blog post, the City has very healthy excess capacity under our Proposition 2 ½ levy limit and could absorb an increased budget and still be fiscally responsible. 

What’s next? 

The City Council will watch for Mayor Gray’s Free Cash request and the School Administration will continue to work on freeing up money.  

I also believe that there is real energy among parents and residents to look forward and push for better outcomes for next year.   We’ve had too many Groundhog’s Day experiences with the School budget – costs outpacing revenue, the steady march downwards in terms of offerings, and the displacement of other municipal needs by school budget pressures.

I think that to improve our outcomes for next year, we will have to look outward to the state context (Chapter 70 funding formula, un- or poorly-funded mandates, costly testing regimes) AND look inwards (improved financial reporting from the schools, earlier and long term anticipation of budget dynamics and the formulation of strategic responses).

If even a fraction of the energy that I’ve seen in the past month can be focused forward, that will be a great start.

FY15 Amesbury Public School Budget

The City Council's Finance Committee is half-way through our hearings on the FY15 City Budget.  The Finance Committee makes initial recommendations for all departments, including Amesbury Public Schools, on Thursday, June 5th.  The City Council takes its final votes on all department budgets and line items on Tuesday, June 17th.

I want to talk about the proposed FY15 Public Schools budget and lay out my thoughts on it.  At the start, let me state that I share the concerns of many parents and other residents that the FY15 Schools budget, as it currently stands, includes reductions that will:

• limit the ability of graduates to enter most colleges and universities, through the reduction of foreign language offerings to 2 years only (most require 3 or 4 years);
• eliminate the option for high school students to earn college credit through the Early College program at Northern Essex Community College;
• eliminate technical education classes at the middle school and high school; and
• eliminate consumer science education classes at the middle school.

I am also concerned that the loss of teaching staff at the middle school will:

• increase the number of study hall blocks;
• strain our capacity to meet the Commonwealth's 'Time On Learning' requirements, requiring us to upgrade 'Curriculum Enrichment Blocks' to creditable time, to substitute for the loss of actual class time with a full curriculum; and 
• require our already strained administrators to spend more time monitoring study halls and cafeteria blocks, rather than performing their duties as administrators.

 Bigger picture impacts:

• potential increase in 'choice out' students as school quality declines, which would be a net loss; and
• potential decrease in house values (and related rise in property tax rate), as school quality has been shown to be a primary determinant for home buyers (investment in schools tracks increases in home values).

Per information from school administrators distributed at the April 1, 2014 School Committee meeting, the value of these eliminated positions + Early College program is $330,542.

The options for restoring these positions at this point in the budget process are very limited.

• At the present, the City Council has no authority to increase the school budget (under MA law); we can only accept it as proposed or reduce it.  
• There was slight hope that the State Senate might increase the amount of local school aid (aka Chapter 70) in the Commonwealth's own FY15 budget, but the Senate passed a budget last Friday that kept the Chapter 70 revenue estimate that we already had baked into our budget cake.
• The City Council could debate and vote on a higher amount for the Schools IF the School Committee takes a new vote and approves a higher amount before our final June 17 vote.
• The Mayor could bring one or more 'supplemental' budget requests to the Council outside of the normal budget process for our debate and approval.

Following Mayor Gray's submission of his total budget request to the City Council on May 12 (2 weeks ago), response from residents concerned about these reductions and their impact has focused on requesting the School Committee to take a new vote and make a new recommendation, thus enabling the City Council to debate and vote on it.

In fact, in just the last 10 days, a petition with this request was drafted, organizing house parties were held around town, 40 'petition captains' volunteered to gather signatures, and over 100 'I Support Amesbury Schools' signs were distributed around Amesbury.  As of tonight, over 800 signatures have been gathered, with a goal of 1,000 by next week, for submission to the School Committee.

I wholeheartedly support this effort and have been happy to lend my time and energy to it.

Let me be clear about a few things.  I think that Mayor Gray did his job as Mayor in looking at Amesbury's total financial picture and giving the School Committee and school administration a set number to develop a budget within.  Then the School Committee (with Mayor Gray as Chair) did its job in developing and approving a budget within that parameter.  And, with the budget submitted on May 12 to the City Council, it is now the Council and the public's turn to 'do its job', which is responding to the budget and advocating regarding it.  In that spirit, I join lots of residents and parents in saying, 'We can do more.'  I'm hopeful that we'll find a way to make this work and avoid these impacts.

