APPROVED
TOWN OF
BUDGET COMM= ITTEE - MEETING MINUTES
APPROVED &#= 8211; December 1, 2011
CALL TO ORDER –
|
PRESENT: Also Present: |
Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. John Lavallee, Mr. Gregory Farris, Mr. Robert Sherman, Mr. Joe Puddister, Mr. David Cate, Mr. Ken Dunne, School Board Representative Megan Larson, Selectmen Representative Edmund Gleason School Business Adminis= trator Adam Steel, Superintendent Dr. Henry LaBranche, Special Services Director Tina McCoy |
|
ABSENT: |
Mr. Dennis Viger, Mr. D= aniel Guimond |
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2012 BUDGET REVIEW AGENDA - District, Food Service
Mr. Steel came forward an=
d reviewed
the memo dated
Mr. Farris asked for the = salary increase percentage for the School Administrative Unit (‘SAU’).= Mr. Steel stated there was no incr= ease in salaries. Dr. LaBranche co= mmented that there was a line item for a 3% performance pool placed in the SAU budg= et, but there were no raises given to a particular position. Mr. Sherman asked if the performan= ce pool included non-affiliated employees.&nb= sp; Dr. LaBranche said all employees in the SAU were included. Mr. Farris questioned if the Pelha= m/Windham SAU separated if Pelham’s SAU budget would only be able to be modified/adjusted by the School Board, or if it would become part of the Operating Budget. Dr. LaBranc= he replied it would become part of the school budget with a separate section a= nd line items.
Mr. Hall asked if the Tit= le I tutor was paid through the grant. Mr. Steel answered no; there were other title I tutors paid through = the program, but historically there was one tutor the district paid for directl= y. Mr. Hall asked for a copy of the l= ist for those paid through the grant. Mr. Steel answered yes.
Special Services Director= Tina McCoy came forward and provided the Board with a brief overview of her port= ion of the budget, highlighting the most salient changes. Contracted Services had a $32,000 = change due to a significant change in student needs. Tuition for special day schools wa= s up $73,300 primarily due to having more part-time out placements. Mileage has increased based on the= track record. Student services decr= eased $23,000, which is interrelated with the tuition increase. Extended school year services incr= eased $15,500 due to higher needs of students requiring services. Psychological services had minor increases. Outside counseling= showed an increase of $5,806 based on need. Contracted speech and language services had false cuts in the past; = they reduced the contracted services by hiring one speech/language pathologist, = but they still had a need to contract (several days per week) speech/language therapy. Speech and language equipment is increased based on incoming students. There will be some young students = coming in with disabilities making the physical therapy line increase $10,000 and = the equipment line increasing $1000. Occupational therapy salaries have increase based on students, especially the younger population. Special transportation included an anticipated an increase of $12,000.
Mr. Farris asked how many= new employees were taken on in place of contracted people. He also wanted to know if those pe= ople would come with benefits. Mr.= Steel believed the voters approved two positions: a speech/language pathologist a= nd a district psychologist; both positions were hired at a net reduction to the budget. Mr. Farris recalled t= hat the warrant article was written for $1, making it so the voters wouldn̵= 7;t know they would be expending $121,000 (there was no real number of what wou= ld be expended). Mr. Sherman sai= d the dilemma was if the voters had voted ‘no’, the school wouldnR= 17;t have been able to bring in a speech person. Mr. Steel said the needs had incre= ased across the district. He noted= that across the state speech pathologists were difficult (if not impossible) to find, including those on a contracted basis. He said based on supply and demand= the cost was going up. Mr. Hall&#= 8217;s thoughts about the position was if they were hired the Town would have an advantage because they would be at the school all the time, they wouldnR= 17;t have to travel and they would be able to handle a larger case work. He said it didn’t look that = way by what was being presented. He = said the salary and benefits were being deducted from one line. Ms. McCoy said there was a big adv= antage in having them at the school all the time versus contracting a person; contracted services had been reduced. She said she looked at the bills and the projected amount seemed reasonable.
