BC20111103

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM – SCHOOL DISTRICT

BUDGET COMM= ITTEE - MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, November 3, 2011

APPROVED &#= 8211; January 12, 2012

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, School Board Representative Megan Larson, Selectmen Representative Edmund Gleason

School Business Adminis= trator Adam Steel, Superintendent Dr. Henry LaBranche, Assistant Superintendent Amanda Lacaroz, School Board members Brian Carton and Deb Ryan

ABSENT:

None.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

BUDGET REVIEW – Pre-School, Pelham Elementary, Memorial School, High School, Food Service<= o:p>

Mr. Steel came forward and reviewed the memo dated October 27, 2011 that addressed questions from previous meetings.

Ms. Lacaroz came forward = and discussed background regarding the Responsibility Pool. She said the Responsibility Pool, = some additional funds for school improvement and teacher incentive grants were a= ll driven by the teacher contract. She explained how the money was divided and distributed.

Mr. Guimond asked if the = money from the responsibility pool was a one-time bonus. Ms. Lacaroz said it was a stipend = on top of their pay. