BC20111017

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BUDGET COMM= ITTEE - MEETING MINUTES

Monday, October 17, 2011

APPROVED &#= 8211; November 7, 2011

CALL TO ORDER – 7:30pm

PRESENT:

Also Present:

Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Dan= iel Guimond, Mr. John Lavallee, Mr. Dennis Viger, Mr. Gregory Farris, Mr. Rob= ert Sherman, Mr. Joe Puddister, Mr. David Cate, Mr. Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Edmund Gleason, School Board Representative Megan Larson

School Business Adminis= trator Adam Steel, School Board Chairman Rob Hardy, School Board member Andy Duc= harme, School Board member Brian Carton, Pelham Elementary Principal Alicia LaFrance, Pelham Elementary Assistant Principal Michelle Viger, Pelham Elementary Assistant Principal Jessica Van Vranken

ABSENT:

None.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2012 BUDGET REVIEW AGENDA

School Business Administr= ator Adam Steel came forward and provided the Board with an overview of the Scho= ol District Budget. He commented that the budget proposed by the School Board = was up 12.13% over last year’s operating budget; a difference of $2.8 million. A large portion of t= he increase (approximately $1.4 million) came from four capital projects that require significant funding; 1) possible purchase of kindergarten modular classrooms ($562,000); 2) & 3) sprinkler and HVAC system upgrade for Pe= lham High School; 4) architectural engineering fees ($100,000) to assist in developing a master plan and budget ready initiative for the 2013 ballot regarding the district’s space needs.

Mr. Steel discussed enrol= lment projections. He explained they began with the number they anticipated for the student body and worked backwards through the number for teaching staff, support staff, materials on hand and the facilities needed to serve those students appropriately. The first grade enrollment was ant= icipated to increase by approximately 23 students (once updated enrollment projectio= ns were received, they would work with those numbers). In January, first grade enrollment begins and the numbers can be adjusted if needed. In total, the projected enrollment= at Pelham Elementary School (and kindergarten) would increase by 32 students, Pelham Memorial School would drop by 9 students, and Pelham High School would s= tay the same with possibly one less student projected. In total it was anticipated the di= strict would have 22 additional students over and above what they currently had. The numbers don’t include pre-school. Mr. Steel spoke a= bout the student to teacher ratio. In the 2010/2011 school year, the state’s ration was 12.2; Pelham had 15.5. Of all districts in the= state (with more than 1000 students enrolled) it was the second highest number. If the Pelham School Distr= ict wanted to increase the number of teachers to reach the average in the state (for schools with more than 1000 in enrollment), it would require an additi= onal 29 teachers.

Mr. Steel noted that the = Pelham Kindergarten portion of the budget had been eliminated and included in the = Pelham Elementary School’s section of the budget. This was done primarily because the School Board felt kindergarten was a part of Pelham Elementary. It had been functioning this way f= or the past few years and would continue to do so in the future. Starting in 2013 the state would n= ot be reimbursing kindergarten costs.

Other areas of increase i= n the budget included health insurance (currently budgeted at a 15% increase); the guaranteed maximum number would be received later in the month. Mr. Steel believed the number in t= he budget may be too high and possibly reduced (when updated numbers are received). He noted that the = SAU Board had authorized a study to review benefits. They will work with a professional consultant to help address alternatives for health insurance. There were challenges within the u= nion contracts making it difficult to look at other options, but they were worki= ng with the unions to find a solution to provide adequate health care and more options for the employees and district.&nb= sp; It was noted that New Hampshire teacher retirement had increased significantly; the state no longer pays for teacher retirement.

Mr. Steel stated that the= y were in the second year of the teacher’s collective bargaining agreement; = each teacher is budgeted to receive a $1300 raise. It was not based on a percentage, = but instead a flat dollar amount. He pointed out that the fuel oil budget was done to protect the lines so they didn’t run a deficit. <= /p>

In closing, Mr. Steel sta= ted that the Pelham School District made no purchases greater than $5000 in the last two months of their fiscal year for any piec= e of equipment or any item. There = were two purchases for repairs in the maintenance budget for May and June, but no other purchases. The Pelham School District was giving back approximately $167,0= 00 at the end of fiscal year 2011. It was noted there was a track record of not spending money at the end of the fiscal year; they would continue to follow that trend.