Mr. Farris said in review=
ing the
high school budget it appeared that over 20% of the students had IEP’=
s,
which is significantly higher than the other two schools. He said the number of instructional
assistants fluctuated in the other schools, and asked why it hadn’t at
the high school in at least four years.&nb=
sp;
Ms. McCoy said the high school had been fairly stable and conservati=
ve
in their assignment of instructional assistants. She said there were some students =
with
sever disabilities that needed support while they were in the school’s
system. She calculated that t=
here
were 106 students at the high school with an IEP. Mr. Farris reiterated his question=
why
the number of instructional assistants at the high school didn’t
fluctuate in a similar fashion to the other schools. Ms. McCoy said the percentages var=
ied
from grade to grade. She disc=
ussed
the numbers in kindergarten and the middle school. She said the high school fluctuate=
d, but
agreed that it didn’t fluctuate as noticeably. Mr. Hall noted when the retirement=
issue
came up there were cuts that were going to be made at the schools; Memorial
School said they had 6 special education aides that they had no children for
and there were a couple at the high school. He asked who assigned the aides.
Mr. Cate questioned why t= he contracted speech services line fluctuated so much. Mr. Steel said in the last five ye= ars the expenses had grown. Ms. M= cCoy said there had been some false cuts that were made; the budget had been reduced,= but the bill kept coming. The contracted services are billed as an hourly rate. Mr. Dunne asked if it would be less expensive to hire an employee, or have a contracted employee. Mr. Steel said for some reason the contracted line was where some employees were being budgeted from in the pa= st; to contract someone in for OT would be very expensive versus having an employee. Ms. McCoy said they= were fortunate to have hourly OT employees. She said they monitor what they were spending; when contracted services become more expensive than hiring a full-time person (with benefits) they would communicate such to the Budget Committee.
The continued reviewing t= he District budget. Mr. Farris asked how = many teachers were presently taking advantage of tuition reimbursement. Mr. Steel didn’t know the nu= mber of teachers (off hand), but noted they spent $45,000 out of last year’= ;s budgeted amount. He explained= that the CBA specifies a certain amount that has to be set aside as a first come/first served basis; once the money is spent they don’t reimburse course credits.
Mr. Cate asked what the ‘responsibility pool’ was.&nbs= p; Mr. Steel replied it was included in the CBA and used for extra duti= es and responsibilities throughout the school. He then discussed summer programmi= ng, which was a new line specifically for curriculum initiatives being worked on. At times they were able t= o pay for this work out of grants, but they were finding it difficult to continue. Dr. LaBranche expla= ined that Assistant Superintendent Amanda Lacaroz had worked to coordinate the K= -12 curriculum in concert with the common core standards mandated by the state. He said that the budge= t line would help the teachers to continue to work on the curriculum issues during= the summer months. Mr. Farris ask= ed how many teachers were anticipated to participate and what stipend they would receive. Mr. Steel said the s= tipend amount was the PCM rate in the CBA (teachers $27.50/hr); Ms. Lacaroz put the numbers together.
It was noted in FY11 tele= phones were budgeted in the different building accounts; in FY12 they were moved t= o a telephone account. Mr. Hall questioned if there was a technology plan in place. Mr. Steel replied Ms. Lacaroz and = the technology director were currently working on a long-range technology plan = with the technology committee. As = the technology plan is finalized and adopted, it will begin to be included in t= he budget book. Mr. Steel noted = that there had previously been a technology plan in place (that was being used) = that showed what should be done over the next fifteen years. He discussed the reasons for the technology equipment being requested. The wireless network would be needed in all three schools regardless= of what technology plan was put forward; it was currently a large hole in their infrastructure.
