Worcester and remote participation

 Something I didn't know but found out this morning: 

Previous to the pandemic, Massachusetts had a law which allowed for remote participation by members of public bodies (city councilors, school committee members, etc) under particular conditions (including a quorum of the body, including the chair, being present in person) IF allowed by the local authority.

In Worcester, this was an executive branch call: it's under the purview of the City Manager. And no city manager prior to the pandemic had allowed for it.

When the pandemic hit, we had emergency STATE action, allowing for remote participation for everyone, including the actual members of the public body. This superseded any local decisions. 

That provision has now been extended twice, most recently when Lieutenant Governor Polito, as acting governor, over the weekend signed another extension to the end of March, after the previous extension expired on Friday.

Because we were living in that grey area for a bit, I asked cityside if we had made any provision for remote participation for the public bodies. 
In answer to my question, I received back this letter through the City Clerk's office. It contains the following: 

In accordance with the regulations, the I intend this letter to serve as the chief executive officer's authorization of the practice of remote participation by members of all city bodies in the city of Worcester. I am hereby notifying the city council, school committee members and all city boards and commissions accordingly.

And thus: remote participation by members of public bodies in Worcester IS now allowed, even if the state provision expires!

Worcester City Council hears the Worcester Public Schools FY23 bottom line

 ...which means it is time for my annual reminder regarding authority: 

The vote of the legislative body of a city or town shall establish the total appropriate for the support of the public schools but may not limit the authority of the school committee to determine expenditures within the total appropriation.

Russell asks about Worcester East Middle and the capital appropriation (which is thus out of order, because capital is not part of the WPS operating budget)
Augustus agrees that it is about $7M; some question on if the state ARPA funds could be used for that. "That would be my suggestion" rather than adding to the city debt. 
Just for some perspective on the municipal debt:

p. 427

Also discussed other needs, boilers and the like, and he'd defer to the district.
Russell asking what the dollar amount would be to get it started.
"as far as the capital plan for the schools, is there anything that can be done
Augustus: city provides $3.5M for capital, and $500K for equipment
$3M for Foley "we're taking that out of our budget, not out of the $3M of the schools"
$10M from ARP for schools requiring ADA for upgrades for work that has happened in the past
Russell asks if any of the parks plans could be postponed
urges others to walk through WEMS and look at the plastic on the windows
Toomey says she thinks plastic on windows is a fire hazards
Allen: all school buildings are code inspected every year
Toomey asks what is being done in capital budget
Allen notes that the $7M is the windows, but will trigger other costs
Toomey floats how much it would be
Augustus: I don't know that the $10M will be the biggest needs but we don't have a choice
"I don't know that this is the best use when we have boilers and things that are on their last legs"
maybe you'd be doing something else in another building if you hadn't triggered that cost
Toomey: can windows be phased in so as not to trigger ADA?
Augustus, they anticipated that
Bergman don't want to replace the windows only to build a new building
Council orders combining Grafton Street and WEMS (um what?)
Rivera: studies looking at economics and education
asks diversity in hiring
Binienda: CDO reports to superintendent, has added position
Rivera: not just hiring, but looking at equity in curriculum and equity all around
Binienda: that's correct (it is?)
Rivera talks about the UPCS science lab
King: remembers Binienda' s first budget hearing, now at her last
know Council role, not SC's role
"every budget hearing I talk about the need to increase social workers in our schools"
"for the last several years, you've consistently added school social workers"
student decreases in enrollment in Head Start and kindergarten: budget impact?
Allen: last year lost 1000, this year 250; up about 500 students since October
what that means for financial impact; 250 students is a loss of $2.5M in the FY23 budget
King: agree we need more social workers
data on quantifying data to access grants?
Binienda: we've been down 4 psychologists all year, can't find them
if when we interview, have more, come back to the school committee and ask for further (that...isn't represented in the budget)
most principals asked for wraparound coordinators
data that was presented came from the agencies that would have gotten the referrals
King: met NSS?
McGourthy: scheduled to break even
$334K projected for next year
King: what were we in FY21 and FY20?
McGourthy notes that FY21 was an outlier of $10M (due to COVID) and was $3M in FY20
Augustus OF COURSE interrupts to talk about debt service...remember it's in total still less that 30% of the city spending

