Budget Q &A · FY 2021 Proposed Operating Budget Q&A 02.04.20 Budget Work Session Page 2 Questions from the Board of Education Budget Work Session – February 4, 2020 Chief Executive

Business Management Services Michael Herbstman Chief Financial Officer

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS | 14201 School Lane, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Questions from the Board of Education

Budget Work Session – February 4, 2020

Topics:

Chief Executive Officer Chief of Staff Communications & Community Support Operations and Supporting Services Board of Education

Chief Executive Officer’s FY 2021

Proposed Budget Q & A

Prince George’s County Public Schools Business Management Services

FY 2021 Proposed Operating Budget Q&A

02.04.20 Budget Work Session Page 2

Questions from the Board of Education Budget Work Session – February 4, 2020

Chief Executive Officer

1. Page 85 – Chief Executive Officer – Organization Summary Explain the cost and total of FTE on the Chief of Staff line: 5.00 FTE at $1,341,703.00

2. Page 87 – Chief Executive Officer What will be the duties of the "Officer" in the CEO's office?

Chief of Staff

3. Chief of Staff – Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries The Pupil Account and School Boundaries Office is under the organizational direction of the Chief of Staff and not the Chief Operating Officer. When did this change occur and why?

4. Page 90 – Chief of Staff Explain the duties and the need to double the "Admin Support Specialist" FTE in the Chief of Staff's Office.

5. Page 90 – Chief of Staff Over the last two fiscal years, "Professional Contracted Services" have gone up by nearly 400%. Please explain.

6. Page 92 – Appeals Office Is this a new office? I thought this fell under the jurisdiction of General Counsel.

7. Page 93 – Appeals Office Provide an explanation for the increase in the FY 2021 proposed budget for Salaries & Wages among all position listed.

8. Page 96 – Compliance Office What is the need of this department's Financial Analyst? What are they financially analyzing that the CFO's office cannot do?

Communications & Community Engagement

9. Pages 154 – 157 – Chief, Communications & Community Engagement Outcome 3 is focused on public perception. Parent and student perception, along with staff perceptions, will ultimately influence any public campaign. What are the investments that will be made to better measure parent perceptions and teacher perceptions in a way that provides a safe environment to be honest? What is existing response rates to Climate surveys and how is that data used?

10. Page 155 – Chief, Communications & Community Engagement Provide an explanation for the increase in the FY 2021 proposed budget for Professional Contracted Services.

11. Page 155 – Chief, Communications & Community Engagement a) Does this division have an Associate Superintendent yet? We are consistently budgeting for one. If still

vacant, please list the administration's plans to fill the vacancy or the need to fill it. b) What would be enhanced from our Communications and Community Engagement that is not presently

being done? 12. Page 158 – Communications

Please explain the difference between having and "Executive Director" and a "Director". Are these titles semantical?

13. Page 159 – Communications Provide an explanation for the increase in the FY 2021 proposed budget for Capital Outlay – Educational Communication Equipment.

14. Page 159 – Communications - Restricted Please explain the $180,000 spent on "Professional Contracted Services".

15. Page 160 – Communications – Restricted What "Educational Communication Equipment" was purchases for nearly $91,000, when the Board allocated no funding in this line item?

16. Page 163 – Community Partnerships – Restricted This department spent nearly $57,000 in Restricted Funds. Please explain.

17. Are rates of use of language Link reflecting the need in schools that have English only speaking front office/administrative staff serving a multi-lingual population?





Operations & Supporting Services

18. Universal Meal Program (UMP) proposals - the $12 million one I proposed for all elementary students and the $2 million Community Schools proposal announced in your budget. Given the positive appetite of Board members to both proposals, I wanted to obtain administrative feedback on a more affordable progressive rollout of a UMP. From the data given to me by your team, breakfast and lunch meal participation for our secondary school students to low - due to a swell of issues, both operationally and socially. An increase of $0.25 per meal, at current participation rates would equate to about ~$500,000 in revenue for the year. However, it is my opinion that if the Board funded a progressive marketing campaign for our secondary students, we could see participation rates increase - thus generating more revenue for the Food and Nutrition program. Furthermore, it was estimated that it would cost the system $9.9 million a year to cover the costs of non-FARM elementary students' lunch costs. While not statistically scientific, that would mean it would cost $1.42 million per each of the seven grade levels identified in the proposed policy. Ahead of the upcoming budget work session, I wanted to submit these following questions before presenting an amendment to the Policy Committee and/or a binding resolution that would establish an affordable implementation cycle: How much is estimated, in both dollars and time, for the Board and Administration to implement an effective marketing campaign to increase secondary school student meal participation rates? Please establish more accurate cost figures for a three year implementation plan for a UMP for grades PreK-5th grade (seven grade levels) for all non-FARM-identified students for lunch participation only. Does the administration believe a Board sponsored cost-benefit analysis needs to be completed to determine if our in-house food and nutrition services are more or less costly than contracted services?

