BC20110117 a

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BUDGET COMM= ITTEE /= MEETING MINUTES

Monday, January 17, 2011

CALL TO ORDER – 7:15pm

PRESENT:

Also Present:

Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Dan= iel Guimond, Mr. John Lavallee, Mr. Dennis Viger, Mr. Gregory Farris, Mr. Rob= ert Sherman, Ms. Angèle Diack, Mr. = Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Edmund Gleason, School Board Representati= ve Andy Ducharme

Town Administrator Tom = Gaydos, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Frank Bass, Assistant Superintendent Amanda Lacaroz, School Business Administrator Adam Steel, School Boa= rd Chairman Rob Hardy, School Board Member Deborah Ryan

ABSENT:

None.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PUBLIC HEARING – SCHOOL OPER= ATING BUDGET

Mr. Hall opened the public hearing and welcomed input from the public.

RECONSIDERATION SCHOO= L WARRANT ARTICLES

Representing the School during warrant article reconsideration was School Business Admin= istrator Adam Steel. He stated there w= ere four items before the Board for reconsideration: 1) kindergarten/preschool = bond article; 2) Technology Integration Specialist; 3) St. Patrick’s Child Benefit Services; and 4) Memorial School Library. He summarized the information that= would be brought forward for discussion. <= /span>

Kindergarten/Preschool Bond ($3,805,0= 00) – Mr. Steel stated that the School Board was requesting the Budget Committee to vote to recommend the article.

Ms. Diack questioned if building rendition provided was final. Mr. Steel answered yes. Ms. Diack asked how many new posit= ions would be needed. Mr. Steel re= plied immediately they didn’t foresee any; they would take existing staff a= nd transfer them into the building. The only area of potential increase would be if transportation were offered for the Kindergarten program, enrollment numbers may increase. Ms. Diack confirmed if enrollment increased there would be need for a new teacher and instructional assistant= for each classroom. Mr. Steel sai= d that was correct. Ms. Diack wanted= to know if there was any place for a cafeteria. She also questioned if the classes= would all be half day, or if there would be space for full day classes. Mr. Steel said the building was de= signed to give options for the future. The District might elect to offer a full-day program having parents pay tuition= for the extra half day. Options f= or the facility would follow the regular budget process; money could not be appropriated unilaterally. Mr. Steel discussed the design of the proposed building, which would be along t= he same scheme as the Elementary School by having common areas. The common area could be utilized = by students to eat lunch. Ms. Di= ack asked if preschool children would be moved out (of the building) so the classrooms could be utilized in the event there was a huge increase in kindergarten enrollment. She questioned the square footage of the preschool classrooms. Mr. Steel stated each classroom was 1000SF plus having a bathroom and storage space. With six classrooms, at half-day sessions, the building could accommodate a total of 240 kindergarten studen= ts (classrooms being 20 students per state guidelines) without needing additio= nal facilities. These are numbers= the district didn’t anticipate hitting anytime soon, given the maximum enrollment in any class has been 215 students.

Mr. Gleason asked for the particulars regarding bonding/bank loan for the build= ing. Mr. Steel stated their plan was to= do no longer than a five year bond or note; exact financing options had not yet b= een reviewed. Mr. Gleason questio= ned if the building’s structure would be stick built or concrete. Mr. Gino Beroni of Trident Corporat= ion informed that the building would be stick built. Mr. Gleason commented that the bui= lding couldn’t be used for an emergency area.

Mr. Dunne wanted to know, should the building be approved, what safeguards woul= d be in place for inspection sign-offs of the building. Mr. Steel said the entire construc= tion process would be managed by professionals; any fire protection would be inspected by the Town department and State Fire Marshall. He had confidence in those involve= d with the building and anticipated a thorough and exhaustive review process. Mr. Dunne asked if the company that would build the kindergarten was the same company that built the elementary school. Mr. Steel replied it = had not yet been determined.

Mr. Sherman asked if there were any cost estimates for adding two wings (eight classrooms) onto the Elementary School versus constructing a separate building. Mr. Steel stated th= at the committee reviewing options looked at all options including a possible addition, but had not received any formal estimates to that extent. Mr. Sherman asked if the current a= ir system and sprinkler within the Elementary School had the capacity to handl= e an expansion to the building. Mr. Steel answered yes, the building was constructed with a core that could sup= port an expansion of the two wings. Mr. Sherman asked for a summary of why the decision was made for a separate building as opposed to extending the wings on the Elementary School. Mr. Steel didn’t want to spe= ak for the whole committee, he attended the meetings in an advisory role and was n= ot a decision maker. He noted ther= e were members present in the public who were involved with the committee that may want to speak to the question. Mr. Sherman, who was a member of the committee, said he missed almost have the meetings. Mr. Steel deferred = the question to any member of the committee who wanted to speak. Mr. Ducharme explained that one re= ason they decided to have a stand alone building was because they looked at best practices. He said after spea= king with Tina McCoy (Director of Special Services) and other experts in the Tow= n, the committee determined that the proposed would be the best facility to ho= use the three, four and five year olds as opposed to placing them in the Elemen= tary School building with children up to age twelve. He said it was an overall best con= cept, best practices approach to be done in the most affordable way possible.

Mr. Guimond noted presently the Elementary School Principal was used to oversee kindergarten and questioned if that would change with a stand alone building. Mr. Steel anticipat= ed staff remaining the same.

Mr. Lavallee questioned how many additional teachers and aides would be needed. At present, Mr. Steel didn’t anticipate any additional teachers or aides. However, the unknown was what would happen to enrollment in the future. Currently there were three teachers and two instructional assistants= in the budget. It was noted that= only 2.5 teachers were funded in the proposed budget because enrollment numbers weren’t as high as projected. If transportation was added and enrollment increased the school would need to review additional staff. It was not anticipated to fill the building within the next five-ten years; six classrooms was the appropriate number for projected enrollment.

Mr. Viger questioned if a plan was in place in the event full enrollment was not reached in kindergarten. Mr. = Steel didn’t believe it had been a discussion topic by the School Board. He understood there were ‘pockets’ of overcrowding in the other schools and believed the School Board would be proactive in their review of the whole district and r= edistribute if necessary. Mr. Viger discu= ssed adding onto the Elementary School wings, which he felt would have better use than having classrooms in a stand alone building designed for kindergarten = and preschool. He asked if the classrooms in the stand alone building could house first grade students. Mr. Ducharme said there hadn’= ;t been discussions about using the space for first grade, but believed it cou= ld be utilized if necessary.

Mr. Hall questioned what results other districts were having with the State regarding this type of build out. His concern was if there was excess space in the Elementary School a= nd the school was looking for six classrooms, would the State reduce the allowed number of classrooms to four. Mr. Steel commented they would make sure what the reimbursement would be prior = to any construction. He stated an application and complete project package is submitted to the State who in t= urn provides a preliminary estimate of what the reimbursement would be. At that point, the State becomes obligated to the School. The = point the number would change is in the event costs increase/decrease for the pro= ject. Mr. Hall asked if the State was fu= nding for full build-out. Mr. Steel answered no; the full build out numbers were much higher. Mr. Hall wanted to know if the Sta= te funded for full build-out in other communities.&n= bsp; Mr. Steel stated the maximum capacity of the building would be two hundred forty students and didn’t foresee the Town having more than t= hat in the next fifteen to twenty years. Superintendent of S= chool Dr. Frank Bass noted there were approximately = two hundred twenty students in the Pelham area who were kindergarten eligible.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the standard rate used is = 80% when looking at getting students out of the traditional private kindergarten programs into public kindergarten; this calculation equates to approximately 180 students in Pelham. He sa= id there could be anywhere from 180 – 240 students enrolled in the school and therefore it wasn’t being built for full build-out. Dr. Bass added that there was stil= l a two-three year economic downturn, which had impacted the Town’s population. He believed the n= umbers being used for enrollment were close to what there currently was. He noted that the State legislatio= n was built specifically to bring in a permanent solution to kindergarten.

