BC20101018pre-k-pes

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BUDGET COMM= ITTEE /= MEETING MINUTES

Monday, October 18, 2010

APPROVED &#= 8211; November 1, 2010

CALL TO ORDER – 7:30pm

PRESENT:

Also Present:

Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Dan= iel Guimond, Mr. John Lavallee, Mr. Dennis Viger, Mr. Robert Sherman, Mr. Gre= gory Farris, Ms. Angèle Diack, Mr. K= en Dunne, Selectmen Representative Edmund Gleason, School Board Representati= ve Andy Ducharme

Business Administrator = Adam Steel, School Board Chairman Rob Hardy, Pelham Elementary Principal Alicia LaFra= nce, Pelham Elementary Assistant Principal Michelle Viger, Assistant Principal Jessica VanVranken, Pre-school Program Director Shirley Sullivan

ABSENT:

None.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2011 SCHOOL BUDGET REVIEW – PRE-SCHOOL / KINDERGARTEN / PELHAM ELEMENTARY S= CHOOL

Business Administrator Ad= am Steel came forward to discuss the proposed 2011 budget request. He discussed the process in which = the budget had been reviewed and compiled.&nbs= p; The bottom line figure is $25,199,742 which reflects an increase of = 1.95% from last year’s budget. The biggest impact to the budget was the Pelham Elementary School (‘PES’) bond being paid off in August. There was approximately $1.5 milli= on increase to the bottom line. = The biggest area of increase was health insurance; other areas will show decrea= ses from what has been presented and will be updated during the review process.= Mr. Steel reviewed items of intere= st that would be addressed during the budget review. To stay on task during budget revi= ew a Budget Tracking report was provided that showed the fiscal year 2010/2011 approved budget, the SAU28 budget presented to the School Board and the Sch= ool Board approved budget. There were also columns to insert the budget numbers approved by the Budget Committee for Deliberative Session, the budget to be shown on the ballot as well as a column indicating the default budget numbe= r. These sheets will be updated during the review process. Mr. Steel outlined the major initia= tives that would be brought forward for discussion, such as kindergarten and pre-school facilities, investigating possibility of sending Pelham High School students to Windham High School, and negotiations with Pelham Education Association/possible warrant article if agreement is reached.

Kindergarten – Mr. Steel told the Board that kindergarten= is required by the State of New Hampshire a= nd in its second year of existence at Pelham Elementary School.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The current enrollment was seventy= two (half day) students with two and a half teachers (based on enrollment even though three teachers were budgeted); they anticipated the program would continue to grow and kept the budget at three full-time teachers.

Mr. Gleason confirmed tha= t the projected enrollment was 120 students.&nbs= p; Mr. Steel stated that was the projection based on reviewing prior enrollments and their best guess estimate (using birth rates). He noted for every student enrolled state aid was received. Mr. Lavallee was apprehensive about the number of students being spoken of beca= use of the enrollment projections in the past not meeting the number anticipated. He questioned the statistical analysis put together for enrollment numbers because it was a ‘guesstimate’.

Mr. Farris asked if the b= irth rate analysis took into account those students that may attend private kind= ergarten, or if the analysis simply looked at the number of children who were eligible. Mr. Steel said the = New Hampshire School Board reviewed the birth rate statistics and provided a projected enrollment, which was meant to capture every possible student. Those numbers are reviewed to try = to come as close as they could to enrollment.= There was further discussion regarding the enrollment numbers. Mr. Steel stated that they had bud= geted conservatively in regard to aides. <= /span>

Mr. Farris questioned if = the half time teacher was receiving benefits. Mr. Steel said he would find out.&n= bsp; He noted that the position in the proposed budget would be full-time based on expected enrollment.

Mr. Hall asked if there w= as a state kindergarten guideline as to student/teacher ratio. Principal La France told the Board= that the state mandated there be no more than twenty; Pelham had an agreement wi= th the state they would try to maintain class sizes between fifteen and twenty students. Mr. Steel said they= would check the guideline.

The Board continued to re= view the Kindergarten budget. Mr. Sher= man asked that a breakdown be provided that showed which (contract) steps the paraprofessionals and teachers were on.&nb= sp; Mr. Viger asked where the nurse was listed. Mr. Steel replied that the nurse w= as covered by the elementary school; the School Board would discuss a possible warrant article for the position.