Also, asking for these positions to be kept in the budget is not asking for a 'level services' budget.  That would mean keeping a facilities coordinator (to manage our building assets at 4 sites), a transportation coordinator (to manage transportation services across the system), and a central office assistant (to, among other things, more than pay for itself by handling Medicaid and other insurance billing to help cover SPED costs).  Instead, all of those responsibilities now fall on the Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent directly (in addition to their many other responsibilities).

I believe that Amesbury has the ability to cover these needs (it will cost about $52 to the average single family house owner) and I think that it is reasonable to let the City Council debate and vote on this budget amendment.  But this will only happen if the School Committee takes a new vote.  If you have not already, please consider signing a petition.  Write to the School Committee, the Mayor and the City Council about this.  Come to the next School Committee meeting on Monday, June 2 at the High School.  

One last note: the Senate Budget passed last week DID include an amendment by our State Senator Katie O'Connor-Ives directing money to Northern Essex Community College, funding an area-wide Early College Program for local high school students.  It stands a good chance of surviving the 'conference committee' process with the House and becoming a part of the Commonwealth's FY15 budget.  This is great news and would resolve one of the areas of concern.

Lower Millyard Development -- May 2014 Update

I get a lot of questions about the Lower Millyard project, so here is another progress report.  I'm on the LMY Task force and we had our monthly meeting this morning.  Here are some updates on the project.  Items are listed more or less in the order that they will be rolling out over the next year +.

• Brownfield Cleanup: This is for the land between the existing and soon-to-be vacated DPW buildings and river.  The official 'ground breaking' for this was held earlier this week and the portion of the Riverwalk on Water Street has already been blocked off.  Digging will start next week and should be done in June, in '4 - 6 weeks.'  With the long winter, start on this initial piece of the big puzzle has been delayed.  I was unable to attend this but I was pleased to see that both our current and former Mayors were there for this.  A project like this (20 + years in the making) transcends changes in administrations and requires a long view from lots of folks in order to ever get done.  It took a lot of effort from Mayor Kezer to get us to this point and it will take a lot of effort from Mayor Gray to see this through.

• Heritage Park Construction: This will begin after the clean-up is complete.  With the late start to the clean-up, this also will have a late start (in June).  This is especially important since the bulk of the State resources paying for the park are supposed to be expended by the end of June.  However, Mayor Gray has worked with the relevant state agency and this should not be a problem.  What is more of a problem is that (not unlike the Fire HQ rehab), the winning bid came in well over the allocated amount (allocated = $548k for construction; winning  bid = $738k).  What does that mean?  It means that, as with the Fire Dept. HQ rehab, the scope of the project will have to be scaled back substantially, given the almost $200k difference.  Unfortunately, this means that the planned water feature will likely not be included in the final design.  The City is working to shift costs where possible out of construction and on to other aspects of the overall LMY redevelopment, in an effort to preserve the water feature. 

•  Demolition of DPW Building:What we are talking about here is the demo of the building immediately in front of you in this view of the LMY (the two-storey building behind it will be preserved as the new location of the Carriage Museum).  This is currently out to bid but that
  
  process will be completed shortly.  The DPW is on deadline to remove all equipment from there and the building should be down completely by the end of June.  These first three elements will bring substantial and rapid change to the 'look' of the Lower Millyard area.

• Water Street Re-Alignment: This is also currently out to bid.  This will start this construction season but will continue into next year.  This involves moderating the curve of Water Street, directing it through what is now the DPW building that you see in this picture.  This will bring new curbing and new sidewalks, as well.

• Riverwalk Extension + Boat Launch: These elements are still in design review and negotiation with the Department of Transportation (primary funder).  At best, this work will begin this year and extend in to FY2016.  Don't go buying a new kayak just yet.  The Riverwalk extension will:
• add a new bridge across the Back River, avoiding the current re-direction that the Walk takes across the existing Water Street bridge over the Back River, connecting the Walk in a direct line into the new Heritage Park
• extend the Riverwalk across the Powow River to Mill Street (and into the 'valley' area below downtown) and then bring it up Mill Street to Main Street, where it can connect with the Upper Millyard walk
• create a small craft boat launch in Heritage Park for canoes and kayaks
• shore up the banks of both the Powow and Back Rivers where they meet by Heritage Park

For more information on the project:

• HERE is a link to a Mass. Development overview of the LMY project. 

• HERE is a link to a great set of graphics that visually indicates the where & what of this project, using photos of current conditions. 