King talks about mental health, Binienda talks about collaborative problem solving and how "teachers are key"
"we have data proving that collaborative problem solving has been very effective"
and the superintendent is now reading a whole section of the budget to Councilor King
"we're doing a lot but there's always more to do"
King asks about salaries of "lower range educators" but also asks about diversity
talks about ESSER funds for MTEL, teacher leader residency program
diversity position sits on hiring committee, says data is being kept
King: lower salaried educators in the WPS
Allen notes that wages are done through collective bargaining which is done by the School Committee
King: can you share the data on hourly wages...
we're in negotiations and it's NOT UNDER HIS PURVIEW AT ALL
recruitment in numbers?
Binienda: all positions for qualified certified staff to apply
CDO has been involved, network of CDOs: sharing best practices
King: "it's been a long six years...I wish you well"
Haxhiaj: one of the parents who has been frutrated by bus service encouraged to see buses 

coming in house; cost savings? service? alternative fuels?
Allen: about a $4M eventual savings
some will be used for additional service for additional staff
procuring buses; purchasing 165 buses, gasoline
don't have infrastructure in place for other alternative fuels as yet
some leased buses coming off will be looking at other alternative fuels
plan working towards
plan to have at least 13 vehicles in FY24 that will be alternative 
Haxhiaj: $2.5M in maintenance; how to increase further
Allen: $1M increase specifically to principal requests for building repairs
now built in $1M for school based facilities 
"as a result of the Student Opportunity Act" as that was one of the underfunded lines
Colorio: know "we haven't seen the last of you" to Binienda
asked a question about enrollment
Allen notes enrollment decline happened across state
rebound isn't happening
Colorio: was there an increase of mental health cases this year?
Binienda: more students exhibiting anxiety
being out of school 
May have skills that kids need to learn
recently looked at discipline data; "we already had had an analysis, will be presenting at next meeting"
"And it isn't true" (this about presentation on student discipline last week)
"are looking for community support...need families to have connections"
students who felt alone during the pandemic
"that's probably the wrong answer to what you're asking"
Colorio: huge proponent of parental rights and involvement; have them been efforts on this?
(remember; "parental rights" is a watchword)
Binienda: first half of the year, not as many parents in schools; second half of the year "especially since we removed the masks" more parental involvement
Colorio: "biggest hits"
Binienda: "math...because it's something you can't really teach yourself"
(what?)
Mero Carlson: questions with regard to transportation
"do we currently have enough staff for the busing and when does that start?"
"I read in the newspaper that there were 100 and something laid off...are we offering them jobs?"
Allen: self-operation begins for summer schools, full operation for school year
Durham was required under the federal WARN Act to notify of future layoffs
"have discussed with Durham drivers" offering positions
"as of today, we do not have enough drivers...currently training drivers through MassHires and NightLife" and expecting drivers to come over
Mero Carlson: "is that same rate the same as it was driving for Durham"
Allen: were until most recent contract; taken care of through collective bargaining process
Mero Carlson: how will new transportation be communicated?
Allen: only change is that all buses will be operated by WPS; routes and distances will not change
"excited to launch the MyStop bus app next year so parents and students will be able to see where their buses are in relation to their house"

AND APPROVED

quick note on today's article on Worcester's FY21

That's here.
Remember, the city asked that the schools' budget be based on the Governor's budget.

...nobody thinks that's going to happen.

We're doing this again?!?

Cue this (which even has dancing)
I did this on Twitter this morning

Front page, top of the fold, five takeways from the Worcester City Manager's (proposed) FY21 budget includes this:

3. More than half of the city manager’s $721.8 million budget recommendation is going toward education. According to Augustus, $421.3 million has been allocated for education, representing 58.4% of the total city budget. He said that reflects the priority the City Council and his administration have put on education and the future of the city.

...I cannot believe we are back to this again...
The Worcester Public Schools proposed FY21 budget isn't out until tomorrow, but let's do some back-of-the-envelope math:

As best as I know, the city has no plans to fund the Worcester Public Schools anything (or much of anything) above foundation. We should note here in passing that this is extremely unusual--just about every district in the state funds above foundation, most well above foundation, and yes, most Gateways are several percentage points over--'though this is not my point.
Thus we can pull the state numbers for this: In Governor Baker's proposed FY21 budget, the Worcester Public School's budget is:

$398,714,407 

Of that, the city of Worcester is required to fund no less than:

$105,210,987

Leaving the state to fund: 

$293,503,420

Yes, that means that from a foundation budget perspective, the city funds a bit more than a quarter of the foundation budget.

That isn't all the budget for the schools, though, as transportation (and a few other small ticket items) aren't counted in the foundation budget. 

Last year, the transportation budget for the Worcester Public Schools was about $20.6M. We know that is going up by $1.5M. As an aside, that's a 7% increase, which is about the largest increase the budget is facing, which is due to the new contract with Durham.
That's an additional $22.1M, then, bringing the overall budget to about:

$419M

Of that, the Worcester contribution is about:

$127M

or

30%

And note that the increase over last year is about $23.1M total, of which $18M is state aid, thus 78% of the increase in the proposed budget comes from the state.

Can we knock this off already?

Quick note on the FY21 City of Worcester budget

We'd heard this was what was being done already, but I think it bears repeating:

“What we did was take the governor’s numbers that came out before this (COVID-19 pandemic) and we used those as the baseline with the understanding that there’s a good likelihood they’re going to go down,” he added.

That's City Manager Ed Augustus being quoted in this Telegram & Gazette article by Nick Kotsopoulos, who also (thank you) notes that the vast majority of this year's projected FY21 budget increase is Chapter 70 aid...and as I am going to keep repeating, state aid is more volatile than local revenue.
The city budget, incidentally, is online here, and the schools page is here.

The proposed Worcester Public Schools FY21 budget is out next Friday, May 15.

And about what Duffy Field?

Looks like the neighborhood is starting to wonder...

“This is a jewel,” said neighbor Philip Economou on Wednesday. Economou said the park, which includes Duffy Field, is the site of frequent pickup games, picnics on the grass, dog meetups and Little League baseball. “There’s no place left like this in Worcester.”
An idea to add a turf field, which could be used by Doherty Memorial High School and others, has got the group up in arms and worrying about future public access.

The quotes from the City Manager appear to me, in any case, to misrepresent the concern: most folks in Worcester don't pay much attention to something being "school" or "city" property, so reassuring that the schools are not going to "take" the field isn't reassuring.

The concern from the neighbors, of course, is if the neighborhood is going to have a fenced-in astroturf field with lights in what is now a low impact field tucked in among houses.

Oh, and yes, it's a wetland, too: Beaver Brook again.

I will note here that the scramble to give Doherty practice space nearby neatly elides what has happened with the other high school building projects; both North and South were built on field space, and, at least in South's case, teams that didn't have room to practice were bused elsewhere as needed.

It seems--and this is the first I've heard of this--that there's a meeting at and about the school on March 23. If I find out more about that, I'll share.

And speaking of the city...

...one wonders if anyone at all is going to raise with the City Council Tuesday during their tax classification hearing that the City's required contribution to the schools--set last year for barely over net minimum, and thus probably not going to break it--for FY21 will jump as the foundation budget increases and the state contribution increases?
Someone should. That needs planning.

Doherty building meeting

posting as we go; here's hoping the presentation goes up online. Also there is still no posting of who is on the school building committee
preliminary design phase
big emphasis that these are "looking at options"
base options, redesign, new build

A few things we learned from the WPS budget hearing before City Council

Beyond the ever-present "whose job is it anyway?" tussle that there is every year, there were a few things that were new to me that we learned through the testimony:

• Superintendent Binienda plans to give all high schools identical schedules next year, where the first two and last two blocks don't rotate. It seems ('though this wasn't entirely clear) that this is for outside entities to teach and for students to leave campus. This has not had any public airing (I have two high school students and this is the first I am hearing about it) and the impact this would have on a myriad of programs and classes is of significant concern. Switching school schedules is a major undertaking, absolutely ought to be something on which the School Committee is consulted, and ought to involve families in more than their stumbling across it in testimony outside of schools. 
• Superintendent Binienda, in responding to a question on diversifying the teaching force, is looking to echo Framingham in the short-term employment of teachers from Spain. This does not, ethnically or racially, diversify the teaching force, as Councilor Rivera pointed out. In fact, the history of Spain and the history of many of the countries from which many of our residents derive is colonialism. The responses on how we are recruiting, particularly in light of the major state effort going on, are weak. 
• Commissioner Riley told the urban superintendents that this June announcement would include something having to do with voluntarily enlistment in a system with less testing. Note that the degree to which the Commissioner has any discretion on that is limited, as much of the system is in state law. Further, it seems very unlikely to me that any district of concern to the state--as ours most certainly is--would be granted testing discretion. 
• Superintendent Binienda cited the lack of professional development time in explaining why elementary teachers would have to wait until October 2020 to undergo systemic bias training (put on by AVID?). The district has two professional development days prior to the opening of school, one of which, at the Superintendent's insistence, the entire staff spends at a pep rally at the DCU Center. I'd suggest systemic bias training is more important. 
• It is dismaying that the City Manager would attempt to use the city's not creating a Recreation Worcester location in a particular council district to "reclaim" $100,000 from the Worcester Public Schools, as was clearly going on with Councilor Mero-Carlson's question and the Manager's response. We appear to be back to claims of "extra funds" given in particular years--it used to be the Charter funding--without regard to how the city contribution to schools is in fact calculated. This is smoke and mirrors and it doesn't lend itself to what everyone solemnly testifies is a good partnership.

Worcester Public Schools before City Council for FY20: laterblog

When the Worcester Public Schools goes before the Worcester City Council on the budget--or when any school district goes before their appropriating authority--I always find it is useful to start with MGL Ch. 71, sec. 34:

In acting on appropriations for educational costs, the city or town appropriating body shall vote on the total amount of the appropriations requested and shall not allocate appropriations among accounts or place any restrictions on such appropriations.

Further, in Worcester, we do well to note that by section 5-2 of the City of Worcester Charter:

The city council may, by majority vote, make appropriations for the purposes recommended and may reduce or reject any amount recommended in the annual budget, but except on recommendation of the city manager, shall not increase any amount in or the total of the annual budget, nor add thereto any amount for a purpose not included therein, except as provided in section thirty-three of chapter forty-four of the General Laws.

Thus the City Council:

• cannot add more money to the city budget (including the schools)
• cannot transfer money to or from any section of the budget (including schools)
• cannot allocate funds within the school budget

As I already noted, the City is also running very close to the line in terms of required spending, thus they don't have a great deal of ability to even cut.

Nonetheless, the City Council spent more than three hours questioning Superintendent Binienda and Mr. Allen on the FY20 budget on Tuesday night (you can find the videos on Facebook here and here), only to hold the item for next week. It is, of course, an election year, but I've also noticed that municipal bodies tend to edge more and more into schools when they can, either because they aren't getting pushback or they aren't seeing the school committee as doing its own oversight.
Note also that this was covered only by Bill Shaner of Worcester Magazine, which is really a problem. This is not a blow-by-blow liveblog, but I felt we needed to say more about this.

I have literally been writing this post for eleven years

I'm not kidding: the first blog post on here, for March 1, 2008, compared the required district spending to the actual district spending and noted that this put us close to the bottom in how much districts were choosing to spend over required.
Here we are eleven years later, and what do we have in today's paper but a headline reading "Augustus pitches $685.7M Worcester budget including $19.8M hike for schools" and the following:

While much of that increase is fueled by a $17.6 million increase in state aid for education, the city has also increased its contribution for education by $3.6 million, Mr. Augustus said.
In formally unveiling his budget recommendation Tuesday night, the manager told the City Council that an $11 million increase to the school budget was needed to provide level services. But what the manager has recommended goes $8.8 million beyond that.

The $19.8M increase in school funding IS EXACTLY WHAT IS LEGALLY REQUIRED. The City Manager CANNOT do anything with the $17.6M increase in Chapter 70 aid, save precisely what he is doing: passing it along to the schools. Along with that comes a required increase in local aid which is $3.6M, PRECISELY WHAT HE IS RECOMMENDING.

No, one does not get credit for going beyond a level services budget, because a level services budget is not what the system is predicated on.

