Notes from the October 12 Finance and Operations meeting

 You can find the agenda here; you can find the video here. 

There are a few things here that are current topics of conversation, as well as some that I know we're going to be coming back to, so some notes to share:

Annual audit: When I was doing my review of the agenda ahead of this meeting, I said to a friend that the opening letter of an auditor's report is an excellent illustration of the "in this paper I will" piece of writing, though it's more "in this audit I won't"! We tend, I think, to think of the word 'audit' as meaning something very sweeping, but that isn't what this is. This is an audit that is done due to the amount of money we get from the federal government, and it very specifically tests compliance with internal controls and general acceptable accounting principles.
There were no findings for the Worcester Public Schools; that's a clean bill of health here.
Interesting point raised by Mr. Hunt: the federal COVID funding is something the federal government is, for the purpose of auditing, regarding as "high risk" meaning it needs to be looked at.

We did file a few items that either we've dealt with or we're managing in other ways: the FY22 grants; sustainable funding on technology (we have a report coming from Harvard on IT); and the two mile radius for transportation for secondary schools (the question of what we're doing with transportation is ongoing).

Provision of menstrual supplies: Dr. Deb McGovern, who heads our nursing department, will be speaking to this, but wasn't able to be with us. We did, though, take the item in order to address the related issue of bathroom access: our larger secondary schools regularly have bathrooms that are locked during the day, and are limited to a very small number of bathrooms. The explanation given has been that we lack provision for monitoring this. The request from the subcommittee is that the bathrooms get opened at the secondary schools; we're interested in supporting making that happen. 
This item will be back on the November agenda for further and more specific discussion.

On transportation: You can see the drivers being trained (hang on! They're coming!), and the turnover between buses that are rented into buses that are owned. 
Two things for those who use the app to know: first, if you're an Android user that had the app delete on a recent update, there is a workaround while Tyler Technology figures out how to get it back. Second, if you've had a bus that seems to have disappeared from the app, we had a discussion about the way that new buses (with geotags) are apparently being overruled by running with iPads (that also geolocate) that are supposed to forget that overnight but aren't. Tyler has never seen this before, and they're going to be coming in to work on it.  

Facilities quarterly update: As a side note, I really appreciate these in keeping an eye on not only the day-to-day things, but also the larger longer term projects! Check out the pictures here! 
This always opens custodial and maintenance, and this is another one where staffing continues to be an issue. This means that our custodial staff is beyond stretched as they work to cover the same number of schools (and a growing amount of square footage!) with a smaller number of people. We did have a bit of a discussion about this, as one of our strengths (this isn't just me saying this, though it's my opinion, too) is that our custodians work for the district directly, and they take a great deal of pride in "their" buildings. How we support that while also ensuring that the buildings get cleaned is an ongoing discussion. On a bit of a different note, maintenance is an evolving area, as what positions are best done by in house staff, and what specializations (think elevators, for example, but also some of the newer HVAC, possibly) are something that needs to be contracted out, even as we ensure that administration is supported in ensuring the work on the buildings gets done. We've asked, on that last, to add to this report the balance of what work is done in house versus what we're going out to contract.
Water filling stations are popular every time they come up; I shared the list of the SWIG grant (clever acronym, isn't it?) recipients earlier, which have to be done by the end of this year. Mr. Bedard noted in his report to us that using ESSER funding to add bottle filling stations elsewhere is the next step. These are not unrelated to the water testing, but in part a response to it. As with much else, there are supply chain issues here.
And speaking of ESSER and COVID: the schools are still running the equipment we have already had in buildings (both that which is internal to the HVAC systems, and the separate units that are plugged in elsewhere). There is upgrades of what we are able to do in the HVAC systems (can we upgrade filters? motors?); that scope of work has been put together and is in purchasing. There is also a round of final field work being done from Honeywell for further work; within a month or so, that work also should be out to bid. Note that this is scheduled to be funded by ESSER III funding, and we probably want to be part of the push for extensions from US DoE, only due to supply lines. 
Boilers, boilers, boilers...winter is coming, and we're going to need the heat, so note the updates on Belmont Street, Chandler Magnet, City View, Goddard, and Vernon Hill on boilers (Vernon Hill's is more complicated and taking longer). Note that not all of these were planned, and that means we're making compromises on our annual $4M capital budget. Life safety, fire alarms, heat...these are the things that are always going to go first. 