Mr. Farris confirmed that the 75% State aid was strictly for the kindergarten portion of the building. Mr. = Steel said that was correct. Mr. Fa= rris reviewed the numbers to determine what portion the Town would fund. Mr. Steel said the $3.8 million pr= oject value would have approximately $1 million to $1.2 million coming back in the form of State aid; Pelham taxpayers would be responsible for approximately = $2.8 million. Mr. Farris believed = public perception was that 75% of the (entire) project would be funded by the Stat= e, however the 75% was only for the kindergarten portion.

Mr. Viger questioned what would happen in the event the State decided to only f= und four of the six proposed classrooms. Mr. Steel said the warrant article was written as such to allow the School Board to raise and appropriate funding for a kindergarten school; the article doesn’t specify there had to be six classrooms for kindergarten. Mr. Viger said = the presentation was for six classrooms and that’s what would be voted on. It was noted that the vot= ers would end up paying more for what was presented.

Mr. Hall confirmed that transportation costs were not included in the budget. Mr. Steel said that was correct. He said population numbers had been dropping; the School Board may have the option to provide transportation for kindergarten next year (within the existing budget).

Mr. Dunne asked for clarification of what the State would reimburse. Mr. Steel replied that the State w= ould not reimburse for anything to do with the preschool facility.

Mr. Sherman questioned if the School Board had the power to downsize the buildi= ng if state came through and would only fund four of the six classrooms. Mr. Steel said that was correct; t= he School Board wouldn’t have to spend $3.8 million, they could spend ‘up to’ that amount.

School Board Chairman Rob Hardy asked if the State gave any indication they would = not fund six classrooms. Mr. Steel answered no; the State did not indicate they had problems with the enrollme= nt projections. He noted a formal application had not yet been filled out.&n= bsp; The State indicated even with a placeholder, there was a small chance the Legislature could cut the (reimbursement) program prior to the March To= wn Meeting. Mr. Hardy questioned= if the paperwork was filed, if the Town would receive an answer prior to Delib= erative Session. Mr. Steel answered y= es.

Mr. Hall wanted to know if it was best practice to have the administrator in ch= arge of the Elementary School also be in charge of a different building. Mr. Steel said that was correct. Mr. Hall also wanted to know if th= ere was any best practice about kindergarten students being integrated with fir= st and second graders versus three and four year olds. Dr. Bass stated ideally, the best position would be to have the kindergarten students in the building with the first and second graders. He = said one could make the same argument about the fifth graders being with sixth a= nd seventh graders; at some point strata cuts had to be made.

Mr. Lavallee asked where the number of 220 eligible students came from. Dr. Bass explained that the State = came to Town two years ago and did a study of available kindergarten students in= the area; the State reviewed eleven communities. Mr. Lavallee wanted to determine d= uring what year the number was accurate. He noted there were only fifteen building lots applied for last year= . Dr. Bass believed a realistic numb= er (using 80% rule) would fall between 175-180. Mr. Lavallee suggested that the projected numbers had already passed.

Mr. Gleason commented that the building wouldn’t be constructed until 2012-2013 so there would be no anticipated impact to the 2011 budget. Mr. Steel stated in the FY2012 bud= get there would be a small increase related to the first year bond cost.

Mr. Hall questioned when the lease for the modulars would end. Mr. Steel replied August 1, 2012. He explained that he asked for the project to be accelerated for the school to open September, 2012 so the School District didn’t have to lease the port= able for an additional year.

Ms. Diack noted the proposed building would be where the modulars were currently located. The modulars would be moved out of the way during the construction phase.

Mr. Sherman asked if someone would be able to reduce the amount in the article = at the Deliberative Session. Mr.= Steel was unsure if a bond article (number) could be changed at Deliberative Session. Mr. Hall didn’t believe the number could be changed. Further research would be done to determine if the figure could be changed at Deliberative Session.

The following motion was then made:

ROLL CALL:

(Gleason/Ducha= rme) To reconsider the Kindergarten Warrant Article.

VOTE:

(5-5-0) The mot= ion failed. Mr. Guimond, Mr. Farris, Mr. Lav= allee, Mr. Viger and Ms. Diack voted no.

<= /span>

Technology Integration Specialist ($1) – Mr. Steel explained to the Budget Committee if the School Board= were to support the position being in the Operating Budget (to be offset by Fede= ral Funds), the School Operating Budget would need to be increased by $75,193, = for a total of $24,501,498 from where it currently stood at $24,426,305. To clarify, Mr. Steel stated the S= chool Board was requesting an increase to the Operating Budget of $75,193.

Mr. Viger questioned if a job description was submitted. Mr. Steel invited Assistant Superintendent Amanda Lacaroz to give a presentation on the position. Mr. H= all confirmed that the position was currently being paid for by the IDEA Grant. Mr. Steel said that was correct.

Mr. Viger asked if the proposed position was Mr. Steel’s former position. Mr. Steel answered = no.

Assistant Superintendent Amanda Lacaroz and School Board member Deborah Ryan came for= ward to discuss the proposed article and position. Ms. Lacaroz stated that the Techno= logy Integration Specialist primarily was designed to collaborate with teachers = to utilize technology to improve student learning. She said the position currently ex= isted within the School District and was funde= d with Federal Funds. They were look= ing to put the position into the General Fund for next year; there was EdJobs money available to cover the cost of it. <= /span>Ms. Lacaroz discussed the reasons for looking at having a technology integration specialist.

Mr. Viger confirmed that there was a person in the position now. Ms. Lacaroz answered yes. Mr. Viger questioned the reason for changing the way the position was funded.&= nbsp; Ms. Lacaroz replied that the position was currently funded under the= Federal stimulus funds, which would no longer be available beginning next year. She noted that the NEASC accredita= tion recommends that they have a technology integration specialist; the school h= ad the position for the past two years and they were trying to find a way to continue. Ms. Ryan noted that= the School Board and the Administrators felt strongly about the position. She then explained her thoughts ab= out the position and its importance for the teachers and students.

Mr. Sherman asked where the funding would come from and how long it would last.= Ms. Lacaroz said the funding was currently for one year (2012).

Mr. Guimond said initially it was a warrant article where the taxpayers would be able to choose whether they want the position or not. He questioned why it was being changed. Ms. Lacaroz said they weren’t aware of the EdJobs money until after the position was origin= ally brought up as a warrant article. Mr. Guimond questioned if she felt the taxpayers should have a say regarding the position. He wanted to know w= hat they would use the EdJobs money for, if not used for the position. Mr. Steel said they could only use= the EdJobs money for the salary and benefits of educational personnel. If the District does not hire some= one new (fund a new position) it would be used to reduce taxes in the future. Mr. Steel believed the taxpayers h= ad a say (regarding the position) both by electing a School Board and Budget Committee and by participating in the Deliberative Session and at the polls= on March 8^th (Town Meeting). He said the belief was they could make better use of the funding by including it in the Operating Budget.

Mr. Hall recalled that the position was one of thirteen included in the IDEA grant. When the list was revi= ewed the position was identified and placed on the warrant. He understood that there was alrea= dy a person in the position, but there were others on the payroll who worked und= er a grant as well. Mr. Hall said = it was obvious that the school no longer felt comfortable using the grant to pay f= or the position. Mr. Steel state= d they couldn’t guarantee that funding would continue into the future. Mr. Farris recalled when the Police asked a School Resource Officer to be funded by grant money, the warrant article listed the term of the funding.&nb= sp; He said the school could do something similar, such as list the cost= and explain that the first year would be offset by the grant money and the taxpayers would be responsible after that.= He commented that the taxpayers weren’t being given that opportunity in this instance. He felt that the article could be worded to include the fact that some part of= the cost would be offset by federal money.&nbs= p; Mr. Steel said if the Budget Committee did not choose to make the change, the warrant article would continue as it was presently worded. He said they were trying to guaran= tee they made use of the funding for something that would better education.

Mr. Dunne confirmed that there was a person currently in the position and it was funded by the IDEA grant. He questioned if the person was receiving benefits. Mr. Steel answered yes. Mr. Dunne said there was usually a= pay range and he wanted to know if the person in the position would be rolled o= nto the payroll, or if a search would be done.= Mr. Steel said the salary was largely based on the current individual’s salary. He anticipated the same person continuing.&nb= sp; They couldn’t put a salary range on the ballot and chose to put the number that reflected what the position was currently being paid. Mr. Dunne asked if they could find someone to fill the position at a cheaper rate. Mr. Steel said they could probably= find someone to fill the position at an hourly rate, but they would get what they paid for.

Mr. Viger wanted to understand why the warrant article wasn’t changed to reflect the fact that they found a way to fund the position for the next two years. Mr. Ducharme questione= d if the article wording could be amended to show funding would be a wash. Mr. Steel believed the School Board would make that point at Deliberative Session and in the Voter Guide. He said barring a School Board mee= ting prior to tomorrow, the wording could not be changed. Mr. Hall asked if funds could be c= arried into next year. Mr. Steel sai= d the funds were only available this year and next year ($151,000 total for both years).

There was further discussion regarding the grant money and the request being made= of the Board to put the position into the budget, so it would not be subject to the ‘no means no’ law. It was noted (as confirmed with DRA) if the warrant article had $0 a= nd was defeated there wouldn’t be a violation of the ‘no means no’ law because there was no appropriation associated with it. The Budget Committee was being ask= ed to amend the operating budget upward in the amount of $75,193.

  There was confirmation made as to w= here the funding for the position currently came from. Mr. Steel explained that the posit= ion was funded through a section of the IDEA grant that was funded through ARRA Funds and will expire after the current school year.

The following motion was made:

ROLL CALL:

(Sherman/Dunne= ) To reconsider the Operating Budget (Technology Integration Specialist)

VOTE:

(7-3-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Diack, Mr. Farris and Mr. Gu= imond voted no. =

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Viger asked for clarification what would occur if the motion failed. Mr. Hall said if the motion failed= , it would be up to the School Board to make a change (prior to tomorrow). Mr. Viger said the problem with the motion is the voter would not be given the decision whether they want the position.

ROLL CALL:

(Sherman/Dunne= ) To add $75,193 (for a Technology Integration Specialist) to the Operating Budget= for fiscal year 2011.<= /u>

VOTE:

(6-4-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Hall, Mr. Guim= ond, Mr. Farris and Mr. Viger voted no. =

Mr. Steel said the new bottom line for the Operating Budget will be $24,501,498.

St= . Patrick= School Child Benefit Services

Reverend Anthony Kuzia of St. Patrick Church came forward to discuss the warrant art= icle pertaining to child benefit services at St. Patrick S= chool. The proposed article requested funding for a nurse and testing materials for those students from Pelham who attend St. Patrick School. Rev. Kuzia discussed the reason fo= r the request and asked the Board to reconsider their recommendation.

Mr. Dunne asked if St. Patrick School was part of the = Pelham School Distr= ict. He questioned what affect the fail= ed warrant from last year had on the services for the children who attend the school. Rev. Kuzia didn’= ;t believe St. Patrick School was part of the District. He couldn’t answer as to what happened last year because he was not at t= he school at that time.

Mr. Gleason asked how many children attended St. Patrick S= chool. Rev. Kuzia stated there were 188 students (grades one through eight) plus an additional 23 kindergarten stud= ents . Mr. Gleason confirmed that = 101 students were Pelham residents. Rev. Kuzia said there were 124 Pelham residents. Mr. Gleason questioned if the $30,= 824 was a prorated number for Pelham resident students. Mr. Steel answered yes; the figure= was received directly from St. Patrick Parish.= Mr. Gleason confirmed that the number was directly related to the Pe= lham resident children attending St.<= /st2:Sn> Patrick S= chool. Mr. Steel replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Farris questioned who paid for the amenities (described in the article) for non-Pelham resident children. Rev. Kuzia answered that the school paid. Mr. Farris asked if the amenities were included in the tuition of the non-Pelham resident students. Rev. Kuzia was not prepared to answer.

Mr. Guimond asked if the Pelham resident students pay less. Rev. Kuzia answered no.

ROLL CALL:

(Gleason/Ducha= rme) To reconsider the warrant article for child benefit services for 101 Pelham children attending St. Patrick School= .

VOTE:

(6-4-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Guimond, Mr. F= arris, Mr. Sherman and Ms. Diack voted no.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------=

ROLL CALL:

(Gleason/Ducha= rme) To reconsider a vote (recommendation) on the $30,824 for Warrant Article 9 (child benefit services for 101 Pelham children attending St. Patrick School)

VOTE:

(6-4-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Guimond, Mr. F= arris, Mr. Sherman and Ms. Diack voted no.

Mr. Steel commented that there was nothi= ng precluding the child benefit services (defined under 189:49) appropriation = from being in the Operating Budget. It didn’t have to be a warrant article.

Memorial School Library – Mr. Steel said o= riginally the School Board had proposed a capital lease of the Memorial Library modul= ar classroom at the cost of $200,000 in the first year. After revising the plan, the total= first year cost can be reduced to $146,500 with a three year lease. The School Board requested that the Budget Committee increase the Operational Budget by a total of $146,500 whi= ch represented the fiscal year 2012 cost for the project.

Mr. Sherman asked where t= he modular would be located. Mr.= Steel said it would be located in the court yard behind the school, which was an = area rarely used by the school or community.&nb= sp;

Mr. Dunne asked the purpo= se of moving the library. Mr. Steel replied it would relieve overcrowding.&nbs= p; Mr. Dunne questioned what would go into the library space within the school. Mr. Steel said it wou= ld relieve classroom space within the building.

Mr. Hardy commented that = Memorial School was the only school with increased attendance. They restructured the interior which had put a strain on the special education rooms. The current room used = for the library was not big enough for an entire class to go into. Having the media center/library ou= tside would allow the school to have more space.= There were currently three different special education classes going= on within one classroom. Mr. Har= dy believed with the savings in the first year it was a valuable investment.

Mr. Viger questioned how = it would connect to the main building. Mr. Steel said the students would walk outside.

Ms. Diack recalled at the beginning of the year it was brought up that there should be trailers, but = then decided they weren’t needed. Later the subject was brought back and a decision made to rearrange classrooms and have the library added; the cost for which was put into the budget. The Board requested t= hat the library be a warrant article. Ms. Diack questioned why it was not brought forward as such. Mr. Ducharme believed the School B= oard thought with the importance of bringing everything to the table under operational budget line item they wanted to see the library as part of the solution because of the overextended classrooms.

Mr. Guimond said he was s= omewhat disappointed (if it was put into the operating budget) because the taxpayers wouldn’t have a say whether they want the item or not.

Mr. Hardy said they discu= ssed putting modular classrooms out at the beginning of the year. The School Board asked the Princip= al what would benefit the school the most.&nb= sp; The principal indicated moving the library would give the school the most flexibility. Mr. Hardy n= oted over the next three years there wouldn’t be fewer students in the school. He said they were sim= ply trying to do the right thing for the students in the school.

Mr. Dunne recalled tourin= g the school. He viewed the request= as more of an operational item rather than a building. He supported having a modular clas= s for the two years it was needed. =

ROLL CALL:

(Sherman/Dunne= ) To reconsider the Operating Budget (Memorial Library).

VOTE:

(3-7-0) The mot= ion failed. Mr. Ducharme, Mr. G= leason and Mr. Dunne voted in the affirmative.&= nbsp;

=

Mr. Guimond proposed a ne= w budget figure of $24,501,498 which would change the previous budget figure.

