FY20 in Worcester

Due to the length public testimony on Thursday night (livetweeted here, mostly), the Worcester School Committee did not receive the report on the FY20 budget. However, we do have what was to be the presentation, and the T&G followed up to give us a front page cover story yesterday, anyway:

Note that "than last year" is really the key part of the story (and didn't make the headline).
This bumps the actual presentation of the WPS budget preview off to the 28th, which alas, I will not be able to make and also pushes this very close to when the House is going to release its budget, and well into the city's planning season, as well. So a few thoughts from me (just from me, as always):

--If you are from outside of Worcester, please note: 

Worcester's foundation enrollment is 27,800 students; the foundation budget is $374M. 

Don't let the fact that the numbers have a lot of digits throw you!--

First, remember that the only things that traditionally shifts the foundation budget--and thus the Worcester Public Schools budget, which is little more than that--are enrollment and inflation. And, in short, both are working in our favor this year.

My personal rule of thumb is costs tend to go up by 3%, excluding health insurance. That isn't perfect, by any means, but it does mean it's a bit better to be looking at an inflation rate over 3%.

Pretty crazy jump in preschool there.
Also note the needs that increased, as well:

(the orange bars are when it was low income. No one "lost" poor kids.)

The overall Worcester trend line, putting us, as we are usually reminded, over the enrollment Worcester was at when we had more elementary schools makes me wonder: are we talking about where we're putting these kids? Or are we going to continue to pretend that this isn't a facilities issue with municipal-side implications?

And then, this post on the changes in the foundation budget proposed by Governor Baker? This is all working in here, as well.

And Mr. Allen breaks down where the new FBRC-related funding is coming from as well:

(Thus, incidentally, this tweet, because to do this and the following, you have to be able to take apart the pieces of the foundation budget and put them back together again with district numbers and new assumptions. I think I'm in a good position to say that not many in the state can do that.)

Also, before we get too excited:

Something I don't know enough about is how the Governor's proposal on charter reimbursement (not the 100/60/40, but the enrollment over five years) hits Worcester. We don't really have a significant growth in charter seats, so I wouldn't think it would work in our favor.

To put this in some perspective, here is that third-to-last slide from the equivalent presentation last year:

To which my comment was "ouch."
Thus, let me say, I'm not complaining.
At the same time, remember that the entire premise on which the Worcester--and all--budgets are founded is undercalculated by probably at least $2B. And note where most of the bump comes from: a good inflation year! That means not having a tough year is essentially a toss of the dice.
This is no way to run a budget.

So here are my thoughts as a Worcesterite (who sends three kids on buses every morning) about FY20:

• First, I refuse to let the city off the hook. Only the municipal side can fund a lawsuit, yes, so let's see about that in this budget. But let's also see the city put some real funding towards the schools. I am deeply concerned that the city has done essentially nothing with the $70M backlog in essential repairs in schools. We have a facilities audit that essentially was ignored cityside. We know that every year of an undercalculated foundation budget continues to undermine (almost literally) the facilities, as operations and maintenance runs at 60% or so. INCREASE THE CAPITAL BUDGET. The amount the city contributes towards the schools in capital each year is shameful.
• On the state side, we need to take a look at charter reimbursement. The Baker budget is doing something philosophical as well as budgetary in this shift in funding. The reimbursement is actually intended to smooth the year to year shifts, not the long term gaps. This is a change in the philosophy of reimbursement. The Legislature should fully fund reimbursement. Honestly, I think the state should just line item charters, but no one is asking me that. 
• Also on the state side, the health insurance jump (of 7%ish) is a start, as is the shift on English learners. We still aren't recognizing real costs, however, and progress still is overdue. Also, no one appears to be talking about the 6% drop statewide in the number English learners due to the change in who qualifies. Let's talk about if that is a change that should be made (my inclination is to say no, as even those who test out still need some supports in many cases; this is not my area of expertise by a long shot, however).
• And low income? The recommendation is 50% to 100% of the foundation budget per student. Let's get real on numbers here. We hear nearly daily about the toll poverty takes on families and on children in particular; let's put some resources towards that need. 

I'll follow up this posts with some emails to city councilors and legislators. If you're in Worcester, I'd urge you to do likewise. 

"Unfortunately, neither of them works"

MLB catcher and hitting coach Charley Lau on the two theories on hitting the knuckleball. 

...nor do the theories on minor league stadiums bringing in tax revenue.

For example:

A large body of academic research has found that despite optimistic projections of the economic impact of stadium subsidies, subsequent analysis indicates that they have little to no effect on the local economy and the economic well-being of nearby residents. 

"A Case Study on Stadium Benefits"

And:

...any economic benefit a city sees in shelling out for a minor league stadium is largely imagined. Examining 283 minor league cities from 1985 to 2006, she noted that even Triple-A towns that saw modest increases in per-capita income didn’t see enough of a bump to cover stadium expenses. Also, while those towns sometimes see small increases in rent as a result, the combination of all the added residual income still isn’t enough to warrant the public outlay.

"How Minor League Baseball Struck Out with Taxpayers"

And:

 Cities keep trying, but the economic stimulus provided by pro sports teams—the parking lots full of out-of-state license plates, the overflowing restaurants—is more anecdotal than real. 

"The Braves Play the Taxpayers Better Than They Play Baseball"

And:

Professional sports can have some impact on the economy. Looking at all the sports variables, including presence of franchises, arrival and departure of clubs in a metropolitan area, and stadium and arena construction, the study finds that the presence of a franchise is a statistically significant factor in explaining personal income per capita, wage and salary disbursements, and wages per job. But this impact tends to be negative. Individual coefficients, such as stadium or arena construction, sometimes have no impact, but frequently indicate harmful effects of sports on per capita income, wage and salary disbursements, and wages per job.  

  "Stadium Boondoggles Spread to the Minor Leagues" 

And (UPDATE, as this looks specifically at the Worcester deal):

After the announcement by the city and the team Friday of their signing a letter of intent to build a stadium in the Canal District, WBJ sent copies of the financing details to 10 economists and stadium experts around the nation to gauge whether Worcester's claims over the stadium development paying for itself – without the need for current tax dollars – would come true.
Of those experts, the only one who spoke positively about the deal was the Smith College professor who was hired by the city to judge the economic viability of the offer to the PawSox. The rest doubted the stadium-pays-for-itself claims would come to fruition.
"There's just mountains now of economic evidence that the payoff that's promised and what actually happens is far different," said Joel Maxcy, an economist at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

"Sports economists: $101M WooSox Stadium Deal Unlikely to Beat the Odds"

All of the above have extensive links to further research to the same ends; I haven't cherrypicked these. 

Note in the above, by the way, that parallel to the claims being made in Worcester, the tax revenue increase coming from offshoots of the stadium does not pan out. Let's agree, therefore, that, claims aside:

Worcester officials promise no existing city tax revenue will be used to fund the ballpark project. Instead, the city will create a District Improvement Financing District around the park and ancillary development. According to a fact sheet on the new park, new taxes and other revenue from within the district will pay for financing.

In 2022, the first full fiscal year of operation, Worcester official project they will owe $2.9 million on an overall $100.8 million loan. But they’re anticipating $3.7 in revenue from the development, operating at a surplus of $741,000.

On the revenue side, state tax gains are projected at about $2 million annually from income tax, and food, beverage and hotel taxes.

...Worcester, and its taxpayers, are on the hook for this stadium. The $100M in bonds have to be paid regardless if the projected funds come in.

However, the $100M loan for this stadium is not all that the city has planned.

This is on top of the $194.6M that the City Council authorized for the new South High back at the end of March. Remember, in contrast to earlier projects in Worcester, the state through MSBA is only reimbursing 55% of the costs of the new South, due to increases in the per foot cost of building. Thus over $100M of the cost of the new South will be covered by the city.

This is in addition to a Doherty High project that has yet to find a site and has yet to receive state approval as to its plan, but will be at least as expensive as South (more, if the City has to fund land for the project). It will similarly be a lower reimbursement rate--it isn't as though costs to build have any prospects of coming down over the next several years--and thus a similar amount=--$100M--covered by the city.

The acquisition of this debt in concert with the federal administration's decisions around imports led to a discussion at Worcester City Council the first week of March.

Mr. Petty said maintaining the city’s infrastructure is equally important, but there is a limit to the amount of money the city can borrow.

