BC20101118swa-Not Approved

NOT APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BUDGET COMM= ITTEE /= MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, November 18, 2010=

CALL TO ORDER – 7:30pm

PRESENT:

Also Present:

Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Dan= iel Guimond, Mr. Dennis Viger, Mr. John Lavallee, Mr. Robert Sherman, Mr. Gre= gory Farris, Ms. Angèle Diack, Selec= tmen Representative Edmund Gleason, School Board Representative Andy Ducharme<= /p>

Business Administrator = Adam Steel

ABSENT:

Mr. Ken Dunne

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

MINUTES REVIEW

MOTION:

(Guimond/Laval= lee) To approve the O= ctober 25, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Guimond/Laval= lee) To approve the O= ctober 28, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(7-0-2) The motion carried. Mr. Far= ris and Mr. Viger abstained.

MOTION:

(Guimond/Laval= lee) To approve the No= vember 1, 2010 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried.

2010 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE REVIEW

Mr. Steel came forward to= review the proposed warrant articles with the Board.

Article 1 –Election of Officers – no action taken.

Article 2 - Ne= w Kindergarten School – see below for discussion.

Article 3 - Collective Bargaining Agreeme= nt between Pelham School Board and Pelham Education Association – Mr. Steel indicated that= the Teacher’s Union and the School Boa= rd were still in negotiations at this time.&n= bsp; Mr. Farris questioned if teachers received step raises even though t= hey didn’t currently have a contract.&nb= sp; Mr. Steel answered no. He explained when the contract expired August 31, 2010 it entered the status q= uo period where no raises of any kind were granted; the one exception to the existing law was track changes. Example - If a teacher were to have a Bachelor’s Degree and we= re to receive a Master’s Degree they would be able to get the raise movi= ng across the salary schedule. I= t was noted if a contract were to pass at any point moving forward, the Evergreen= Law would come into affect.

Mr. Guimond asked how negotiations were going. Mr. = Steel was unable to comment except to say that they were ongoing.

Article 4 - Pelham-Windham Tuition Agreement (potential) – Mr. Steel told the Board that the article was a pla= ce holder and had not yet been ‘flushed out’. He stated that a committee had been formed (and was meeting regularly) between the Town of Windham and the Town of Pelham to look at a possib= le tuition agreement whereby Pelham High School would no longer exist. Students who we= re high school age and residents of Pelham would go to = Windham High School= for their education.

Article 5 - Op= erating Budget – requested $24,426,305; default $24,462,109. Mr. Steel said the requested numbe= r was as the budget stood. He cautione= d the Board not to put too much ‘stock’ in the default number. He stated there was an RSA that go= verned the creation of a default budget and a form that the Department of Revenue Administration (‘DRA’) publishes that helps to it lay out. He said this is one area of law not tightly regulated or described, which allowed for discretion. Mr. Steel said the purpose of crea= ting the default budget was to protect taxpayers from an unruly increase in the operating budget from year to year. It was their hope on the School District side to honor the intent of the law and also make sure that they were doing their best to ensure the number adequately reflected what the default number should be. He said it w= as his first pass at it and expected through additional discussion and more work t= hat the number might change up or down.

Mr. Farris asked if one-t= ime warrant articles and bond payments that were no longer in the budget were considered part of the default. Mr. Steel said the law was specific in terms of capital payments (bond issues) = and one-time costs are specifically mentioned.= He said other areas that weren’t so clear were things like Spe= cial Education. He commented that = they were required by law to provide an adequate education to students with educational disabilities; one could argue that the Special Education budget= as proposed should be included in totality in the default budget. He said other areas that were easi= er to grasp may be cost of health care and health insurance increases, which were things they were clearly obligated to provide. Mr. Steel said the point was that = the budget list was reviewed to determine if an item was something they were legally obligated to provide, or if it was something that should not be included in the default number per the RSA. He planned on providing the Board = with the document that would be filed with the DRA, so they could see exactly ho= w he came to the number that he came to; the School Board will also weigh in on = the number.

Mr. Hall asked when Mr. S= teel would make the next pass on the number.&nb= sp; Mr. Steel replied he would like to have the number firmed up by reconsideration. Mr. Hall said there were questions that came up last year regarding items contained in the default budget and wanted the Board to have the opportunity to review the number as soon as it could be forwarded.&n= bsp;

Article 6 - Non-Union Administrative salary inc= reases (salaries equal $12,410 / benefits equal $2696) – Mr. Steel stated that Article 6 & 7 were closely related and had been included on the ba= llot last year in the same format. Article 6 was a 1.5% salary increase for all administrative staff in= the District. He noted that the F= ood Service staff had been included and clearly delineated with the rest of the staff in the District.

Article 7 - Non-Union Support Personnel s= alary increases (salaries equal $15,180 / benefits equal $3297) – Mr. S= teel stated Article 7 included the non-union/non-administrative staff for a 1.5% salary increase.

Mr. Sherman asked why ben= efits were being separated out. Mr.= Steel tried to break out the salary increases and the employer paid benefits for social security, Medicare and New Hampshire State Retirement. Mr. Farris understood having a breakdown, but felt it appeared they were receiving additional benefits, but they weren’t; they were mandating payments. Mr. Steel felt it was a good point= and would strike the note that had the salary/benefit breakdown.

Mr. Guimond asked what the Town’s employees were being given for salary increases. Mr. Gleason said the Town didnR= 17;t have anything in the budget right now; they would come back prior to recons= ideration.

Article 8 - Pelham School District new positions – Mr. Steel stated that Article 8 included four new positions that the School Board was recommending.

a. = Techno= logy Integration Specialist ($75,193 =3D salary $45,000 / benefits $30,193)̵= 1; Mr. Steel wanted to be clear that the position was not a Technology Director or Technology Coordinator. The p= erson in the position would work with the teachers directly in using the technolo= gy purchased in the classroom. T= he school had the position for the past two years funded through Federal Funds (with the Special Education IDEA Grant).&n= bsp; As such they were not confident they could fund the position through= the grant in the future. It was n= oted that it was not really a Special Education position at heart. The School Board felt it was the t= op priority in regard to positions they would like to see created.

&nb= sp;

Mr. She= rman questioned if the person in the position was a State Certified Educator. Mr. Steel answered yes. Mr. Sherman asked if they would be= part of the Teacher’s Contract. Mr. Steel said they were not; it would be a support position. The person currently holding the position had a New Hampshire Teaching Certificate. They worked year-round and therefo= re didn’t fall under the category for a teacher.

&nb= sp;

Ms. Dia= ck asked how many of the teacher’s workshops were geared toward technology. Mr. Steele said each teacher, as p= art of their evaluation, had to have at least one goal related to what the school = was doing and also had to have a goal for their professional development that w= as technology related.

&nb= sp;

Mr. Hal= l asked for clarification as to how many professional development days a teacher received. Mr. Steel stated th= at teachers worked 187 days; students are in school 180 days, teachers have 7 workshop days. There was a discussion regarding what benefits would be included in the proposed salary structure and how the warrant article should read to indicate such.

b. = Distri= ct Athletic Director ($81,158 =3D salary $50,000 / benefits $31,158)– Mr. Steel said the School Board had elected to place the position on the ballot= ; it was structured for district wide, versus solely for = Pelham High School<= /st1:PlaceType>. He believed it was structured as an administrative benefit package. After reviewing athletic director salaries in the state’s sout= hern tier, which averaged $65,000, they felt the proposed amount of $50,000 was = as low as they could go.

Mr. Far= ris asked if anyone at the other schools was receiving additional monies to arr= ange the athletic activities. Mr. = Steel said there was someone at Memorial School who was rece= iving a small stipend. He discussed= how the position was currently structured and by creating the position a math teacher would be allowed to teach a full schedule. By creating the position the school would get a full time math teacher and a full time athletic director. There was further discussion regar= ding the duties of the athletic director. Mr. Steel stated if the position were to pass, they would effectivel= y be able to offer three more math classes, get rid of the $8100 stipend, get ri= d of the costs for substitutes when the athletic director went to meetings and g= et rid of any extra periods taught by teachers in the building.

&n= bsp;

c.      = Distri= ct Psychologist ($1) and

d.      = Distri= ct Speech Pathologist - Mr. Steel stated that this position and that of the District Speech Pathologist had been discussed at previous meetings; both of which had funding in the budget through payment to contracted service provi= ders. He said the District believed they= could save money by hiring full time employees to replace those contracted service providers. He said they had l= ooked at the positions a number of different ways and spoke with Legal Counsel ab= out the proper approach; they felt the manner in which they presented the posit= ions was the best way to do so. He= said if they were to put dollar amounts and the warrant articles were to pass, t= hey would have twice the money they needed; if they were to take the money out = of the budget and put it on the warrant article and it failed, they would have= less money than they had before. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Lav= allee felt the article was misleading and the total amount to be paid should be shown, not $1.

&n= bsp;

Ms. Dia= ck said if the positions were to pass, she hoped that the contracted service lines would not be funded again. Mr. Steel said that was correct. =

&n= bsp;

Mr. Vig= er understood what the school was trying to do but felt the voter in the booth would have no idea what the position would cost them. He asked if the benefit package wo= uld be administrative. Mr. Steel sai= d the positions were on teacher union contracts.= Mr. Viger asked how many contracted psychologists were hired now. Mr. Steel said there was one full-= time employee now. Mr. Viger asked= if the person would apply for the job. Mr. Steel said the person was already an employee; there was one position and they contracted out for service. He commented that a warrant articl= e was supposed to show money that would be appropriated, in this case they effectively already had the money in the operational budget and the default budget.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Duc= harme said when the school was doing the discussions on the two positions Mr. Ste= el showed that there would be significant savings by doing both. By taking them from contracted ser= vices to full-time employees the numbers could be cut drastically.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Lav= allee reiterated that the voter would not know what the school was paying the position. He said the voter w= ould see $1; they wouldn’t see where money would be saved. He felt it was a misleading article. Ms. Diack agreed and believed the full cost should be in the article somewhere.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Ste= el had no problem having a note that read if passed, a position would be created t= hat cost $xxx. He said typically = the DRA didn’t look kindly on notes such as that; the only thing they cou= ld do was disallow a cost. He sa= id they were trying to appease the Budget Committee by going through the proce= ss they wanted them to go through. He stated in reality the School Board could create the positions tomorrow if t= hey wanted to and would be well within their legal rights to do so. They understood the Budget Committ= ee had a By-Law that new positions need to go through the voters. The School Board was trying to go = the ‘extra mile’ to make sure they weren’t bypassing the proc= ess, or bypassing the By Laws of the Budget Committee. The only way to go about this proc= ess was to do it as was presented.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Gui= mond asked if the note could indicate that funding was contained within the operating budget so the taxpayer would know what the position was costing.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He also felt they should know that= a 60%-70% benefit package would be paid.&nbs= p; Mr. Steel said he had no problem drafting a note indicating what the salary and benefits would be for the position.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Far= ris said there were two contracted people that were paid the contracted amount, but commented bringing them in as employees would incur paying a health benefit from year to year. He noted t= hat the Board had a fairly long discussion when they found out about all the unfunded liabilities and these two positions would become part of it. He said during the first year it c= ould be said there would be a savings, but after that the employees would incur retirement etc. on a yearly basis that the voters weren’t previously liable for. Mr. Steel agreed.= He said they could expect the cost= of benefits to go up, teachers to get raises through collective bargaining and have an increase in the cost of the two positions to rise with the cost of other positions in the district. He said the argument would be that the liability and exposure relative to the positions would go up over time. He argued that it would go up in the near future in terms of exposure because = the contracted service providers could set their rate arbitrarily, and the scho= ol would be subject to them because speech and language pathologists were extremely difficult to find. = There weren’t many qualified people in the district and they charged a fair premium for their provided services.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Duc= harme said the point is for the first time the school would be able to control the cost as opposed to having to go after a third party that could change their rates at any time.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Hal= l asked for a breakout of how many hours of service they got for the positions.

Article 9 - School District Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund ($= 50,000)– Mr. Steel stated that the arti= cle was one that had been on the ballot and passed for the previous three years. The article is for the transfer of $50,000 from the unreserved fund balance for the maintenance at= the three schools. The statement ‘No amount to be raised from taxation’ was discussed. Mr. Steel believed the sentence co= uld be taken out.