VOICE VOTE:

(Guimond/Laval= lee) To reconsider the Operational Budget.

VOTE:

(9-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Viger voted no= .

-------------------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------------

VOICE VOTE:

To amend the Operational Budget to $24,501,498.

VOTE:

(8-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Viger and Mr. = Farris voted no. =

Article 10 – Sprinkler System Pelham High School ($390,0= 00) – Mr. Hall read the petition warrant article aloud. Petitioner Linda Mahoney came forw= ard and read aloud a letter composed by Pelham School District Director of Maintenance Alan Miller. The = letter outlined the needs for the proposed sprinkler system.

ROLL CALL:

To recommend A= rticle 10 – Pelham High School sprin= kler system.

VOTE:

(1-9-0) The mot= ion failed. Ms. Diack voted in = the affirmative.

=

Warra= nt Article 10 – Not Recommended.

=

Article 11 – Replace HVAC in Pelham High School<= /st1:PlaceType> ($385,000) – Mr. Hall read the petition warrant article aloud. Petitioner Linda Mahoney read alou= d a letter submitted by Pelham School District Director of Maintenance Alan Miller. The letter discussed = the benefits of replacing the HVAC.

ROLL CALL:

To recommend A= rticle 11 – Replace Pelham High School HVAC system.

VOTE:

(3-7-0) The mot= ion failed. Mr. Hall, Ms. Diack= and Mr. Sherman voted in the affirmative.&nb= sp;

Warra= nt Article 11 – Not Recommended.

=

Article 12 – Construct High School Parking= Lot ($330,000) – Mr. Hall read the petition warrant article aloud.

ROLL CALL:

To recommend A= rticle 12 – Construct High School Parking Lot.

VOTE:

(1-9-0) The mot= ion failed. Ms. Diack voted in = the affirmative.

Warra= nt Article 12 – Not Recommended.

=

MINUTES REVIEW

Septembe= r 30, 2010

MOTION:

(Lavallee/Guim= ond) To approve the Se= ptember 30, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(8-0-2) The motion carried. Mr. Far= ris and Mr. Dunne abstained.

----------------------------------------------------------

October = 21, 2010

MOTION:

(Guimond/Laval= lee) To approve the O= ctober 21, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(9-0-1) The motion carried. Mr. Dun= ne abstained.

---------------------------------------------------------

November= 15, 2010

MOTION:

(Lavallee/Guim= ond) To approve the N= ovember 15, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(8-0-2) The motion carried. Mr. Hal= l and Mr. Dunne abstained.

--------------------------------------------------------=

November= 18, 2010

MOTION:

(Lavallee/Guim= ond) To approve the N= ovember 18, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(8-0-2) The motion carried. Mr. Dun= ne abstained.

-------------------------= ---------------------------------

November= 29, 2010

MOTION:

(Guimond/Farri= s) To approve the N= ovember 29, 2010 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(8-0-2) The motion carried. Mr. Lav= allee and Mr. Dunne abstained.

=

RECONSIDERATION TOWN<= /st1:PlaceType> WARRANT ARTICLES

Town Administrator Tom Ga= ydos came forward to discuss two items for reconsideration. The Board was provided with a noti= ce informing that the State had indicated their projected amount for Highway B= lock Grant of $318,383. He asked t= hat the Board amend the original number presented to reflect the change.



VOICE VOTE:

(Farris/Guimon= d) To reconsider the Highway Block Grant figure.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------= ----------------------------------------

VOICE VOTE:

(Farris/Guimon= d) To accept $318,383 as the figure for the Highway Block Grant.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

The second item for reconsideration was adjustments to the Operating Budget to accommodate Supervisor’s Individual contracts.&n= bsp; Information regarding such was provided to the Board. Each of the departments had an ass= ociated increase; there were also increases in FICA, Medicare, Retirement and Insur= ance. The requested amount is $110,925.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gaydos provided a summary of t= he types of changes that were made with the individual employment contracts.