“Hard choices will have to be made,” he said. “Where do we put the money? Do we put it into the school or do we put it in somewhere else? Infrastructure is important, too. The finances of this city are the most important thing we do; everything goes from there. A balanced approached will be needed when it comes to paying for these big items. Some tough decisions are going to have to be made.”  

And Worcester has a third high school not mentioned above that has yet to even be accepted into the MSBA pipeline: Burncoat, which is (as the state has acknowledged) in worse shape that Doherty and would need to be a middle/high project, given both the proximity and condition of the middle school. While Burncoat could follow the North and South building staging (building a new building on the athletic fields while the old building remains in use; taking down the old building and reconstructing the athletic fields), it is the arts magnet and a 7-12 building has different requirements.
Figure at least another $100M.

Finally--and most disturbingly to me--no one is making any plans at all regarding the $70M in "urgent" (having to do with life or safety needs) repairs the spring Facilities Master plan reported out. While the report was made at a joint subcommittee meeting with City Council, it's not clear that the report has been taken up either by the city administration or by the school administration in discussions with the city. Those are basic systems repairs at schools that, come a week from today, we'll once again be sending 27,000 kids to.

I realize that it is much more fun to smile at press conferences where everyone is clapping than to ask how we're going to meet basic functions of municipal government like providing schools in decent repair. It is the job of an informed polis, however, to ask how we continue to run our municipality for the benefit of our actual residents.
It is for the latter that we elect City Councilors.
And School Committee members, for that matter.

And speaking of school buildings in Worcester

The Worcester School Committee's Finance and Operations subcommittee met yesterday with the City Council's education committee to talk about the long-awaited facilities report (yes, that's a link to the report online; it's up!). I caught a bit of it in the car (tweets here) and was caught by the new discussion of possible mergers of elementary schools...
...as was T&G reporter Scott O'Connell, thus this morning's headline.
Note, though, that as much as the consultant did seem rather taken with this notion of mergers, this was less about that, and more about Worcester having (not news to us) a lot of old buildings and smaller schools. If those need major rehab, such that new buildings would make more sense, we (and MSBA) aren't going to build on the same plan. New buildings have cafeterias and space for special ed and follow modern specs around light and air and such. And they're bigger.

And yes, that's my way of telling you not to freak out over mergers. And, as noted in the article:

While Mr. Allen said district administrators have not begun planning any such school consolidations yet, he noted Worcester went through a similar contraction several decades ago. In response to a committee question about how families might react to losing their school to a possible merger, Mr. Allen said, “If you can show parents what you can get with a larger, newer school,” the School Department hopefully will be able to earn community buy-in.

Worcester isn't new to school mergers. And unlike other places, it hasn't been our less vocal, more poor, more of color sections of the city that have lost schools.

Don't lose sight of the main point here, though: We have a massive backlog of needed renovation and repairs at our schools. That's on the city capital budget (and, more broadly, it's on the state's foundation funding, in terms of maintenance).
What are we going to do about that, Worcester? 

WPS finally getting a facilites master plan!

The T&G is reporting that the RFP is (FINALLY!) going out for a facilities master plan.

Do note, however, that it is not for all schools: per the RFP, "a comprehensive physical and programmatic assessment in twenty-eight (28) schools." The district has 44 schools; I suspect that this has something to do with the $400,000 budget. Given that this money passed two years ago, though, it getting through (and being outsourced, which is the right way to do this one) is a victory!

And speaking of facilities master plans

 Boston today announced an 18 month plan to create a 10 year facilties plan for their schools.

Over the next 18 months, the Mayor's Education Cabinet and BPS will work with consultantSymmes, Maini & McKee Associates (SMMA) to develop a comprehensive set of recommendations that will be submitted to Mayor Walsh, Superintendent Tommy Chang and the Boston School Committee by the end of 2016. 

They're using the Twitter hashtag #BuildBPS.

Ours? Still waiting on city admin...

Agenda this week!

A quick note, first of all, on tomorrow night's Worcester City Council agenda: the City Manager's portion of the agenda requests Council authorization for use of the revolving funds. If you look at the backup, quite a number of these are WPS accounts, many associated with Worcester Technical High School programs.  Revolving funds set aside the money brought in by a program for the use of that program.