19. Page 227 – Chief Operating Officer Where is the increase in the budget for Food & Nutrient services and staff?

20. Page 232 – Purchasing & Supply Services Explain the increase in funding for FY 2021 for Other Support Staff?

21. Page 233 – Purchasing & Supply Services Explain the $33,000 spent on "M&R Equipment".

22. Page 236 – Safety & Security Services Explain the proposed increase in Salaries & Wages for FY 2021.

23. Page 237 – Safety & Security Services Provide the list the middle schools that will be receiving the security staff and the last three years of reported student behavioral issues that have caused them to need additional security staff.

24. Pg. 237 – Safety & Security Services Explain how it was determined that Middle Schools need more security staff rather than investments in restorative practices, after school activities, school psychologists and other non-policing investments.

25. Page 245 – Building Services – Program Enhancement Weekend Staffing – What type of work will be done and who will be doing it at this cost of discretionary funds?

26. Page 247 – Capital Programs This department only has one FTE. Is it correct in interpreting that we have an entire department that only has one employee or are other staff relegated to this department?





27. Page 248 – Food & Nutrition Services Expected outcomes of lunch and breakfast participation is only to increase one percentage point? Why such a small targeted goal?

28. Page 248 – Food & Nutrition Services We have over 200 schools in the system, but only host 10 nutrition education sessions. Provide the list of the 10 schools that hosted the sessions from last year.

29. Page 248 – Food & Nutrition Services One of the Core Services is to "provide exceptional customer service". Provide a list of the professional development sessions that Food and Nutritional staff have attended to show consistent training in customer service.

30. Page 253 – Transportation & Central Garage Explain the $100,000 in spending above the approved Board budget for "Misc. Other Equip Over $499.

31. Page 253 – Transportation & Central Garage Is there an interim report from the Transportation Task Force that will give context to the types of changes we will see in the final budget for this division? Additional data entry clerks is a positive, however, the top issue parents want is better use of technology (HCTB and text) to notify of late buses.

32. Provide the cost for Catering Services across the district. Provide the total cost of catering services spent by the Board Office.

33. Why do Cost Center line items vary by Board Member?




Chief Executive Officer

1. Page 85 – Chief Executive Officer – Organization Summary

Explain the cost and total of FTE on the Chief of Staff line: 5.00 FTE at $1,341,703.

The Organization Summary on page 85 for the Chief Executive Officer represents a summary of the proposed FTE

and budget for each department/office that reports upward to the Chief Executive Officer. The budget details for

each department/office listed can be found on their individual pages in the budget document (pages 89- 103).

The Chief of Staff’s FY 2021 proposed budget of $1,341,703 supports the following:

Salaries and Wages for 5.00 FTE - $637,882

Employee Benefits for 5.00 FTE - $167,655

Contracted Services - $491,118

Supplies & Materials - $2,750

Other Operating Expenses - $42,298

2. Page 87 – Chief Executive Officer

What will be the duties of the "Officer" in the CEO's office?

Under the direction of the Chief Executive Officer, the Senior Advisor (“Officer”) will serve as a strategic advisor to

the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) on a variety of critical topics impacting PGCPS. The incumbent of this position will

serve as a member of the CEO’s executive leadership team and will advise and work closely with other members of

the executive leadership team. The Senior Advisor may be tasked with leading and supporting strategic projects

identified as priority initiatives. The Senior Advisor will report directly to the Chief Executive Officer and may serve

in an acting capacity during the transition or absence of key leadership positions, as directed by the Chief Executive

Officer.