Mr Allen: "The bigger question is is $4M sufficient enough to maintain the age of our buildings and the number of buildings that we have."

Elm Park gym floor watchers, and Burncoat High bleacher watchers, please note the update there. Also, the WAMS new roof got its first dousing these past weeks, and what a difference a new roof makes!
On Burncoat High: Burncoat had its periodic reaccreditation review this past year, and the report (to no one's surprise) pointed out substantial physical plant issues. The review of what exactly needs to and can be done to the current building, the replacement/major renovation of which remains the first priority with the state of both the School Committee and the City Council, is currently being done and will be coming back to us. Note what Mr. Allen said: this is going to cost the city millions of dollars to keep the building open and functioning, and how this relates to the high school's reaccreditation is something of an open and evolving question.

First quarter budget report: We've gotten through the first quarter of the FY23 budget, so it is time to see where we are at and where it now looks like where we are going. First quarter is when we see the beginning of trends. 
It is important for us to remember that our district budget received $945,067 less in state funding than the budget the Worcester School Committee passed in June. Acting City Manager Batista has committed to recommending this be made up through free cash when that is certified (which should be next month); just remember that this has not yet happened!
The Misc Ed OM change you'll see here is due to a call by DESE on how the insurance of our new buses gets classified: we'd thought "transportation" which is a non net school spending expense, but DESE has said that no, insurance is a net school spending expense (do not ask me to explain this). That's thus a shuffle of expense rather than anything new. The rental of buses needed while the new buses have come is an additional transportation expense. 
Both in transportation and elsewhere (custodial for example) there's overtime expenses that are offsetting positions that are open.
Here and elsewhere, remember that the budget office ALWAYS plans for positions to be filled. Thus you'll see we've moved money (at the standing committee level; it isn't moved until the full committee votes the transfer this week); that's money that hasn't been spent UP TO NOW. The custodial and other positions are still open, still searching, still budgeted, and we hope to fill them.

There's two things in the budget that I want to note particularly:
On utilities, there's an illustration of EXACTLY why quarterly reports are important. The report "anticipates the increase of natural gas supply and delivery charges at approximately 20% of the FY23 budget amount." It hasn't cost us that YET, but given what is known, this is anticipated and we are planning for it. At an hour and eight minutes in , Budget Director Sara Consalvo talks through how it is that projection has been calculated. Note that she says that this is a conservative projection, and also, administration recommended that we already move money (which is unusual in the first quarter). 

Discussing administration, first note that added positions usually happens during budget; the current superintendent did not, however, create the current budget, so we are making additions instead during the year. That itself is thus a function of a new administration rather than anything else.

To a larger and more telling point, though, please note Mr. Allen's point just after the hour mark: we are now in our second year of funding of the Student Opportunity Act. Whatever the Commissioner's comments, the intent of the Student Opportunity Act was to respond to specific gaps that Worcester, alongside our Gateway peers, had demonstrated again and again and again that we had*. Now we need to ensure that we are actually filling those gaps with the funding.
That includes administration. I already noted earlier this month that we underspend compared to our peers and the state average. We also, though, underspend compared to the state's calculation, spending 75% of the foundation budget and that includes city charges, which total $6.3M for FY23. That exceeds the central administration line for WPS, budgeted at $4.8M for FY23. 

Really important note from Mr. Allen on other cost centers compared to foundation: Operations and Maintenance underbudgeted by $15M (58% of foundation); supplies underbudgeted by $7M (50% of foundation).

MORE ON THIS COMING FOR SECOND QUARTER!

Qustions? send them along! 

*I limited myself to three links. There could be dozens. Search 'foundation budget' in the search bar if you want posts going back for about as long as this blog has been up. This is core to why I've been doing any of this for as long as I've been doing any of this.