Nor does one get praise for doing LITERALLY THE MINIMUM LEGALLY REQUIRED in increasing city funding.

I was asked earlier today for charts; let me give you one that demonstrate how Worcester is doing remarkably little for the schools. At a time when the whole of Massachusetts educational policy is in agreement that the “adequate” amount of the foundation budget simply isn’t, many other cities are straining to do more.

Worcester (down on the right), for over a decade, does not. 

On spending $100M

Tangetially education related, as spending $100M on this baseball stadium in Worcester means, well:

But does that come across to the public, I ask? Or do people not attuned to the nuances of stadium economics just hear “no new taxes” and leave it at that, even if it’s siphoning off tax money that might otherwise be available for less sportsy purposes? 

“I think the point has come across really well,” says Zimbalist. But, he adds, “you ask, do people understand this? I think in Worcester, they don’t even want to understand it. There’s a tremendous amount of excitement about bringing the team there.”

The article doesn't understand how Worcester schools are funded; otherwise, the stadium plan is categorically taken down.
It's completely irresponsible.

Worcester's free cash is in

The T&G is reporting that, with FY17 closed, the city has nine million dollars it expects to be certified as free cash.
Note that on Tuesday night's Council agenda, Mayor Petty encouraged the City Manager to use some for the Worcester Public Schools.

City Manager Augustus and Superintendent Binienda at CPPAC

at least nominally on budget, but we'll see where the questions go...

Supt Binienda: FY17 adopted budget $322M; FY18 recommended $334M
not including grants
increase of over 3%
"foundation budget is really well below what we need for what we need to do."
runs through account by account increases
notes special education increases, translation (which is hard to project and legally required)...
"process we have is a really great process": resource allocation meetings
principals meet with their schools, fill out resource allocation form, meet with district managers
each school has an hour to an hour and half to make their case
priority 1, 2, 3
"try to fill priority 1 for this year"
were able to fill all priority 1 for this year

Worcester City Council hears the Worcester Public Schools budget

Looks like we have John Monfredo from the School Committee, Mr. Allen, and, on her first day in her new position, Superintendent Binienda
updating as we go..once we start...here we go! Mayor Petty is in.
Petty: any questions?

Puzzling out the City of Worcester FY17 budget

The news that the FY17 City of Worcester budget would make up all remaining ground on net school spending to the Worcester Public Schools has been something I've been puzzling over this past week. When we last left this particular item, we were looking at a budget that hit the yearly requirement, but didn't make up the backlog, which coming out of FY15 was $2.3M. Now the City Manager's memo says this:

$4.3M of that increase [in total budget spending, of $14M] is allocated to the Worcester Public Schools, based on state funding that increased by $3.8M 

From the city's budget, that looks like this:

And then goes on to say:

The State’s required minimum for the public schools would have allowed the City to reduce funding for education by $670,000. 

The above puts the city's spending on schools at just $500,000 over last year. As the Manager mentions, because the city's municipal wealth multiplier actually was negative for this calculation, the city's required spending could have been less than last year.
Thus, the first $670,000 is an amount the city could have cut the schools but didn't.
Given, of course, that the vast majority of municipalities are funding the schools at well over the minimum, the city's choosing not to cut the schools budget from last year is something I, anyway, have a tough time feeling particularly excited about.
Then there is the additional $500,000 (maybe there's rounding in the numbers to bring it up to the $630,000 the Manager mentions) over last year's budget.
That gets us to $1.1M or so over what the state said the city had to spend.
That would mean in FY17, the schools are being funded at 0.28% over the minimum required.

Now, just to put this into perspective, here's the statewide numbers on funding of schools over time:

Yes, the bottom right corner is the statewide average in school funding OVER the minimum for FY16.
Because of the vast gaping hole of the outdated foundation formula, statewide, cities and towns ON AVERAGE are spending 1/5 more than required on schools.
And Worcester's budget is funding at 0.28% over what is required.

In any case, that gets us to what's going on with FY17. What happened in FY16 to make the changes from the last time we saw where we were on NSS?
Let's add this to the list of outstanding questions on the FY17 WPS budget, but here's where I'm going to check: the municipal charges.
There aren't a whole lot of things that change in municipal allocation once the budget is passed. One is charter charges and the other is what the city is charging for municipal services.
And there was at least one change that went through after the budget did last year.