The duties of the “Officer” in the CEO’s office include:

Advising the Chief Executive Officer on policy, strategy, advocacy and operational matters;

Serving as a member of the Chief Executive Officer’s executive leadership team and participating in

executive leadership team meetings;

Collaborating with the executive leadership team to design and implement short and long term priorities

and initiatives for the Chief Executive Officer;

Supporting the Chief Executive Officer through leading strategic initiatives and providing project

management;

Advising and making recommendations with regard to procedures and strategies relating to the efficient

delivery of services and furthering the goals of the school system;

Collaborating with the Chief Executive Officer and members of the executive leadership team on problem

solving key issues and proactively seeking resolutions;

Serving in the absence of leadership to provide additional capacity as needed and ensure that core

services continue to be provided;

Representing the Board of Education as the chief negotiator in the collective bargaining process of the

various negotiated agreements;

Executing the work of the CEO’s office with fidelity and confidentiality in alignment with the vision and

goals of the school system; and




Serving as the Chief Executive Officer’s designee in his/her absence, at various meetings, conferences, and

functions as needed and required.

Chief of Staff

3. Chief of Staff – Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries

The Pupil Account and School Boundaries Office is under the organizational direction of the Chief of Staff and

not the Chief Operating Officer. When did this change occur and why?

The FY 2021 proposed budget for the Pupil Accounting & School Boundaries (found on page 103) reflects the

realignment of the office from the Chief Operating Officer to the Chief of Staff.

The realignment was approved by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and reflects the CEO’s efforts to align

resources in a manner that will increase accountability and operational efficiency. This realignment occurred after

the FY 2020 approved budget was approved in June 2019.

4. Page 90 – Chief of Staff

Please explain the duties and the need to double the "Admin Support Specialist" FTE in the Chief of Staff's

Office.

The Administrative Support Specialist is a job class which contains a group of positions which are similar in nature.

The Office of the Chief of Staff has two positions within the job class of Administrative Support Specialist. A brief

description of the duties of each position is detailed below:

Associate Editor

Under the direction of the Chief of Staff, the Associate Editor is responsible for drafting, copyediting, and

manuscript formatting, and proofreading of day-to-day and other outgoing office correspondences. The nature of

the work performed requires executive-level content and substantive editorial review quality along with thorough

knowledge of Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) organization, functions, personnel, and programs.

The incumbent must be able to work effectively under frequent deadline pressure, be detailed oriented and have

strong organizational and multi-tasking skills.

Planning and School Boundaries Specialist

The Planning and School Boundaries Specialist will assist in reviewing, monitoring and recommending all aspects of

the Office of Planning and School Boundaries. The incumbent in this class will assist with the planning, assessment,

and coordination of school facilities to support the development of the Capital Improvement Program, school

facilities planning studies, school district boundaries, and school district enrollment projections. The incumbent

will collect and analyze data for school system land use, housing developments, and general and student

population to use for school district facility planning. Special assignments are received through conferences,

written instructions and requests from the Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

The Planning and School Boundaries Specialist position was realigned from the Capital Programs. This was

approved by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and reflects the CEO’s efforts to align resources in a manner that will

increase accountability and operational efficiency.




5. Page 90 – Chief of Staff

Over the last two fiscal years, "Professional Contracted Services" have gone up by nearly 400%. Please explain.

The FY 2021 proposed budget for the Chief of Staff includes $81,000 for Professional Contracted Services, $58,650

over the FY 2019 actual expenditures. The increase represents professional services that are needed to

supplement and advance the district strategic plan and legislative agenda. Services include representation in

Annapolis during legislative session, communications support, etc. Lastly, the increase also reflects contracts or

initiatives funded through the Chief of Staff’s budget that service the district as a whole.

6. Page 92 – Appeals

Is this a new office? I thought this fell under the jurisdiction of General Counsel.

The FY 2021 proposed budget for the Office of Appeals (including the Court Liaison) found on page 100 reflects the

realignment of the office from General Counsel to the Chief of Staff. . This realignment was approved by the Chief

Executive Officer (CEO) and reflects the CEO’s efforts to align resources in a manner that will increase

accountability and operational efficiency.

7. Page 93 – Appeals Office

Provide an explanation for the increase in the FY 2021 proposed budget for Salaries & Wages among all position

listed.

The FY 2020 estimated budget for Salaries & Wages reflects the average salaries for each position listed. The FY

2021 proposed budget reflects the actual salaries for the incumbents, the average salary for any vacant position,

and any negotiated increases that occurred in FY 2020. The increase reflects the difference between the average

salaries budgeted in FY 2020 and the actual salaries of incumbents (adjusted for negotiated increases) and average

salaries for vacant positions in FY 2021.