Mr. Dunne questioned the = increase in legal fees. Mr. Steel said= they had spent over $60,000 last year. In FY13 they were anticipating being in negotiation for a new teacher’s contract. Mr. Dunne wanted to= know if School Board members could ask legal questions of the attorney, who woul= d in turn bill that time. Dr. LaBr= anche said the process used by the School Board was to have a consensus/majority = to request legal opinion, which went through the Superintendent’s office. The Superintendent= 217;s office would then make contact with legal on behalf of the School Board to solicit a response. Based on = the increase to the budget, Mr. Dunne wanted to know if there were more legal issues currently going on than in previous years. Dr. LaBranche commented that legal= fees and the complexities of the issues continued to increase. The attorney was not on retainer, = they were paid on a use basis.
Mr. Farris asked how the custodian summer painting labor differed from what the custodians usually d= id in the summertime. Mr. Steel = said there was a separate crew that painted walls in the summertime. The custodi= ans did summer cleaning such as taking the desks/chairs out of each classroom a= nd doing a thorough scrubbing, stripping and waxing floors etc.
Mr. Hall questioned if th=
e school
was in the process of negotiating the transportation contract. Mr. Steel stated that the SAU Boar=
d had
approved a transportation study because they had the same contractor for
transportation for well over thirty years.=
All transportation contracts would expire after the current fiscal
year. Those services would go=
out
to bid in January/February. A
transportation consultant was hired to evaluate the system and help decide
between three options: 1) continue to outsource transportation; 2) for the
district to begin owning and operating their own busses; and 3) hybrid
situation, such as owning the busses, but hire someone to operate them on t=
heir
behalf. In the end the consul=
tants
recommended that they maintain their current arrangement of contracting the
services out. An RFP will be
developed; a vendor will be selected for the next five years moving
forward. The pupil busses were
under a different contractor; a price decrease has been negotiated for the
current school year. They wil=
l look
very closely at special education transportation in the next few months.
Mr. Steel discussed the p= roposed non-union salary pool. He sai= d in the past the school has placed warrant articles on the ballot for those peo= ple not in the collective bargaining unit.&nbs= p; He explained that the district was trying to get away from that beca= use they wanted to start rewarding performance. By budgeting a flat increase it li= mited their ability to have merit based salary increases. They have established a non-union = salary pool based on performance of the specific job descriptions. Mr. Lavallee asked if merit increa= ses would stay on as part of an employee’s salary. Mr. Steel answered yes; the raises= were based on job description criteria and performance. Mr. Farris understood the objectiv= e of rewarding; however the difference was that voters didn’t have an opti= on of what happened with the SAU budget. He said the raises could be maintained as a warrant article with the same arguments being presented to the voters. He recalled past discussions about positions being placed into the operating budget without any vote of the pu= blic and the proposed line seemed to be another way of circumventing the system. Mr. Steel said the fi= gure could be included in a warrant article, but the School Board felt strongly about the line in the budget particularly because there were employees who hadn’t seen a salary adjustment in a number of years.
Under the Technical Servi= ces line there was $100,000 included for architectural and engineering fees to be us= ed to develop long range facilities plans for the District. Mr. Steel said the School Board in= serted the number in the budget for expenditures related to preparing a potential warrant article of some significance in the FY14 budget. In order to develop appropriate pl= ans and develop an accurate budget number for a large initiative (whether it be= an addition to an existing school or a new school) would require work. Funding was required to develop th= ose plans. Mr. Dunne questioned w= hy the School Board included the number in the budget versus having a warrant article. Mr. Steel said the S= chool Board discussed the issue and felt it belonged in the operating budget beca= use they felt strongly that there would be expenses (of some kind) in the next year. He saw no danger in hav= ing the money in the budget and not using it if they decided not to move forward with any initiative. Mr. Farr= is said over the past several years there had been multiple fact finding committees, architectural presentations and arguments for which plan they wanted to go with; the fees for which were (probably) well above $500,000.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said now they wanted another $1= 00,000 to look at a plan for a possible addition or another school, which had alre= ady been looked at multiple times. He didn’t see what new option they could come up with that couldn’= t be evolved from what the Town had already spent money on. Mr. Steel said it would be difficu= lt to determine an accurate cost figure for a project without having a professional’s help. He= said there was a chance to reuse data already collected they would do so.