School readiness report

...which is not online yet...
Facilities, HR, School safety, program modifications

Nearly all new windows in at Clark St., West Tatnuck, and Union Hill. Doing doorways, all interior work finishing in second shift
Goddard continues after school starts during second shift. Some will temporarily be boarded up and have fans and small operational windows. Doors and window interior work once all the windows are in
So don't panic; they're being fixed, and they're aiming for a finish by end of September
painting at Jacob Hiatt and Elm Park
Elm Park entry railing and security cameras (facilities funded)
WEMS classroom next to science labe, new floor, paint, lighting
HR work ongoing: still a few staffing positions we're working on
3 day new teacher orientation completed
Community Eligibility vote tonight! Nutrition is ready for it
Posting bus schedules TOMORROW! on the web and there will be a Connect-ed announcement

Safety: RFP is out for bid
ongoing meetings with CM, Mayor, Chief, WPS admin
school resource officer model and development and training
continuing officers in comprehensive high schools (and Tech)
meetings with principals
SRO: "nationally recognized model around training and citizenship"
currently support and share a portion of the costs of four liaison officers
City will shift resources to cover fifth officer (at Tech) and two additional
"relationship gap for" other schools (middle, 7-12)
training will include not only officers but principals and key district admin
"talking about the relationships and how we will begin to look at this"
"giving us a view into things we need to pay attention to"

Program enhancements:
New Citizens: grades 3-5 will go to Clark Street (so kids can socialize with peers and to relieve space crunch on New Ludlow)
Safety Center at Alternative School on Waverly now moving to Central Mass Academy at Harlowe (will also expand to include grade 6)
transition center at Woodward Day (kids lacking records)
Temporary Learning classroom grades 5-8 through Central Mass Academy (socially/emotionally disregulated students); also adds capacity for grades K-4 at other sites
Woodward Day now accepting grade six (long-term suspended students)

Mayor: "our schools are safe, our communities are safe places to live, to own a business"
"have some challenges, dealing with those challenges"
promised principals we'd get their input
"great model" having community resource officers in the schools
build that communication and relationship with the students
addressing community needs and issues
"they're interelated...not a school challenge...a community challenge"

Foley: "can't believe that the summer is over"
find dollars to do significant improvements to our schools
safety: acknowledge mayor's leadership in this
talked about safety: "sometimes productively on the floor, sometimes unproductively on the floor"
police presence in the schools not in a punative sense
make sure those officers are trained and really a part of the school community
thank CM, Chief, Deputy Sargent
really pleased to see it here; communication established and ongoing
youth violence facing every neighborhood throughout our entire community
looking at program enhancement for security
"really reflects a mayor who really gets things done"

O'Connell: potential to be very vital to the school
grateful for time
very important for us...to have right officers and best training
a sympathy for young people and the challenges that young people face
achieve well
principals be front and center in policy
vital to the administration and to us
challenge for us for the model as it evolves

Ramirez: was opposing police in schools, there were disruptions and fights in schools
then weapons, which is a different level
appreciate time and thought
other measures that we should be looking at
mediation techniques to address what we're seeing the community
"there are so many different ways that we can get what's going on in this community"

Monfredo: SRO model is an excellent one
all about prevention and building trust
public needs to know its been a collaborative effort on the part of the city and the school deparment

Biancheria: appreciate the report and update
physical improvements will make a difference
"windows are a large piece of how our buildings work"
matters to the neighbors, matters to the community
not quite clear on if dollars are being impacted by school lunch decision
"consider all of our meetings productive"
thrilled about this evening
leadership shown by mayor, CM, and police chief "want to congratulate more than you can possibly imagine"
would have appreciated more of a plan; how are we going to handle elementary schools?
"can only hope the first day of school and the rest of the days of schools are safe"
would like to have principals have more of a voice
glad they'll have training
Boone: coordination of meetings will be done by Rodrigues of SROs and principals
conversations with principals have been ongoing since June
always included in thinking
logistically we will addressing support through the floating officers, first
Boone: inference that the principals have not been part of this is concerning to me
principals have been part of this since June (and earlier)

regarding the latest round of Worcester State/Chandler Magnet articles

Just a few short things:

• I don't have much to add to Nicole. 
• It's completely inappropriate for the City Manager to cite what may or may not be the opinion of principals.
• And this keeps going through my head this morning:

Update from City Manager Augustus

We've just received the following from City Manager Augustus via Superintendent Boone:

Worcester Prepares for another Winter Storm

City has received more than five feet of snow in past two weeks

WORCESTER – Following two weeks of historic snowfall, another major winter storm is bearing down on Worcester and the city is reminding residents of the ongoing winter parking ban and urging caution during both of Monday's commutes. 