8. Page 96 – Compliance Office

What is the need of this department's Financial Analyst? What are they financially analyzing that the CFO's

office cannot do?

The Financial Analyst is a job class which contains a group of positions which are similar in nature. The Compliance

Specialist is a position within the Financial Analyst class. The Compliance Office proposed budget included a

program enhancement to eliminate a 1.00 Secretary III position and add a 1.00 Compliance Specialist. A brief

description of the Compliance Specialist duties is detailed below:

Compliance Specialist

Under the direction of the Director of Compliance, the Compliance Specialist is responsible for the creation and

maintenance of all reports pertaining to schools’ and departments’ compliance with administrative procedural

requirements. The incumbent will be responsible for supporting schools in their tracking of employee compliance

with a wide range of administrative procedural requirements and by answering varied inquiries related to the

implementation of the administrative procedures. The Compliance Specialist will make recommendations and

provide appropriate notifications after reviewing and compiling the data.




Communications & Community Engagement

9. Pages 154 – 157 – Chief, Communications & Community Engagement

Outcome 3 is focused on public perception. Parent and student perception, along with staff perceptions, will

ultimately influence any public campaign. What are the investments that will be made to better measure

parent perceptions and teacher perceptions in a way that provides a safe environment to be honest? What is

existing response rates to Climate surveys and how is that data used?

For the 2018-2019 school year, the Chief of Communications & Community Engagement’s office did not issue a

PGCPS sponsored survey because they were leveraging the survey issued by the Maryland State Department of

Education (MSDE) that was used as part of the State issued Star Rating system. The office found that the survey

lacked the specificity needed to address climate issues and more directly it limited the district’s ability to review

the questions used and answers given. The plan is to bring back our locally driven climate survey which will assist

in assessing public perception, climate, and use the derived data to work with school communities.

10. Page 155 – Chief, Communications & Community Engagement

Provide an explanation for the increase in the FY 2021 proposed budget for Professional Contracted Services.

The FY 2021 proposed budget for the Chief of Communications & Community Engagement includes an increase of

$130,000 for Professional Contracted Services to supports the development of videos, social media content, and

other digital and visuals needed to supplemental limited of our existing staff and outdated equipment. As noted by

several, we have increased our public footprint in traditional and non-traditional mediums but it requires outside

support at time to meeting condensed timelines.

11. Page 155 – Chief, Communications & Community Engagement

Does this division have an Associate Superintendent yet? We are consistently budgeting for one. If still vacant,

please list the administration's plans to fill the vacancy or the need to fill it. What would be enhanced from our

Communications and Community Engagement that is not presently being done?

The Chief of Communications & Community Engagement (Associate Superintendent) position is currently vacant.

This position has been posted several times but has not produced the right candidate for the district. The Chief of

Staff will continue to provide oversight of this division until the Chief position is filled.

The Chief of Communications and Community Engagement position will provide a more focused unit and more

cohesive reporting structure as well as enhance the district’s community engagement.

12. Page 158 – Communications

Please explain the difference between having and "Executive Director" and a "Director". Are these titles

semantical?

PENDING

13. Page 159 – Communications

Provide an explanation for the increase in the FY 2021 proposed budget for Capital Outlay –Educational

Communication Equipment

The FY 2021 proposed budget for Communications includes $186,973 for Capital Outlay – Educational

Communication Equipment, and increase of $167,000 over the FY 2020 approved budget. The proposed increase

will support the upgrade of studio equipment. Since 2004, the TV Studio has blended old equipment, some of

which dates back to 1985, with new equipment to produce original programming. Under new FCC guidelines,




PGCPS will soon be out of compliance as it relates to closed captioning, which the current equipment lacks the

capacity to provide. The district anticipates using grant funds to cover as much of the expense as possible.

This increase was offset by reductions to Other Contracted Services and part time salaries as reflected on pages

158 and 159.

14. Page 159 – Communications – Restricted

Please explain the $180,000 spent on "Professional Contracted Services."

The FY 2021 proposed budget for Communications includes $180,000 for Professional Contracted Services, an

increase of $180,000 over the FY 2020 approved budget. This budget reflects the projected grant funded level

estimate that supports translations of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) in Spanish or French for the 2020-

2021 school year from the Kirwan Special Education Students with Disabilities Grant.

15. Page 160 – Communications – Restricted

What "Educational Communication Equipment" was purchases for nearly $91,000, when the Board allocated no

funding in this line item?