Mr. Lavallee asked how mu= ch was currently in the fund. Mr. Gl= eason replied there was $101,000 in the account.=

Mr. Diack believed there = had been discussion about having a cap on the account and questioned if it was discu= ssed further by the School Board. = Mr. Steel said the number he would like to see is a quarter of a million. He was unsure if the voters set a cap. Mr. Gleason said they di= d not set a cap.

Article 10 - C= hild Benefit Services for the 101 Pelham children attending St. Patrick School ($30,824)– Mr. Steel exp= lained that this article had been seen on the ballot in different forms and fashio= ns over the past few years. Last= year the article was not put on the ballot by the School Board, but was instead placed on by petition. The requested amount covered such items as the nurse, food service and non-educational items that the District was somewhat responsible for providing. It was noted that = the article was not approved last year.

Article 2 - Ne= w Kindergarten School ($3,805,000)- Mr. Steel said the School Board= had authorized the formation of a committee a few months ago to look at the kindergarten needs and come back with a recommendation for what to do regar= ding facilities. He discussed the = current situation for kindergarten and commented that when such time that the State stopped funding the modular classrooms the School Board would have to find a solution to fund such on their own. He said there was a State law in affect that provided for kindergart= en building aid which stated that the State would provide 75% reimbursement for kindergarten classroom space for a permanent facility or addition use to ho= use kindergarten classrooms. The building aid would be in affect in March 2011, but would be subject to the legislation past 2011. Mr. St= eel told the Board that the kindergarten committee looked at all the options and many solutions and recommended to build a new kindergarten structure on the existing location where the modular classrooms were currently located. The facility would be approximately 15,000SF-17,000SF and house 10 kindergarten classrooms, eight of which woul= d be half day classrooms; two would be for full day classrooms; two pre-school classrooms; there would be room for therapy, speech and language and OT and= PT space as well as office space. Of the $3,805,000 roughly half would be reimbursed by the State. Mr. Steel discussed items such as = class length, transportation and building construction. He said the School District expected to receive $1.5 - $1.8 million reimbursement from the State. If the projec= t is approved in March, 2011 they believed they could have the project done in September, 2012 and ready to be open for school at that time.

Mr. Guimond asked if ther= e was a plan for the children in between the construction phase since the portables were located where the proposed kindergarten would be constructed. Mr. Steel said there were two opti= ons, either to take over the existing field and leave the portables in place dur= ing construction, or to move the portables to another location during construct= ion; the cost for which was factored into the proposed cost.

Ms. Diack asked how the kindergarten programs would work given that both half and full day would be offered. She believed the ben= efit to having kindergarten was that all the children would receive similar curriculum. Mr. Steel said the State required them to provide a half-day kindergarten program; however, un= der Special Education Law some students required a full-day kindergarten, which= had to be provided. He discussed = how the classroom would be set up. Ms. Diack asked how the half-day and full-day curriculum differed. Mr. Steel explained that the full-= day would have the same program as the half-day, but would have more time for enrichment.

Mr. Sherman questioned ho= w many rooms within the building would be devoted for kindergarten. Mr. Steel said there were ten rooms. Mr. Sherman asked if t= here would be any pre-school classrooms. Mr. Steel said there would be two.&= nbsp; Mr. Sherman reviewed the number of rooms that were proposed. He asked if the children would eat within the building or be brought to the elementary school. Mr. Steel said it hadn’t been decided yet. There will be re= stroom facilities as well as a mechanical room.&n= bsp;