Amesbury City Council Update April 2014

A lot is going on in the next few months for the Amesbury City Council.  Here's a preview:

Tuesday April 8 Council Meeting:

• We have second reading/public hearings on:
• Medical Marijuana Overlay District - sponsored back in January by me + Councilors Ferguson, Kelcourse, and McClure.  This measure has been substantially re-drafted by the Planning Board.  The PB re-draft has also been reviewed by Ordinance Committee.  Several additional amendments have also been proposed.  Several moving parts to this important measure but I fully expect a final version to be approved this week, providing a land use/zoning framework to Registered Marijuana Dispensaries in Amesbury.
  
• Medical Marijuana License Measure - sponsored by Councilor Lavoie.  Originally proposed mainly to collect a substantial fee, the need for this was lessened by the recent signing of Host Community Agreements by Mayor Gray with the two companies looking to cultivate in Amesbury. 
• Water Street/Lower Millyard Property Transfers/Easements/Alterations - there are several city-owned parcels in the LMY that will need to be re-arranged somewhat in order to create the new Heritage park and enable the re-alignment of Water Street, etc.  These are all technical issues to clear the way for lots of work anticipated this year down there, including the creation of Heritage Park.

• We have first readings of several new measures:
• New Standards for Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) program -  We received a preview of this earlier this year.  These standards will hopefully help Amesbury with attracting economic development to various parcels around the City, including non-City owned property in the Lower Millyard.  
• Several requests to Surplus City-Owned Property -
• 22 Water Street: salt shed across from the DPW buildings in the Lower Millyard
• Horace Mann School (Congress Street): this one's big, very significant but also comes with lots of risk and questions, which will doubtlessly be pursued in the coming months.  Significant because of historical nature of property and location in the middle of a densely developed (for Amesbury) neighborhood.  Lots that could go wrong with surplussing this property, but lots that could go right, as well.  I'll have a number of questions on this one before I could agree to surplus.
• Carriage Lofts Condominium (Upper Millyard): the 'Cultural Center'/Gallery Space that the City currently owns but only lightly utilizes.  The City has been looking to sell this for sometime and is now proposing to sell it for conversion into two fully accessible living units.  The development proposition on this seems questionable but I look forward to hearing more; everyone agrees that transferring this property off of the City's inventory would be good.

Finally, budget, budget, budget!!  The School Committee approved a budget recommendation for the Mayor last Tuesday (4/1/14).  The Superintendent and the School Committee have been looking at a 'gap' between what it would cost to provide the current 'level of services' to next year's student population.  This gap as been around $300 - 600K.  Principals and Administrators laid out a number of possible reductions, that included:

• Reduction of kindergarten from 'full' day to 1/2 day
• Elimination of HS music/drama position
• Re-organization of Special Education staffing
• Elimination of MS and HS Tech Ed and MS Consumer Science
• Elimination of tuition support for Early College program
• Elimination of HS French

After an intense month of budget workshops and hearing from parents and students, the recommendation that went to the Mayor took kindergarten and HS music/drama off list and re-categorized the SPED re-org (but it will still be taking effect and will change the way that SPED is approached within Amesbury schools).  The rest are still on (bolded above), to the tune of a $458,000 reduction.

From there, the Mayor will take the school budget and combine it with the rest of the City's budgets, for presentation to the Council in early May. 

Medical Marijuana Cultivation Sites - Amesbury Host Agreements

Mayor Ken Gray recently signed community host agreements with both of the companies that have received provisional licenses to cultivate medical marijuana in Amesbury, the Alternative Therapies Group (ATG) and Green Heart Holistic.

Both agreements took up and extended the negotiating framework that Mayor Kezer had started late last year, as his term came to an end.

Mayor Gray forwarded copies of the agreements to the City Council today.

I have posted them here:

• Alternative Therapies Group
• Green Heart Holistic

 The agreements are different in technical terms but appear to be the same in the essentials [caveat: I'm not a lawyer]:

• Both companies agree to make unrestricted contributions of $50,000/year to the City for 5 years
• Both companies agree to make additional contributions to Amesbury charitable organizations of at least $5,000/year
• After 5 years, both companies agree to make unrestricted contributions of $50,000/year, with increases chained to the Consumer Price Index
• No end date, save the point that either business either loses their DPH license or moves out of Amesbury
• Both companies agree to be treated as non-tax exempt entities, for the purposes of local property and personal tax, irregardless of how either the Commonwealth or the local Assessor determines they should be treated (given their Chapter 180 status as exempt organizations)
• Both companies agree that they will not seek DPH licenses to dispense medical marijuana in Amesbury

First, let me saythat I'm pleased that Mayor Gray has continued Mayor Kezer's pragmatic and non-sensational approach to these businesses and their coming to our community.  

Assuming that both ATG and Green Heart's provisional licenses are made permanent by DPH, Amesbury stands to realize at least $100,000 a year in unrestricted income.  When we are talking at the level of individual positions (as I believe we will be in this year's budget), that kind of income from two businesses is significant. 