The National Weather Service is forecasting a prolonged winter storm, the first band of which has already dropped several inches of snow on Worcester. By the end of the storm, expected sometime Tuesday, Worcester can expect about 19 inches of snow.

Forecasters are not predicting high winds, and power outages are not expected to be a major concern in and around Worcester.

City Manager Edward Augustus, Worcester Public Schools Superintendent Melinda Boone and key staff members from the city's Department of Public Works, Emergency Management and the City Manager's Office met by conference call Sunday afternoon to coordinate the city’s response. 

Worcester Public Schools will be closed on Monday. The Durkin Administration Building will be open. The WRTA will be in service. The Worcester Senior Center will be closed to the public. City Hall, the Worcester Public Library and other municipal buildings will remain open.

Trash and recycling will be collected Monday on the usual schedule.

More than five feet of snow has covered Worcester over the past 14 days, presenting an unprecedented challenge for the city's residents and snow removal crews. Worcester's 63.5 inches of snow in the past 14 days is possibly an all-time record for the city, the National Weather Service says.

The Department of Public Works had roughly 335 pieces of equipment out on the roads early Sunday, clearing an initial 2-4 inches of snow. The plowing was complete around noon Sunday, and plow operators were sent home to rest up and get ready for the next round of snowfall. Roughly 35 salt trucks stayed on to treat the city's main lines this afternoon. When the snow starts again Sunday night into Monday, Worcester expects to have about 350 to 375 pieces of equipment on the roads. 

During the height of the storm, the city's focus will be on keeping major routes open for public safety and emergency response vehicles. Commuters should give themselves extra time for both the morning and evening drives.

Teams from the city and the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency have been working, as late as this weekend, to remove and haul snow from some of the large snow banks around major routes through the city. But many large piles still exist around the city, and drivers are urged to use caution when pulling out into intersections.

The declared parking ban remains in place. Vehicles are not allowed to park on the city’s major streets, bus routes, or any street downtown. Parking on other streets is restricted to the odd-numbered side, unless otherwise posted. Check the city’s website for details about a particular street. Tow crews were out removing illegally parked cars Sunday morning, and they will again be towing Sunday night to ensure the streets are clear for the plows.

City Manager Augustus has again waived the fee to park at municipal garages, starting at 3 p.m. Sunday into Monday morning. This will allow residents to move their cars off the streets, helping plows clear snow and saving drivers from a lot of shoveling.

Transportation matters, but it won't affect foundation

I'm always pleased to see the T&G give space to covering something as important as the WPS budget, so good reading today on the coverage of yesterday's Research Bureau/WEC event. It's also nice to see Mr. Sinacola's kind words (?) on the budget, 'though taking credit "even a small role" for our managing the fiscal cliff from stimulus aid is a bit rich.
I do have question the efficacy of something raised by City Manager Augustus, Mayor Petty, and Mr. Sinacola, however: counting transportation towards foundation. The issue, as presented, is that transportation, which this year will cost WPS $14 million a year, does not count towards the foundation budget. Thus, from a particular perspective, the city spends $14 million that "doesn't count" when the state calculations how much we spend on schools, and, the argument goes, that isn't fair.
The thing is, though, that transportation doesn't count towards ANYONE's foundation. If the state suddenly started counting transportation towards foundation, all that does is raise EVERYONE's requirement towards foundation. Thus, if transportation were to count towards foundation, and get folded in, the requirements on funding would just expand to add that account.
What it wouldn't do is make any difference in any of the other accounts...and thus it wouldn't make any difference in where we are on funding. The level would be higher, but we'd be in the same place.
We'd still be underfunded.