Mr. Farris asked how many disabled students would be brought back into district with the classrooms.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Ducharme noted that the studen= ts wouldn’t be brought back; the students wouldn’t have to leave.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Steel believed there were approximately 10-12 students. Mr. Farris asked if the students would all be in the same classroom, or if they would be split up. Mr. Steel didn’t believe they were allowed to have them all be in one classroom, which is why they had two classrooms. Mr. Farris questioned how many additional teachers/aides were anticipated. Mr. Steel said t= hat would go toward the operational cost of the building. He said they believed when transportation was provided that the numbers would double and be in line wi= th what Windham had experienced. They were lo= oking at roughly 15-18 students per classroom; each teacher would handle up to 36 students in one day. For ever= y 36 students a full-time teacher and full-time aide would be needed. Mr. Steel said they would budget conservatively, but only hire based on the enrollment numbers. He felt an estimate of 140 children during the first year was well within reason. Mr. Farris wanted to know where th= e cost for the busses was factored in. Mr. Steel said it was unknown at this point; the bussing contracts were current= ly up. Mr. Farris noted that the= re were significant costs to run the building that weren’t explained in = the warrant article. Mr. Steel sa= id they didn’t anticipate the building opening until fiscal year 2013.

Mr. Lavallee asked what t= he full-day tuition would cost. = Mr. Steel replied that it had not been set yet. Mr. Lavallee questioned what was c= urrently being paid to send the children out. Mr. Steel didn’t have an answer; he explained it would be what ever the rates were for the local kindergarten programs. Mr. Lavallee commented that the re= venues were currently unknown. Mr. S= teel said they could make an estimate, but he didn’t have it at present. Mr. Lavallee asked if the busses w= ould be separate for the kindergarten students.= Mr. Steel stated they were looking at reorganizing their entire transportation scheme. Mr. La= vallee suggested if the cost was to remain $3,805,000, that the bond be no longer = than five years.

Mr. Viger understood that= the conversation was regarding the kindergarten, but the busses concerned him.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said it appeared there would be= 80 students needing transportation for which two busses would be needed. Given the amount of area the busses would need to cover, the children would be on the bus for a long time. Mr. Viger said to get the children= home in a timely manner, the busses would probably run with 20 or less children which would raise the costs considerably.&= nbsp; Mr. Steel believed the idea was that the kindergarten children would ride the bus with the elementary students on the existing routes. He said they were looking at provi= ding transportation only going one way; not having the busses run midday. Mr. Viger questioned if the special needs students would require spe= cial needs busses. Mr. Steel state= d that they already did.

Mr. Hall reviewed the enr= ollment figures at the elementary school; at the end of year 2010 there were 945 students and at the beginning of next year’s school year there will be 799 students. He said with 14= 6 less students there should be available classroom space. He understood that there was a squ= are footage requirement for kindergarten, but didn’t know if there was su= ch a requirement for preschool. Mr. Steel said there was not. Mr.= Hall questioned if thought had been given to putting the preschool program in the elementary school. Mr. Steel answered yes. He said there w= as 1000SF requirement for kindergarten and 900SF for grades one through five.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> A majority of the classrooms in the elementary school were 900SF; with approximately 6-8 being 1000SF. Mr. Steel said while the enrollment numbers had dropped in the last couple years, they didn’t anticipate = it staying that way long-term. H= e said they had the opportunity for the School District to add capacity (in terms of space) at a time when state kindergarten build= ing aid existed at $.75 on the dollar coupled with low interest rates and low construction costs. He said e= ven though they weren’t ‘bursting at the seams’ he believed it was the School Board’s intent to take advantage of the state aid whil= e it was available. They had revie= wed different locations to house preschool, but felt the combination of preschool/kindergarten together made a lot of sense for the service provide= rs that they had. It was noted t= hat there was no state aid for preschool. Mr. Hall commented that the proposal would accommodate 288 children = if there were 18 children in each classroom (8 classrooms) running two, half-d= ay programs. He said it seemed t= o be too many classrooms. Mr. Stee= l said the School Board wanted to build at what they projected the future capacity= to be; they would get the most reimbursement from the classroom space.

Mr. Ducharme commented th= at parents had been requesting full-time kindergarten and with the proposed classroom space, they would be able to work it into the curriculum.

Mr. Hall commented that t= he school had not had a class size close to 288 ever and questioned why a kind= ergarten would be built for that size. He asked if the nurse was included in services that could be shared with the preschool. Mr. Steel answered yes.