Mr. Sherman asked if ther= e were impact fees that could be used to lower the number. Mr. Steel said there were some imp= act fees that could be used. The account was getting low because the elementary school was paid off. Mr. Ste= el believed in FY12 they were taking the last transfer from that account.
There was a discussion re= garding the construction services lines which contained two items: 1) kindergarten modular- $562,000; and 2) Memorial Library lease payment. Mr. Steel said the lease of the kindergarten modulars ended in August 2012. By default there was a need to pur= chase the modular classrooms. There= were no other locations they were planning to place the pre-school students. The other item in the line was for= the Memorial Library that was currently being installed.
Mr. Sherman asked that a breakdown of the kindergarten be provided so he could see the cost percentage.
Mr. Dunne asked if it were possible to renegotiate and have the modulars put back into a lease situati= on until the School Board determined the long-term needs of the buildings. Mr. LaBranche said the School Boar= d had asked him and Mr. Steel to review that type of option. He said they didn’t believe = they could work an extension on a lease basis with the state. They would need to open a discussi= on with the manufacturer about what could be done.
Mr. Steel stated that the=
PHS
sprinkler system and PHS HVAC system in building improvements were estimated
figures they were working to develop.
Mr. Lavallee asked if they would&nb=
sp;
have to pay the cost for Pennichuck Water to run the water down
Mr. Farris commented that= last year a School Board member brought the two issues up through petition warra= nt articles. He said the School = Board basically ran that member ‘out on a rail’ for trying to propose that kind= of expenditure when they didn’t know the plans and didn’t know what would happen to the school. T= hey said it wasn’t prudent to expend that type of money in the high school when the future was unknown. = Mr. Farris questioned how the School Board could come back this year (with basically the exact same thoughts) and justify putting the items in the bud= get rather than putting it in front of the voters. Mr. Steel replied that the School = Board currently seated felt strongly about the issues. He said both items were a higher d= ollar amount than what had been on the ballot last year. It was believed that the two proje= cts would be more than what the petition article had estimated. Dr. LaBranche said when he took his position it was clear to him that the School Board wanted to address the physical deficiencies of the high school.&= nbsp; He said they had emphasized to him that they needed to plan to be in= the school for some time based upon past experiences. He felt it would be irresponsible = not to invest in the facility. Ms. L= arson wasn’t on the School Board when petition warrant articles were brought up. When reviewing the school= , she said they didn’t know what the school would be used for in the future, but they saw all kinds of repairs that needed to be done. A structural engineer was brought = in to tell them what could be done in the school because they didn’t want to make any improvements that would have to be undone.
Mr. Sherman asked if the = whole school or only sections would be air conditioned. Mr. Steel said only certain sectio= ns were air conditioned. He said= they were having the system engineered to see the cost difference of having a sy= stem throughout the building. They’ll have further information by reconsideration.
Mr. Hall preferred to hav= e a plan and solid number. He question= ed how they would guard against the one-time items in the budget to ensure the amo= unts were backed out of the budget in the future. Mr. Steel said the one-time expens= es wouldn’t qualify to be carried forward or put into a future default budget.
The Board reviewed the Fo= od Service budget. Mr. Hall ques= tioned the $10,000 marker. Mr. Steel= said it was there in the event the food service fund ran a deficit. He said by law, because food servi= ce received federal funds, it was not allowed to run a deficit. If there was a deficit the general= fund would have to be used.
Mr. Puddister questioned = what the $10,000 in new equipment would be used for. Mr. Steel said it hadn’t been identified yet. The Food Serv= ice Director had established an equipment replacement schedule that would be us= ed.
The Board completed their= budget review.
ADJOURNMENT
|
MOTION: |
To adjourn the
meeting. |
|
VOTE: |
(9-0-0)
The motion carried. |
The
meeting was adjourned at approximately
= &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
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING/Thursday,