Pre-School – Mr. Steel informed the Board that pre-school= was a federally mandated program for student from age three through kindergarten age. The space currently avai= lable is within the kindergarten modular classrooms; the district is renting the space from the state because the state was leasing the modulars. Mr. Steel noted it was difficult t= o determine the pre-school needs because they were unpredictable. He discussed how the programs were= run.

Mr. Sherman questioned wh= at the physical needs of pre-school would be.&nbs= p; Mr. Steel commented that he would defer to the School Board, but in short there was need for two regular classrooms, an occupational therapy ro= om and a language room.

Mr. Viger asked if pre-school was a= n all day program. Mr. Steel stated= each child had a unique program; varying schedules.

Mr. Hall asked what hours= the nurse worked. Mr. Steel infor= med during the past school year the nurse was half-time. Based on additional students enter= ing the program, they had no choice but to increase the nurse from half-time to 70%, which is how the position was budgeted for next year as well. In an emergency situation, the mid= dle school or elementary nurse would be the back up. Ms. Diack questioned if benefits w= ere included in the salary. Mr. S= teel stated for 70% they included some fraction of what the benefit package would be. There was further discuss= ion regarding the position.

Mr. Guimond questioned why the pre-= school administration couldn’t also do the administration for the kindergarten. Mr. Steel expla= ined that the needs for the pre-school program was a full-time job and didn̵= 7;t see that type of arrangement as possible given the requirements of the pre-school administrator. He = said the kindergarten program was part of the curriculum and process of the elementary school; a natural progression between the two. The pre-school program was fundame= ntally different in that it was only geared toward students with educational disabilities. They didn’= ;t see a cross-over that would apply to that program. Mr. Steel stated if a facility wer= e to be built that was dedicated pre-school and kindergarten for the long-term (a permanent solution for both), the School Board would look at it closely and decide if it made sense at that point to have a building administration bui= lt to cover both.

Mr. Hall recalled rent ha= d been shown for the facility. Mr. S= teel didn’t have it listed. = He noted in 2010 the budget was $10,000, however only $960 was spent. He believed the facilities cost wa= s out of the district budget.

It was noted that all the telephone lines had been moved to the district budget consolidating such to= one central location.

Pelham Elementa= ry School (‘PES’) – Mr. Steel told the Board that the school ha= d a total of 935 students enrolled, which included 72 for kindergarten. The projected enrollment was 839 (= grades 1 – 5); there had been a steady decrease in enrollment over the past couple years they attributed to changing times and economics. As a result of the numbers, one te= acher was moved from the elementary school to the middle school. In the budget currently set before= the Board, the teaching staff was reduced a total of three teaching positions.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There was a population bubble in t= he schools that was at/near the middle school; one teaching position would be moved from the elementary school to the middle school (7^th grade). The School Board reco= mmended taking the Title I Coordinator (currently funded through federal funds) and moving that into a locally funded position. The third teaching position would = be used to reduce taxes.

Ms. Diack asked if the To= wn was no longer receiving the Title I money.&nbs= p; Mr. Steel stated the Title I program provided supplemental tutoring = to students in reading and math. There wa= s a set amount of money received and in order to make such more effective for students they would like to use the federal dollars to hire more tutors to provide more direct instruction. In summary, by moving the director position into the local budget, they would = have more federal funds to hire more (approximately two or three) tutors.

Mr. Farris questioned if = the director position, that had been federally funded and was now being moved i= nto the budget, should be set forth as a warrant article because it was essenti= ally a new position. Mr. Sherman s= aid they were cutting three positions (from PES), one of which would be used for the Title I position. Mr. Duc= harme said this situation was similar to the Fire Department’s request for a forestry truck. Mr. Farris disagreed saying the forestry truck, a thirty year vehicle, was being repla= ced with no guarantee of receiving a federal grant to offset it again; therefore it needed to be replaced. In this situation he said, they (the school) had the money and three retirees, but = only one position (formerly funded through federal money) would be put into the budget (along with the benefits). Mr. Hall reviewed the provision in the Board’s By-Laws, which = was clear. It was set up for a ca= pital replacement by a vote of the Budget Committee, who could put into an operat= ing budget two times the lowest price of a police cruiser; there was no such provision for additional employees. Mr. Lavallee stated a new position/employee constituted a warrant article. Mr. Viger recalled downsizing the Title I in Memorial School last year be= cause funding had been lost. = He asked what guarantee there was that the school would retain the position and funding. In essence if the mo= ney was lost for Title I, the position would already be in the budget along with the additional aides. Mr. Ste= el said if Title I funding was lost, they wouldn’t spend the money; they only spend what they’re informed they’ll receive. He said they were trying to preser= ve the longevity of the program by the swap. Some of the money previously used in the past had to be used for pro= fessional development monies and professional activities. Mr. Hall asked how much was in the= Title I federal grant. Mr. Steel re= plied $128,000. There was further discussion regar= ding the Title I position; the salary is calculated using the teacher’s contract as a scale ($52,860). The employee received benefits paid for through the federal money. The Board then discussed substitut= es and their pay scale and qualifications. The Board asked for information regarding the number of long-term substitutes. Ms. LaFrance exp= lained the job description for an instructional assistant and the process taken wh= en they were unable to attend school. She said on an average day there could be up to five individuals abs= ent they are asked to contact the school between 7:30am-8am; the secretary then uses a substitute cal= ling list to contact replacement individuals to sub for a single day. If there is a long-term substitute position they conduct interviews and replace that individual with a certifi= ed teacher. It was noted that ev= ery teacher (per their contract) was entitled to three professional days and th= ree personal days.

The Board reviewed suppli= es. Ms. LaFrance discussed the science curriculum and the changes that had occurred. She reported because of the suppli= es that had been added (in consumables), when the school received their (4th grade) NECAP testing results the scores had improved by over 13%. Pelham Elementary was one of the h= ighest performing schools in the state.

Mr. Farris asked for an explanation for the increase between the current year budget ($4500) and the proposed budget ($9600). Ms. LaFrance stated that the science program they adopted had replacement lab k= its that they had been adding to. The bulk of the expense was in grades 3,4 and 5; the kits contained all the nee= ded supplies for the children to conduct experiments.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding the math curriculum. Ms. LaFrance explained the current program being used and the associated supplies. Mr. Viger asked if = the distributor was willing to work with the school, giving a possible reimbursement, in re= gard to textbooks since it was the same company providing books. Ms. LaFrance stated the company ha= d been working with the school and provided the best they could, given the books (purchased in 2008) were now outdated.&nbs= p; She noted at the time the textbooks were purchased, they were the mo= st current addition. Mr. V= iger asked if the elementary school would be more in line with Memorial School and the High School if the new textbooks were purchased. Ms. LaFrance said they would be in= line at the elementary school (grades K-5) and based upon the book replacement schedule, would not come again for ten years to request replacement of math books. Mr. Hardy noted that m= oney would be saved because the old program had a lot of consumables. Ms. Diack asked how the program al= igned with the middle school. Ms. LaFrance said the Envision program only went up to grade 5. The middle school used a tradition= al text book approach. Ms. Diack discussed the program previously used and wanted to make sure that the scho= ol would now be on the right track moving forward from one school to another. = Mr. Farris questioned what math book program was purchased in 2009 for $32,000.= Ms. LaFrance replied Scott Forsema= n, which were currently being used. Mr. Farris asked if the books purchased in 2009 would be phased out. Ms. LaFrance stated they= had a two year plan; purchasing 4^th grade books in the 2012 budget and purchase Envision for grade 5 in the 2013 budget. It was noted there was currently a movement to adopt national standards versus having state standards.

Ms. Diack asked for an explanation regarding the increase in sheet music going from $460 to $1000. Mr. Steel said it was = based on the music program requesting an increase on what they provided. He said they found they ran short = on what they had.

Under technology, Mr. Far= ris asked if all classrooms would be using SMART boards. Mr. Steel said the middle school w= ould be in receipt of grant dollars where they will be able to outfit two grade levels with SMART boards in three classrooms. They will review to see how it wor= ks and if it was a good investment. = If they find it successful, the next technology plan (12mo.-18mo) may include looking to do that same thing in every classroom. Mr. Farris asked if some of the mi= ddle school students would be encouraged to get SMART books and pens, or if they would work on the SMART boards. Mr. Steel said ideally they would have every student have some sort of hand-hel= d technology; however that request is not reflected in the proposed budget. At some point in the future they w= ould like to investigate those things, for now the school was making use of fede= ral dollars/grants etc. to try the equipment out making sure it would work for = the school and the curriculum.

Mr. Dunne asked if the el= ementary school had a defibrillator. M= r. Steel stated each school had one; the high school had one in the main build= ing and one for athletics. Mr. Du= nne questioned if the contract was with the same company used by the Fire Depar= tment. Mr. Steel answered no, the school = used Medtronic. Mr. Lavallee discussed the problem= s the Fire Department was having with the batteries within the defibrillator. He suggested checking the units and speaking to the Fire Chief regarding the occurring problems.

