The Arlington School Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 9, heard a series proposed reductions totaling $4,485,000 and involving the loss of 74 positions. The numbers, far from final, are based on the latest best estimates for school revenue as the fiscal 2011 budget takes shape.

Proposed cuts would eliminate traffic supervisors, the ACE program and sixth-grade world language classes. Cuts would hit textbooks, professional development, special education and custodians.

The committee also approved the school calendar for 2010-2011. See it here >> 

Budget Subcommittee of the Arlington School Committee

FINAL Minutes for Meeting of Dec. 14, 2009, 5:30 p.m., School Committee Room

Attendees

Committee Members

Present: Joseph A. Curro, Jr., Chair

Cindy Starks

Ronald Spangler

Administration: Chief Financial Officer Diane Fisk Johnson

Others: Richard Fanning, Finance Committee

Mary Ronan, Finance Committee

Juli Brazile

Vicki Ford

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Review of Minutes

On a motion of Ms. Starks, seconded by Mr. Curro, the minutes of November 18, 2009 were adopted by a vote of 20, with Dr. Spangler abstaining.

Review of Budget Forum Feedback

Prior to examining specific budget forum feedback, there was some discussion of the stir caused by the School Committee’s discussion of school consolidation options. Dr. Spangler discussed in particular an early morning meeting at the Peirce School attended by about 75 people worried about school closure rumors. He said that there was a great deal of curiosity about how the

budget process works, and that attendees were interested in seeing the Committee distill budget issues into a one or two page fact sheet.

Dr. Spangler stated that he had heard similar interest from parents at Dallin. There was discussion of the unusual position that Arlington finds itself in with rising enrollment, compared to many other communities where enrollment is dropping.

Following the initial discussion, subcommittee members and others in attendance began the process of reviewing specific suggestions from the public budget forum and ranking them on the basis of feasibility, complexity, fiscal impact, and impact on teaching and learning. The subcommittee succeeded in examining about half of the 80+ proposals.

Planning for Next Steps in Budget Process

In preparation for the next School Committee meeting, the subcommittee agreed on the need to put things in context. There was a discussion of the five-year plan and the traditional 55/45 budget split with the Town. There was also further talk about the need for a one-to-two page handout, which might draw in part on the Town Manager’s presentation to the Budget Forum.

Any handout must highlight the 8-10% annual growth in special education expenditures and address the revenue situation.

Elements might include:

1. How did we get here? This bullet point should highlight a number of givens, including the fact that salaries always go up.

 2. What are we going to do? This might include a pie chart showing percentages of the different types of costs. There was discussion of the fact that salaries make up 85% of the budget.

Mr. Curro asked if there had been further investigation into the feasibility of a flat activity fee. Ms. Johnson responded that this was deemed to be illegal.

Ms. Starks asked about the feasibility of raising revenues through advertising. Ms. Johnson stated a belief that a reasonable ratio between salaries and other costs was 70/30.

There was discussion that this was the ratio when Mr. Levenson took over as Superintendent, but that – for a variety of reasons – he had allowed this to tilt toward 85/15. Dr. Spangler expressed a further desire for reforms in the way contracts are structured, to which Ms. Johnson responded that the Mass. Association of School Business Officers (MASBO) was working on various approaches to the issue.

In terms of public outreach, it was felt that there needed to be a straw-man proposal. Ms. Johnson said that she could think of every conceivable cut and describe each on a single piece of paper, along with projected net savings.

Ms. Johnson also stated that she could put together three options:

• Option A: Full service load with fees.

• Option B: Eliminate programs and services.

• Option C: Hybrid model.

Subcommittee members agreed on the need to clarify the date that a bottom-line budget vote was due.

Other Business

There was not other business.

Adjournment

On motion of Ms. Starks, seconded by Dr. Spangler, the meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. by unanimous vote, 30.