The FY 2020 estimated restricted budget for Communications in line item Educational Communication Equipment

is $90,825. This estimated budget reflects the revalidation of grant placeholder estimates for prior year carryover

grant program resources associated with the Prince George’s Community Television Program which is used to

support the purchase of communication equipment for Board meetings or other discretionary district-wide needs

as determined by the Director of Communications.

16. Page 163 – Community Partnerships – Restricted

This department spent nearly $57,000 in Restricted Funds. Please explain.

The FY 2020 estimated restricted budget of $56,996 for Community Partnerships reflects the revalidation of grant

placeholder estimates for prior year carryover resources that will be used to support activities associated with the

Back to School Fair and Teacher of the Year.

17. Are rates of use of language Link reflecting the need in schools that have English only speaking front

office/administrative staff serving a multi-lingual population?

Language Link telephonic interpreting rates of use are reflective of needs in schools that do not have forward-

facing bilingual (Spanish/English) staff. Usage also encompasses immediate and on-the-spot needs for

communication with families who are native speakers of lower incidence languages (Arabic, Dari/Farsi, Pashto,

Mandarin, French, and Amharic, among others). Additionally, usage is reflective of instructional staff, other

school-based staff, and multiple central office utilization of the service to make third-party calls for brief

communication with parents/guardians. Language Link rates of use are highest in November, as it is an integral

resource to support school-based language access on high volume systemic parent/teacher conference days, when

simultaneous needs across the system warrant the additional resources.




Operations & Supporting Services

18. Universal Meal Program (UMP) proposals - the $12 million one I proposed for all elementary students and the $2

million Community Schools proposal announced in your budget. Given the positive appetite of Board members

to both proposals, I wanted to obtain administrative feedback on a more affordable progressive rollout of a

UMP.

From the data given to me by your team, breakfast and lunch meal participation for our secondary school

students to low - due to a swell of issues, both operationally and socially. An increase of $0.25 per meal, at

current participation rates would equate to about ~$500,000 in revenue for the year. However, it is my opinion

that if the Board funded a progressive marketing campaign for our secondary students, we could see

participation rates increase - thus generating more revenue for the Food and Nutrition program.

Furthermore, it was estimated that it would cost the system $9.9 million a year to cover the costs of non-FARM

elementary students' lunch costs. While not statistically scientific, that would mean it would cost $1.42 million

per each of the seven grade levels identified in the proposed policy.

Ahead of the upcoming budget work session, I wanted to submit these following questions before presenting an

amendment to the Policy Committee and/or a binding resolution that would establish an affordable

implementation cycle:

18a. How much is estimated, in both dollars and time, for the Board and Administration to implement an

effective marketing campaign to increase secondary school student meal participation rates?

The district does not have an estimate at this time for the Board and Administration to implement an effective

marketing campaign to increase secondary school student meal participation rates. The administration would need

to solicit proposals for a marketing and merchandising consultant to determine the cost.

Although we do not have an estimate, below are some of the high school challenges that affect participation that

would need to be addressed in the campaign:

Large enrollment with 30 minute lunch periods – students do not have enough time to eat

Staff shortages result in closed serving lines and longer wait time for students

Inoperable equipment

Lack of modernization of dining areas

Facilities that cannot accommodate additional equipment

Services and customized menu offerings are limited by staff shortages and equipment

As part of an effective marketing campaign, these are some of the areas that FNS believes should be added to

overcome some of the challenges:

Hiring and retention of food service assistants

Mobile meal carts – allowing additional points of sale in other parts of the building

Electronic menu boards

Renovation of dining area




As a point of reference, the current Average Daily Participation (ADP) percentages for secondary school meals are

as follows:

18b. Please establish more accurate cost figures for a three year implementation plan for a UMP for grades

PreK-5th grade (seven grade levels) for all non-FARM-identified students for lunch participation only.

Does the administration believe a Board sponsored cost-benefit analysis needs to be completed to determine if

our in-house food and nutrition services are more or less costly than contracted services?

Outsourcing or privatization for school meals is usually considered by districts that have limited resources and

require funds from general funds to support the operation. For several years, Food and Nutrition Services (FNS)

operated at a deficit, however, under new leadership that has driven operational efficiencies, FNS has continuously

made strides in creating and growing a fund balance over the past 3 years. FNS ended FY 2019 with a $13 million




fund balance, and as of FY 2020 December YTD, the fund balance is projected to be $17 million. In addition, lunch

participation has remained constant, and FY 2020 December YTD breakfast participation has increased 1%. While

any prudent organization should consider conducting a cost-benefit analysis, it is not a priority at this time due to

the current proficient performance of FNS.