The tax status provision is also significant.  Opinion on how these businesses will (or won't) be taxed locally has been all over the map.  Our own City Assessor has indicated that, in his opinion, these entities (organized as 'Chapter 180' tax-exempt organizations in MA), would not be subject to local property and personal tax.  The MA Dept. of Revenue has officially taken no position on this.  And former Mayor Kezer and other have not considered them to be tax-exempt.  The tax status provision nails this down and says that these businesses WILL be subject to local property and personal tax.  Practically, this likely doesn't mean TOO much, in terms of tax revenue.  Businesses are only taxed on property if they own it.  Both ATG and Green Heart will be leasing space for operations but they may own their cultivation and fabrication equipment, meaning the latter will now definitely be taxable.  Again, not a ton of money but not nothing.

Not having an effective end date is a double-edged sword.  On the one hand, it guarantees all parties a stable and predictable framework.  Budget Directors like this and businesses like this, as well, in terms of predictable obligations.  On the other hand, there is no room to change the arrangement, if circumstances change (save the narrow escape clauses).

Finally, both companies agree not to pursue licenses to dispense in Amesbury, taking that issue of the table for now, at least as far as these two companies are concerned.  

FY15 School Budget Development Process

The City Council received a presentation tonight from Assistant Superintendent Deirdre Farrell on the development process for the Amesbury Public Schools FY15 budget.

First, some important dates.  The School Committee is finalizing its own FY15 budget recommendation for presentation to Mayor Gray by April 1^st.   

The School Committee’s Finance Committee is meeting every Monday through the rest of the month: 3/10, 3/17, 3/24 and 3/31.

The Finance Committee’s Public Hearing for this first draft of the APS budget is on Tuesday, March 18^th, 7:00 p.m. at the Amesbury High School Library.

The Mayor will then take that budget and include as part of the overall City budget for presentation to the City Council in May.  The Mayor’s draft may or may not be the same as the School Committee’s draft presented at the end of March.

Ms. Farrell’s presentation to the Council can be found HERE.

The focus was on explaining how the APS administrations derives a baseline ‘level services’ budget from year to year, as a starting point for the budget.  ‘Level services’ was defined as providing the same level of programs and offerings for students as the prior year.  As we know from our experience last year, even maintaining this baseline level can be a financial and planning challenge.

And ‘leveling’ APS services does not mean ‘level funding’, primarily because the student body in our schools year to year is a very dynamic and changing population.  Each year, an entire cohort matriculates out and during the school year itself, students move in and out of the community, as families relocate and make educational choices for their children.  You have shifting populations across 12+ grades, at 4+ sites, with shifting needs.  You have tens of types of SPED needs – all requiring unique and heterogeneous interventions – for students spread across all grades and locations, in an ever-shifting configuration.   

To construct a picture of the system’s needs the school goes through a series of steps, as outlined in the presentation:

• Reviewing enrollment projections (including SPED and other needs
• Reviewing structural requirements (state and federal mandates, contracts, educational standards and guidelines)
• Align staffing needs with enrollment and requirements (who/where/why)
• Evaluate administrative and support staff needs
• Assess facility and operational expenses, and, finally,
• Review Elective Opportunities

That process would yield a baseline expense picture.

Looking at revenues, there are several variables, all but the local contribution out of the City’s control.  You can read more about the APS revenue sources in THIS document.

• State Chapter 70 aid
• Choice-in tuitions
• South Hampton tuitions (High School)
• Special Ed Circuit Breaker contribution from Commonwealth
• Fees (sports, transportation)
• Grants

Budget drivers:

• Health insurance (good news, we’ve kept costs very low in recent years)
• Contracts 
• SPED costs
• Transportation

Finally, in terms of our local appropriation, we once again face a year where Proposition 2 ½ will limit our budget growth to about $800,000.  You might recall that we were unable to meet the ‘level services’ budget proposed by the School Committee last year, because of still-low tax base value growth.  

BOTTOM LINE: this year’s school budget will likely be as challenging, if not more so, than last year’s.  Same budget drivers, same revenue limitations, same Prop 2 ½ cap.  Everyone should stay informed and involved through this process.  Let me know if you have any questions.

Other materials provided to us:

• Summary Recommendations from MA Assoc. of School Superintendents on Chapter 70 Reform (Ms. Farrell was on the Task Force that recently released this report)
•  MA Assoc. of School Superintendents Chapter 70 Report (full)
• APS Tech Infrastructure presentation
• APS Aspen/XS presentation