Mr. Viger questioned if t= here were any contracts being negotiated. Mr. Steel replied that the School Board was negotiating with PESPA (instructional assistant and tutor’s union). Mr. Viger asked if there was a percentage increase for non-union employees. Mr. Steel said the School Board ha= d put a non-union salary pool into the budget; this represented a 3% for each employee. Non-union employee’s raises are based on performance standards developed by the District. It was noted even t= hough a 3% salary increase was budgeted for everyone, did not mean that everyone would receive that 3% salary increase.&nbs= p;

Mr. Farris asked if someo= ne had been hired to negotiate contracts, or if someone within the school system w= as doing the negotiations. Mr. S= teel said during the PESPA negotiations they had an attorney present along with = two school board members, the superintendent and the human resources director.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Farris questioned if the teacher’s contract negotiations would begin earlier than they had in = the past. Mr. Steel replied that = the unit typically initiated negotiations.&nbs= p; Mr. Farris questioned why the non-union raises weren’t going t= o be in a warrant article (as a lump sum letting the School Board have the abili= ty to give it out) giving the voters the option, as they had in the past. Mr. Steel said it was the School Board’s position that raises were at their discretion and they were looking to the Budget Committee to help them arrive at a number (in the rai= se pool) that was appropriate for the various employees.

Mr. Dunne asked what role= the attorney had during contract negotiations.= Mr. Steel didn’t want to speak as to what the attorney’s role was during negotiation. = He offered that the attorney was a legal expert that made sure they didn’= ;t commit unfair labor practices as part of the negotiations and further helped them evaluate different options based on the attorney’s experience wi= th other negotiations with surrounding towns.=

Mr. Cate asked for an exp= lanation of how the school had a surplus, when there had been previous talk about ha= ving a deficit. Mr. Steel stated t= he surplus returning $167,486 (which was prior to giving $50,000 to the capital reserve fund for maintenance) was for fiscal year 2011. The budget deficit they were proje= cting for retirement was for fiscal year 2012.&n= bsp; Mr. Steel noted by law, the school had to return every dollar; they weren’t allowed to keep the surplus to offset any future deficit. By going through the budget proces= s, the school was trying to prevent having a deficit; the increased liability of t= he state not paying for teacher retirement was reflected within the budget.

Pre-School

Mr. Steel told the Board = that the pre-school budget was for the special education pre-school program that was federally mandated. Pre-schoo= l is currently housed within the portables between the Elementary School and Memorial School. Mr. Steel found no value in enroll= ment numbers for pre-school, other than having a sense of where they started an ended each year, because they always started at approximately 10-12 students and ended up around 35-40 by the end of the school year. He began to review the pre-school = budget. Contingency positions have been in= cluded in all of the instructional assistant’s budgets throughout the distri= ct; these positions are written into a student’s IEP. The IEP team determines student= 217;s needs. The difficulty is not knowing future needs. Conting= ency positions have been left open in the event a need arises. The process that will be used in t= he spring will be to start with a budget of zero and come forward with a propo= sal for each instructional assistant position and describe what their role will be.

Mr. Farris questioned if = a higher default budget was being created by having the contingency position in the budget. Mr. Steel believed th= e way the default budget should be crafted is to keep the existing positions; he = was unsure if the contingency positions should exist. He said if the IEP team determines= that a student needs a one-on-one aid, he would have to allow that person to be hired regardless of what was contained in the budget. He said they would create a track = record of not hiring and filling positions that weren’t necessary.

The Board continued their= review of the Pre-school budget and moved to the Pelham Elementary S= chool budget.

Pelham Eleme= ntary School

Mr. Steel provided an ove= rview of the proposed budget. An expla= nation was given regarding the proposed teachers that were included based on proje= cted enrollment. If it was found t= hat the teachers weren’t needed, they would be removed from the budget. Mr. Viger asked if the “RIF” teachers (those not used during a budget period) had call back rights. Mr. Steel answered yes. There were three positions eliminated at the elementary school last year, but based on retirement and non-renewal no one was sent home with a pink slip. There was no one eligible for call= backs in this situation.

Mr. Sherman asked for the= current student to teacher ratio. Mr.= Steel replied in the current school year the first grade student/teacher ratio was 19.8. Based on the current enrollment projections and having ten first grade teachers next year the ra= tio would be 18.2. It was anticip= ated that the accurate projection number would come later in the month.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding the daily substitute and long-term substitute positions and their salary. Mr. Steel will provide information regarding how many substitutes were employed. There was a question regarding sick days; who qualified and how many were being uses. Mr. Steel will provide a breakdown= of the prior four years. It was noted that the union contracts contained a clause/compensation schedule for those with perfect attendance.