19. Page 227 – Chief Operating Officer

Where is the increase in the budget for Food & Nutrient services and staff?

The Organization Summary on page 227 for the Chief Operating Officer represents a summary of the proposed

Operating budget for the departments/offices within this division. Food & Nutrition Services’ staffing and the

majority of its expenditures are supported by Non-operating funds. The FY 2021 proposed Non-operating staffing

and expenditures can be found on page A-7 of the Supplemental Section of the budget document. Additionally,

Page 187 shows the Operating Fund Food Service Subsidy of $2,709,000 which is an increase of $2,000,000 over

the current-year budget.

20. Page 232 – Purchasing & Supply Services

Explain the increase in funding for FY 2021 for Other Support Staff?

The FY 20201 proposed budget increase of $75,646 in “Other Support Staff” is due to negotiated agreement

increases for all employees. This amount is higher than the FY 2019 Actual budget of $229,303 due to an unfilled,

vacant position, in FY 2019.

21. Page 233 – Purchasing & Supply Services

Explain the $33,000 spent on "M&R Equipment."

The FY 2020 estimated budget of $30,000 allocated to M&R Equipment are funds to support equipment used in

the Warehouse to maintain and deliver inventory.

22. Page 236 – Safety & Security Services

Explain the proposed increase in Salaries & Wages for FY 2021.

The proposed increase in Salaries & Wages for FY 2021 for Safety & Security Services is primarily due to negotiated

agreement increases for all employees; and an in increase in FTE consisting of 10.00 Security Assistant and 3.00

Security Technician positions to support schools and the technology demands within the school system

respectively.


Provide the list the middle schools that will be receiving the security staff and the last three years of reported

student behavioral issues that have caused them to need additional security staff.

The proposed increase of 13.00 Security Assistant positions for FY 2021 was not solely to address behavioral issues,

crime or incidents. The goal is to comply with guidelines set forth by the Maryland Center for School Security,

which requires coverage at each school. The State recommends one School Resource Officer per 1,000 students.

Enrollment at some of our middle schools exceed 1,000 students and the additional security assistants would bring

PGCPS closer to meeting the required mandate in a timely fashion even though they are not School Resource

Officers. Security Assistants differ from a School Resource Officer in that they do not have police powers, but offer

security support to our students.

Middle and elementary schools are most vulnerable to outside violence. The additional security staffing will allow

for increased safety by being proactive instead of being reactive. Listed below are the 13 middle schools that will

receive the additional staffing, if approved:




1. Benjamin Stoddert Middle School

2. Benjamin Tasker Middle School

3. Buck Lodge Middle School

4. Charles Carroll Middle School

5. Ernest Everett Just Middle School

6. Greenbelt Middle School

7. Hyattsville Middle School

8. Isaac Gourdine Middle School

9. James Madison Middle School

10. Oxon Hill Middle School

11. Thomas Johnson Middle School

12. Thurgood Marshall Middle School

13. Walker Mill Middle School

In FY 2018, there were 41 arrests in middle schools and 27 arrests in FY 2019, for a reduction of 34.1%.


Explain how it was determined that Middle Schools need more security staff rather than investments in

restorative practices, after school activities, school psychologists and other non-policing investments.

Currently, Safety & Security Services is requesting support in both security and the availability of wraparound

services. Programs should provide all youth with the opportunity to be healthy and productive members of our

communities. This can be accomplished without adding new money but rather shifting current funding to support

evidence-based youth violence prevention programs that are focused on those most at-risk students. In addition,

the Chief Executive Officer has discussed with various stakeholders, the use of Diversion Programs to institute an

internal Restorative Justice System.

25. Page 245 – Building Services – Program Enhancement Weekend Staffing

What type of work will be done and who will be doing it at this cost of discretionary funds?

Currently, most of our high schools operate six to seven days a week to support facility usage by school programs

and community organizations. The cost of opening the facility is supported by facility usage fees charged to groups

utilizing the facility.

The enhancement request for the weekend staffing will enable all high schools the ability to operate seven days a

week, thus reducing overtime expenditures for facility use. The weekend staff will be filled by custodians and the

work will also include cleaning, grounds care and preventive maintenance.