Ms. Diack reviewed the en= rollment statistics and commented that the numbers were dropping off. If each classroom were to be used,= the numbers for half-day kindergarten would be seven children per class. She asked how the classroom space = would be utilized with the (projected) low enrollment numbers. Mr. Ducharme said they had seen tr= ends, prior to the elementary school being voted on, with the population increasi= ng from approximately 8500-9000 up to 12,000 in a matter of three years. He said in the time between 1965-1= 975 prior to the high school being built, the population increased from approximately 2500 up to 5400. He said whenever the Town made an investment into education there was a big pu= sh of people moving into Town. H= e said they didn’t know if the same would occur with a kindergarten building, but it was seen with other buildings for educations. They didn’t want to come to = the tax payers and tell them that the school wasn’t built large enough.

Mr. Sherman asked if ther= e were two rooms set aside for preschool in the present kindergarten building. Mr. Steel answered yes. Mr. Sherman confirmed that the pre= school was not being expanded. He re= viewed a document showing financial projections for preschool for the year 2013 th= at indicated there would be a savings of $173,660.

Mr. Viger asked what affe= ct the other schools would have regarding expansion if the proposed kindergarten w= ere constructed. Mr. Steel believ= ed the school had an eighty-three acre lot, of which sixty plus acres were usable = for the calculation of what could be utilized.= He didn’t believe there were any issues. Mr. Viger wanted to know if the pr= oposed kindergarten was to be constructed, and one (or all) of the other school bu= ildings needed to expand, if the expansion would be prohibited due to the kindergar= ten taking up the space.   Mr. Steel didn’t believe so, but would further research.

Ms. Diack asked if the bu= ilding would be constructed to have one level.&nb= sp; Mr. Steel answered yes.

Mr. Guimond stated one of= the selling points on the elementary school was the fact that the school had lo= oked at kindergarten down the road and the wings were constructed to be able to expand. He didn’t under= stand why taxpayers were being told that the previous plan was being abandoned and instead an additional school would be built. Mr. Steel understood that when the= bond was passed for the elementary school, kindergarten was not part of the discussion. He believed kindergarten was specifically excluded from considerations which was why the classrooms were 900SF instead of 1000SF.&n= bsp; He also understood that the building was constructed to be expanded = in the event Pelham ever reached full build out the additional classrooms could handle grades one through four. Mr. Guimond asked if the elementary school could be expanded to have 1000SF spa= ces. Mr. Ducharme said if it were expan= ded, there would need to be a first and second floor, however (kindergarten) couldn’t use the top floor. Mr. Guimond had a problem with trying to ‘sell’ somethin= g to the taxpayer who agreed and paid for it (the building) and they were now be= ing told something different.

Mr. Farris understood if = the elementary school were expanded, the children couldn’t be put upstairs. He said mention was= made that there were already 1000SF classrooms within the existing building.   Ms. Eleanor Burton (who was = seated in the audience) informed Mr. Steel she believed there were only two such classrooms. Mr. Farris said i= n all the discussions regarding additions (expansions) for the schools it had alw= ays been said there was not enough left of the existing footprint (of land) to expand any school. He didn= 217;t know how a kindergarten building could now be placed on land that had reach= ed its maximum based on the state formula.&nb= sp; He questioned if constructing a kindergarten building would preclude= any of the schools from having any expansions in the future. Mr. Steel stated the requirement f= or kindergarten was the same as that for an elementary school; a minimum of fi= ve acres plus one acre for every one hundred students or fraction thereof. Example: for a kindergarten housin= g two hundred students, a minimum of seven acres was needed. Mr. Steel commented that the exist= ing elementary school required fifteen acres; the high school had a slightly la= rger requirement and the middle school’s requirement was somewhere in between. He understood that t= hey weren’t anywhere close to the requirement with the overall lot, which contained approximately sixty-five usable acres. He said he would have the informat= ion verified regarding the building aid and to verify they wouldn’t prohi= bit themselves from doing any future expansions to any building.