The Board continued their= budget review. Mr. Hall asked Mr. St= eel to speak about the Assistant Principal positions. Mr. Steel stated that the School B= oard elected to make a change at the elementary school by eliminating a reading specialist position and create a second Assistant Principal position affect= ive for the current school year (2010/2011).&n= bsp; Mr. Guimond said there had been a warrant article last year that requested an assistant principal that the voters turned down. He questioned how the school could= do something that the voters voted down. Mr. Steel believed the warrant article was for a Dean of Students. Mr. Guimond believed that was sema= ntics and in New Hampshire there was a ‘no means no’ law and the voters voted the position down. Mr. Sherman asked if th= ere was a difference in duties between the two positions. Mr. Steel said the Assistant Princ= ipals were located in the school wings and had taken over a lot of the curriculum duties that had previously fell upon curriculum leaders, thereby eliminating stipends. Ms. LaFrance noted = they were able to not request additional money by taking the stipends the curric= ulum leaders had been receiving as well as salary line that was budgeted for an assistant principal. She said= Ms. Viger, who was formerly the Reading Specialist, now had the title of Assist= ant Principal in charge of the Reading Language Arts and Social Studies Curricu= lum; she works closely with the Kindergarten, First and Second grades. She noted that Ms. VanVranken was = the Assistant Principal/Coordinator of the Technology Science and Math Curriculum; she oversees a lot of the supervision of the Forth and Fifth grades.

Ms. Diack asked that the = Board be provided with copies of the job descriptions for Ms. Viger and Ms. VanVrank= en.

Mr. Guimond stated he had= a problem with the School Board doing what they wanted after the voters voted something down. Mr. Farris as= ked if the School Board justified their vote on hiring the person with a differenc= e on an assistant principal and a dean of students. He said they were basically the sa= me person, the warrant article came to the Board for two years; the first year= it was voted down and last year it came up not as assistant principal, but as a dean of students. He noted the dealings in what that person would be doing were identical, just to change = the name. He wanted to know if it= ’s gone back to an assistant principal to hire the person. Mr. Ducharme believed utilizing Ms. Viger as the Assistant Principal and Reading Specialist warranted the position. He said the vote wa= s for a Dean of Students. Mr. Farri= s felt it (the request) was for the same position and the School Board used semant= ics to circumvent what they knew the voters wanted/didn’t want. Mr. Ducharme disagreed.

Under Dues and Fees, Mr. = Guimond asked if the memberships listed were contractual. Mr. Steel made a note to find out.=

Ms. Diack asked who had t= aken over the other responsibilities in the reading specialist position that were now not being handled. Mr. St= eel stated there was some diminished capacity in their ability to provide the reading specialist support. H= e said the Assistant Principal that oversaw it made every effort to maintain the program. Ms. Diack asked if a= nyone had been put in place to help out. Ms. Viger stated she currently did the same thing she had done the previous year except that she supervised/instructed fewer children, but was= on a consultation basis with all the reading students.

Mr. Steel addressed the i= ncrease in salaries for custodians. H= e stated the main source of the increase was roughly the same as item #7 (overtime), which was a janitorial position for the kindergarten that had been funded, = but not budgeted in the past. Mr. Sherman asked for detailed information regarding overtime. Mr. Steel stated it roughly correl= ated to what was budgeted and would do his best to provide the information. Mr. Viger asked that information be provided to showing a breakout of revenues against overtime for the janitor. Mr. Lavallee asked i= f a new position had been added without having a warrant article. Mr. Steel said that was correct. He noted that there had never been= a warrant article for any of the teaching positions; the kindergarten had been mandated by the state and largely paid for by the state. He recalled the Board discussing t= he challenges of funding a program that was being mandated and not fully funded. In that process there= was an oversight in the area of janitorial services.

Mr. Hall said the Board appreciated the work that was done on the budget. He discussed the Board’s disappointed in past regarding payroll issues. He said it was things such as that= which made the Board jaded regarding mistakes.

Mr. Farris asked if Mr. H= ardy was aware of any expenditure or surplus in the June 30^th budget. He said the prior year there was m= oney spent and the Board found out about it after the fact. Mr. Steel stated that the rules surrounding year-end expenditure were clear; it would be a violation if something was purchased the last year that was only meant for the upcoming year. He said he began his po= sition July 1^stand would find out if there were any expenditures previ= ous to that.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Lavallee/Sher= man) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:10 pm.

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Respectfully submitted,

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Charity A. Landry Willis

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Recording Secretary