26. Page 247 – Capital Programs

This department only has one FTE. Is it correct in interpreting that we have an entire department that only has

one employee or are other staff relegated to this department?

The staffing and expenditures for Capital Programs on page 247 of the FY 2021 proposed budget document reflects

the 1.00 FTE and budget funded by the operating budget. The majority of Capital Programs’ positions and budget

are funded through the Non-operating budget (Supplemental Section page A-7). In total, there are 44.00 FTE

allocated to this department.

27. Page 248 – Food & Nutrition Services




Expected outcomes of lunch and breakfast participation is only to increase one percentage point? Why such a

small targeted goal?

The one percentage point increase in expected outcomes of lunch and breakfast participation by June 30, 2021, is

an ambitious goal given that the district’s Free and Reduced-priced Meals (FARM) percentage (60%) has remained

the same as in FY 2019. Over 11 million free and reduced price lunches and 6.9 million breakfasts were served in FY

2019.


We have over 200 schools in the system, but only host 10 nutrition education sessions. Provide the list of the 10

schools that hosted the sessions from last year.

Food & Nutrition Services (FNS) conducts nutrition education sessions upon request. FNS also partners with the

University of Maryland Extension – Food Supplemental Nutrition Education (FNSE) Program and Maryland State

Department of Education – Nutrition Branch to conduct nutrition education sessions in conjunction with product

testing.

The schools that hosted sessions in FY 2019 were:

Allenwood Elementary School

Barnaby Manor Elementary School

Buck Lodge Middle School

Charles Flowers High School

Edward Felegy Elementary School

Flintstone Elementary School

Glenn Dale Elementary School

Kingsford Elementary School

Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School

Stephen Decatur Middle School


One of the Core Services is to "provide exceptional customer service". Provide a list of the professional

development sessions that Food and Nutritional staff have attended to show consistent training in customer

service.

Food & Nutrition Services (FNS) staff must meet annual mandatory professional training hours under USDA

Professional Standards. All FNS staff receive at a minimum 6 hours of on-site training. The USDA Professional

Standards are:

Managers – 12 hours

Satellite Leaders – 10 hours

Food Service Assistants – 6 hours

Some of the training sessions that FNS staff have attended that show consistent training in customer service

include:

• New Policies & Procedures

• On-site training for kitchen staff

• Role and expectation of Food Service Managers

• Production Records / Handling Special Dietary Request

• Customer Service

o Phone etiquette

o Avoiding “Lunch Shaming”

o Overt Identification




o Utilizing the Cafeteria as a Classroom

• Food Safety/Sanitation

• Civil Rights

• Safe School training

30. Page 253 – Transportation & Central Garage

Explain the $100,000 in spending above the approved Board budget for Misc. Other Equip Over $499.

The FY 2020 estimated budget increase in spending of $100,000 in Misc. Other Equip Over $499 above the FY 2020

approved budget for Transportation and Central Garage supports two-way radios for new school buses.

31. Page 253 – Transportation & Central Garage

Is there an interim report from the Transportation Task Force that will give context to the types of changes we

will see in the final budget for this division? Additional data entry clerks is a positive, however, the top issue

parents want is better use of technology (HCTB and text) to notify of late buses.

There is no interim report at this time. The next meeting is February 13, 2020. The goal is to provide Dr. Goldson

with preliminary recommendations after the February 13 meeting. The finalization of the recommendations are to

be completed prior to the final meeting in March. Transportation is currently working on ways to improve the

technology, but they have not finalized the contract to do so.

32. Provide the total cost of all funds spent on any Catering services/items across the district and by the Board

Office.

The list below provides the total expense for Catering Services for FY 2019 by Department:




33. Why do the Cost Center line items vary by Board Member?

Per Maryland Education Code, Section 3-1003, each Board member is entitled to receive $18,000 annually, and the

chair is entitled to receive $19,000 annually. The rates were established in State law effective December 4, 2006.

In addition, each Board member may be reimbursed for up to $7,000 annually for travel and other Board-related

expenses, and each member may elect to participate in the Board of Education’s health insurance and other fringe

benefits under the same terms as other Board employees. The difference in the costs associated with each Board

member’s cost center reflects the extent to which each member elected to enroll in the Board’s fringe benefits.

Documents

Budget Q &A · FY 2021 Proposed Operating Budget Q&A 02.04.20 Budget Work Session Page 2 Questions from the Board of Education Budget Work Session – February 4, 2020 Chief Executive