Schools

How Many Students:

    I have to commend the MCPS staff for improving the calculation for students being served in general
and special education. Finally the ongoing trend of lower population has been included in the funding
request. As a taxpayer watchdog, we would like to understand how a drop of nearly 3000 students reflects
only a savings of 8.18 million dollars. (2750, per student when MCPS calls for an average of $13,784 cost per
student) I think the Council will also want to understand the difference.

Funding:

     The Superintendent included 22.7 million in GCEI funding as a base budget revenue source.    This
commitment has not been met in the three prior years and there is significant opinion that the state will use
a phased-in approach. With that in mind, MCPS should be prepared to balance the budget with up to 15
million less funds being available from the State and not available from County Taxpayers.

    Did you know that MCPS is budgeting for an 18% decrease in rental fees next year? Could you have staff
prepare an explanation of why they expect to lose so much rental income?

    The Student Activity Fee adds only $550,000, in revenues each year, has anyone in MCPS done a study to
see if the administrative costs are more than the revenue. With over 75,000 students that require mailings
and review, the average revenue is only $7.33, per student. (Time to get rid of a nuisance and move the
staff to more critical areas)

Expenditures:

     With a decrease of nearly 3000 students since fiscal 06, why is MCPS asking to add an additional 17
Assistant Principals, 28 new positions in security and over 21 Counselors in the next year. These are items
that again need to be reviewed given the potential revenue shortfall, and priority of front-line services.
Administration expense both in Category 1 and 2 continue to increase at over ten percent annually.
Category 1 Administrative expense has increased to nearly 2.2% of the proposed FY 08 budget, and is
showing an alarming trend given technology efficiencies and lack of growth in the amount of students.

The current budget is guided mostly by the recently approved contracts for employees calling for 4.8%
COLA and no change in the step formulas. In the case of the SEIU, this additional COLA may be justified
based on prior contracts, but should have been dependent on the GCEI funding. No additional savings
were negotiated to mitigate increased costs from benefits. (9.8 million) While everyone in this room wants
to justly compensate our employees, one has to understand why MCPS employees will receive higher COLA’
s than the local Civil Service employees (2.8%). The last compensation study Dated January 1, 2004,
indicated that MCPS was already 15.8% higher than the average of the surrounding areas.

The costs of the recent negotiations are unsustainable, especially when years 2 and 3 are reviewed. We
see nothing in the new agreements that would provide incentive for those younger employees that
outperform more experienced peers, nor for those individuals that remain in more challenged schools. If
MCPS is trying to lead the country in education excellence, why did they fail to change the compensation
package to reflect new ideals and realities of the county population? Please see the recent article in the
Washington Post attached regarding this subject.

The budget calls for a controversial change in the staffing and funding for Special Education students.
While this is somewhat of a budget matter, we have to wonder whether this new methodology has been
reviewed with the public to assure that all IEP’s and requirements under “No Child Left behind” have been
maintained. In addition, does the budget have all the required staffing required to allow for these students
to maintain services and accommodations? Speaking on a personal basis, I have been through the change
and found that the staffing formulas were not adequately reflected in Middle School.

In addition, it also appears that recruiting for Special Education functions has been inadequate. (Speech
Therapists, Occupational Therapists, and Physical Therapist) every year these positions are not being filled
on a timely basis, and no significant change in the recruiting has taken place, nor is proposed for FY2008.

Statement on Portables:

No one is in favor of portable classrooms as a long-term approach, but with the student population slowly
decreasing and new schools already coming on-line, I think a serious look at retiring many of these
portables is due. In addition, our recent review indicates a simple boundary shift could eliminate as much
as 50% of the existing inventory. MCTL has called for a comprehensive boundary study to be conducted
and implemented within the next 12 months to optimize space and eliminate much of the inventory.
(Review of Schools attached)

Conclusion:

The Proposed Superintendent FY 08 budget appears to be unaffordable given the state of the County and
State proposed fiscal conditions. Between 15 and 22 million could be at risk based on State funding for
GCEI, and will not be closed by local taxpayers. Given the change in student population a net reduction in
administrative staff would have been expected and not an increase as budgeted. Please defer the
additional staff until the student population grows again and the state can meet the GCEI requirements.
The increase in salary costs can not be borne as requested by the taxpayers and will be unsustainable.

Suggestions for Closing the potential 15 million gap:

A: Defer the additional staff for counselors, vice principals and security until full GCEI funding is approved:
6 million

B: Add only 4 maintenance staff to cover new elementary school; 0.5 million

C: Do not fund undesignated increase in salaries. 2.8 million dollars

D: Defer step increases for six months for all personnel above grade 9, saving 6.4 million.

E: Eliminate 100 portables due to lower enrollment. 0.5 Million

Comment Summary

A: The budget indicates that an increase of 1682 regular students will occur while the number that
should be in the table is (2846) decrease.

B: The requested budget includes 69.9 million in negotiated labor costs, but 12/06 memo indicates
only 67.1 million has been designated. Could staff provide detail on the additional 2.8 million that has
not been designated before voting?

C: Maintenance and support for the new financial system indicates an additional cost of $966,000. If
this is a new system, why does annual maintenance initiate on the first day, isn’t that part of the initial
purchase for the first year? Do we have a reduction in contractors that we will not require after
retiring the old system?

D: What factors are causing Workers Compensation to increase by nearly 800K next year? Are efforts
being taken to reduce these costs by reviewing what is causing the higher costs?

E: If MCPS is only adding 1 new school next year why are we adding 14.5 maintenance workers, since
with fewer students the stress per building will be reduced?

F: Could staff provide more detail for the inflation costs of diesel fuel, bus parts, and lubricants
based on current costs? (914,000 increase without defining the base and cost)

G: Why is the department of Communication reflecting a higher increase for step increases than the
COLA? Appears to be overstated by $250,000

H: What budget assumptions are included for 2008 lapsed positions?