VOICE VOTE:

(Gleason/Guimo= nd) To reconsider the Operating Budget (Individual Supervisor Contracts).

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

-------------------------= --------------------------------------------------

ROLL CALL:

(Gleason/Guimo= nd) To modify the Operating Budget by adding $110,925 (for Individual Supervisor Contracts) to a new (bottom line) Operating Budget $12,339,320.

VOTE:

(9-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Sherman voted no.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:20 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

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: Vote to Reconsider Kindergarten War= rant Article_____________________

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

NO

John Lavallee

NO

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

NO

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: _<= /u>Gleason /= Ducharme         (5-5-0)

MOTION TO REC= ONSIDER FAILED

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: _To Reconsider the Operating Budget (Technology Integration Specialist)=

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

YES

John Lavallee

YES

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

NO

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: _S= herman   /   Dunne                = (7-3-0)

MOTION CARRIE= D TO RECONSIDER OPERATING BUDGET

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: __ To add $75,193 to the Operating Budget (for a Technology

Integration Specialist)

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

NO

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

NO

John Lavallee

YES

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: _ Sherman   /   Dunne         (6-4-0)

MOTION CARRIE= D TO ADD $75,193 TO THE OPERATING BUDGET

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: _To Reconsider the warrant article for child benefit services for 101 Pelham children attending St. = Patrick School _____________________________

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

YES

John Lavallee

YES

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

NO

Angèle Diack

NO

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: _ Gleason   / Ducharme              = (6-4-0)

MOTION CARRIE= D TO RECONSIDER

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: _To Recommend the warrant article for child benefit services for 101 Pelham children attending St. Patrick School _- $30,8= 24_________________

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

YES

John Lavallee

YES

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

NO

Angèle Diack

NO

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: _ Gleason   / Ducharme              = (6-4-0)

MOTION CARRIE= D TO RECOMMEND WARRANT ARTICLE 9

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: __Reconsider Operational Budget (Memor= ial School Library) ___= ______

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

NO

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

NO

John Lavallee

NO

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

NO

Angèle Diack

NO

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: _D= ucharme   /   Dunne            = (3-7-0)

MOTION FAILED=

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

PETITION WARR= ANT ARTICLE: ____Sprinkler System for Pelham High School ___________

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

NO

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

NO

John Lavallee

NO

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

NO

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

NO

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

NO

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

NO

VOTE:   (1-9-0)   MOTION FAILED=

WARRANT ARTIC= LE NOT RECOMMENDED

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

PETITION WARR= ANT ARTICLE: ____Replace HVAC at Pelham High School        ___________

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

NO

John Lavallee

NO

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

NO

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

NO

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

NO

VOTE:   (3-7-0)   MOTION FAILED=

WARRANT ARTIC= LE NOT RECOMMENDED

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

PETITION WARR= ANT ARTICLE: ____Construct= High School Parking Lot        =       ___________

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

NO

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

NO

John Lavallee

NO

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

NO

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

NO

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

NO

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

NO

VOTE:   (1-9-0)   MOTION FAILED=

WARRANT ARTIC= LE NOT RECOMMENDED

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 TOWN WARRANT ARTICLE<= /b>

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: ___Modify the Operating Budget by adding $110,925 (for Individual Supervisor Contract= s) to a new (bottom line) Operating Budget $12,339,320

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

YES

Dennis Viger

YES

John Lavallee

YES

Greg Farris

YES

Bob Sherman

NO

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: _G= leason   /   Guimond            (9-1-0)

NEW OPERATING= BUDGET BOTTOM LINE FIGURE APPROVED

BOARD MEMBER=	YES	NO	ABSTAIN
Larry Hall	YES
Dan Guimond	YES
Dennis Viger	YES
John Lavallee	YES
Greg Farris	YES
Bob Sherman		NO
Angèle Diack	YES
Ken Dunne	YES
Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)	YES
Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)	YES