Mr. Hall asked if there w= as a mechanism to monitor a student’s achievements in the next grade level that had a long-term substitute in the classroom the prior year. Principal LaFrance replied they in= terview and hired highly qualified teachers to fill long-term substitute positions based on the needs of the grade level.&nbs= p; Mr. Viger asked if long-term substitutes fall under the same review process as teachers would. Principal LaFrance answered no; long-term substitutes were not under= the teacher contract.

Mr. Steel reviewed the it= ems contained in new furniture and fixtures.&n= bsp; The largest issue was the band lockers, which was needed to secure instruments. The Pelham Schoo= l Age Child Care is using the music classroom as part of their lease agreement; having the lockers will ensure instruments are secured. Mr. Farris questioned if medical r= ecords could be kept electronically. Mr. Steel said they were required to maintain hard copies, but was unsure of th= e number of years.

Mr. Farris recalled that = budgets had been increased to get additional books to catch up on programs, but a n= ew program was coming out, so they didn’t get the new books. He asked how close the school was = to catching up to the new program. Mr. Steel believed with the proposed book purchase they were up to date with wh= ere they wanted to be. Ms. LaFran= ce anticipated science books grade three in FY13. The reading books were in maintena= nce mode.

Mr. Puddister asked for information regarding EdCube (in the Enrichment supplies line). Ms. LaFrance replied that the state required every student from kindergarten through twelfth grade will maintai= n a digital portfolio containing a combination of their academic career in all subject areas. The EdCube pro= gram was designed to be an organization tool beginning at the elementary school level to manage the artifacts that needed to be placed into the digital portfolios. It was noted that EdCube was an unfunded state mandate.

Mr. Viger asked for verif= ication of the percentage of students with an IEP and how Pelham compared state wide with those numbers. He questi= oned if border communities ranked higher than in the north country. He wanted to know why people would= come from Massachusetts, if it was a federally funded program, because they should have the same funding. Mr. Steel will resea= rch.

Mr. Dunne asked how the n= urse’s responsibilities were structured within the schools. Mr. Steel said the pre-school had = a 70% nurse and that the elementary school had a full-time nurse as well as a full-time nurse assistant. Mr. Dunne asked if the nurse assistant could be eliminated and have the two nur= ses work out of the elementary school. <= /span>Mr. Steel explained that the pre-school program had some students with severe medical needs which required having a nurse in the building with the studen= ts almost all the time.

Mr. Viger recalled discus= sions last year about defibrillators and questioned their status. Mr. Steel said each of the three s= chools had a defibrillator; the high school athletic director also had a portable defibrillator. The batteries = need to be replaced every two years. The nurse’s supply budget included testing and any supplies needed for the defibrillators. It was noted = during the summer the defibrillators were hooked up to an alarm at the Fire Statio= n to alert them when the cabinet door is opened. The nurses test the systems using diagnostic software. Mr. Lava= llee questioned the reliability of the defibrillator batteries due to problems t= hat were occurring last year. Mr.= Steel said the Fire Department used rechargeable batteries; the school’s defibrillator batteries were not rechargeable and had to be replaced every = two years. Mr. Guimond commented = that he asked the Fire Chief about the problems he had in the past. The Fire Chief stated that the pro= blems had been rectified.

There was a discussion re= garding the increase in the repairs and maintenance line. Mr. Steel explained they had creat= ed an inventory of all the copy machines, their annual usage and the anticipated replacement amount. They base= d the budget on those needs. A competitive bid process (RFP) would occur when replacing the machines.

A question came up regard= ing recycling. Ms. LaFrance said = with the help of the PTA the school had a great initiative for recycling; the classrooms recycled paper, cardboard, plastic bottles and cans. The district is currently reviewing alternatives for rubbish disposal. Mr. Steel has met with PERC Director Ron Hannon to discuss options/a= lternatives.

Mr. Steel told the Board = he would provide backup data for building repair information. He then reviewed the items they wo= uld be looking to address in the upcoming year.&n= bsp;

Mr. Gleason asked if the = school had reviewed available options for electricity to try and reduce the overall budget. Mr. Steel understood = in the past that the school district had worked with a particular company, but they had one year agreements, which ended with more paperwork than savings. He said they were interested in lo= nger term options. Mr. Gleason sai= d the Town Administrator was speaking with a consortium that promised significant price reductions in basic electrical service.

The Board concluded their= budget review.

MINUTES REVIEW

Septembe= r 26, 2011, September 29, 2011, October 3, 2011

MOTION:

(Lavallee/Guim= ond)To approve the Se= ptember 26, 2011, September 29, 2011 and October 3, 2011 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried. Mr. Vig= er and Mr. Farris abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:47 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