The Worcester School Committee meets on Thursday at 7 pm. You can find the agenda here. 
The report of the superintendent this week is the administration's response regarding an exam, or limited admission, or, as it's called on the agenda, "high school for advanced learners." There is as yet no backup; I'll post it once we get it.
We have a number of recognitions and thanks coming forward, including students who are in the Central Mass Senior Music Festival.
Miss Biancheria would like to discuss the use of silent lunches.
She is also looking for an update on the School Facilities Master Plan (still in subcommittee).
We are being asked to approve two prior year payments: one to a nurse for $5,698.70. and one to the Stetson School for $20,381.22.
We have a report on the Level 4 work being done at Elm Park Community School. 

We will be having an executive session before the meeting for two items: one for an update on negotiations with cafeteria workers, and one to open negotiations for a renewed contract with Superintendent Boone (while her contract runs through June, the School Committee must inform her of intent to not renew by January). 

Facilities to date

report on most recent spending
O'Brien: good point to jump off for building study
update from Allen on accelerated repair projects
Worcester East Middle still under review by MSBA
 "MSBA is not considering the high schools as part of the 2013 Statements of Interest"
currently working on specifications of the master plan
will be completed in next 30 to 60 days
Foley: funding master plan?
Zidelis: funding will be available if the City Manager says it will be available
O'Brien recalls that it was in the capital budget, but how much
Zidelis: "if the City Council and the City Manager says it will be funded, there will be funding"
Foley: key to open the door to funding from the state
Allen: non-MSBA projects: about $1 million that will not be MSBA projects
"as a part of our $3 million" for capital funding
"these are things that can no longer be put off"
this will affect the amount that we can apply for for MSBA (as we have to have the 20% match)
O'Brien: what is the general strategy policy on playground repair?
Allen: PTO's responsibility for repair and replacement
safety audit on all playgrounds done recently, referred to F&O
surface replacement the most common
 ESCo: solar panels on Forest Grove and Norrback; ground at the rear of Worcester Arts Magnet; carport arrays at Burncoat High, Sullivan Middle, and South High
once fully operational, will provide nearly one-third of electricity for those buildings in aggregate; 8% reduction in net electricity costs for WPS
Foley: asks for it to be incorporated into curriculum

Facilities master plan

Allen: MSBA looking for a masters facilities plan as we move forward
begun developing specifications of what that will look like: hope to complete in the next month
then select through RFP
educations specs, facilities specs, enrollment projection as well
conversation with MSBA to make sure that it will meet what we're looking for
hope to have something--aka, the specs-- for group to review by  December
would expect the master plan to take many months to put together
looking for a long-term strategy for the facilities of our schools
balance local decision making with MSBA's role in approving facilities

We need a master plan

O'Brien: In meeting with MSBA, finding that we need a citywide master plan as we're making big submissions
"looking at all the facilities needs, all those needs, and all priorities"
"we've got the frameworks for that"
Economou: what are the priorities for that?
O'Brien: we're understanding that the City Manager has put forward $400,000 for a master plan in this capital budget
RFP, RFQ
Foley: get it down, bring it back to the joint committee,then to respective bodies for discussion
hope to get it done by December
ask MSBA what they're looking to accomplish
how far ahead?
O'Brien: deferred maintenance needs list has been done
it was $72 million worth of work
set priorities of
Economou: why aren't parents sending kids to local high schools?
not getting any questions on high school
O'Brien: what sort of investment are surrounding communities making?
people are leaving to go to surrounding communities
Economou points out that West Boylston doesn't have a new building

Novick: note that MSBA expects master plans to include academics; buildings need to suit academics in building
want an honest plan: not by quadrant, not by district: what do we actually need?

Colorio: facade of school
want marketing: CD for good things that are happening in our schools
"perception is off right now"
may take five, ten years to get totally done; "in the meantime, great things happening in the schools"
Foley: falls upon all of us to market what is being done in our schools
suggests bringing CD idea back to Governance

Economou: if this is going to be in the hands of the Superintendent and the City Manager...has to be in the community
surveying of parents, talking to students and faculty in the buildings
formation of task force

Strategic Master Planning (school buildings) NSBA

publishing as I go...
Three district examples: Tiverton, RI; Groton, CT; Waterbury, CT.
Tiverton and Groton on declining enrollment; Waterbury increasing