Mr. Farris wanted to know= what the state’s recommended class size was for kindergarten. Mr. Steel said they recommend fift= een with a maximum of twenty. Mr.= Farris commented that they could reach one hundred twenty students before requiring additional staff. Mr. Steel answered yes. Mr. Farris said= they could survive with three classrooms, but ten classrooms were being proposed. Mr. Ducharme noted = that (if the number of classrooms were reduced) they wouldn’t be offering full-time kindergarten or bring in additional revenue. Mr. Farris said unless the fees wo= uld be tuition, it would only offset a portion of the costs. Mr. Steel said if the School Board believed that the Town had to cover the entire costs for the project they m= ay have come forward with a six or eight room building, but because of the sta= te reimbursement they were trying to be prudent and build bigger than what they need now and ensure they didn’t have to come back later to build something else. Mr. Farris was concerned that with eight classrooms the school would hire teachers for sma= ller classes (12 students) rather than having 18-20 students in a classroom. Mr. Steel said they would be very = open with the process; such as enrollment numbers and their budget.

Mr. Hall noted with enrol= lment currently being down by approximately 100 students, there should be more th= an two empty classrooms (in the elementary school). He said it seemed if twenty studen= ts could be put into each classroom the proposed kindergarten was being built = for potentially 320 children. He commented that Windham’s program, which had transportation, only had 160 children even though they h= ad access to more.

Mr. Sherman questioned if= , with declining enrollment, the elementary school could house the preschool facilities. Mr. Steel said the basic problem with expanding the elementary school was if the building were= to be expanded and Pelham saw another population boom there would not be room = for kindergarten within the facilities; there would only be room for grades one through four in the building.

Mr. Guimond asked why the= state would give reimbursement funds for ten classrooms if the school only needed six, based on current enrollments. Mr. Steel said the state would look for a good faith estimate of population; if they didn’t agree with the numbers provided; classrooms may need to be cut. He said t= he School Board was looking to maximize state dollars in the construction proj= ect. He noted if they had a good faith estimate for population and they don’t hit it, the extra classrooms c= ould be used for other things until they reached that capacity. Mr. Guimond believed the state wou= ld look at the projections and question why so many classrooms were going to be built. Mr. Ducharme said the = state should also look at trends of when the Town constructed new buildings for education.

Mr. Sherman asked if by reconsideration, Mr. Steel would have word from the state regarding the siz= e/number of classrooms they were willing to fund.&n= bsp; Mr. Steel answered yes.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the warrant article. Mr. Ducharme commented that article 2 (kindergarten) and potentially article 4 = (Pelham/Windham tuition agreement) would be a combined solution to reduce the overcrowding = of the school systems. He said h= aving these articles and preschool would give the Town a full solution. Mr. Viger disagreed. He said until Pelham had a high sc= hool they were in complete control of, the Town would not have a complete soluti= on. He said in sending the students ou= t on a tuition agreement Pelham would be lucky to have half a say in how the child= ren were educated.

Mr. Steel addressed the i= ssue regarding the size of the building. He said it was larger than they absolutely needed to run a kindergar= ten program. If they were to cut = two classrooms the savings would be $447,000 off the cost but would in actuality save the taxpayers $111,000. = He felt it was a good deal to get two extra classrooms for $111,000. He said the School Board was tryin= g to take full advantage of the state dollars available.

Mr. Hall questioned if the request for a higher number of classrooms was because ultimately there woul= d be full-time kindergarten. Mr. S= teel answered no. He said the kindergarten committee’s original recommendation was for a 24,000SF structure that would include full-day kindergarten right away. The School Board asked the committ= ee to ‘dial it back’ and look at a half day kindergarten, which they did.

Mr. Farris questioned whe= n the proposal would be submitted to the state for approval of the number of classrooms. Mr. Steel said it= would be done soon. Mr. Farris aske= d how long it would take for the state to replay. Mr. Steel said the state had an obligation to make sure that the school could fully inform the voters as to what the actual cost of the project would be. Mr. Farris wanted to know what wou= ld happen if the state rejected the original proposal and it had to be reconfigured/resubmitted; would the state then take a harder look at the proposal. Mr. Steel said the kindergarten building aid was state law that clearly defined the state will provide 75% reimbursement for kindergarten classrooms. The state had a statutory obligati= on to provide building aid. He didn’t anticipate a problem.

The Board ended their rev= iew of the School’s proposed warrant articles.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Farris/Sherma= n) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:35 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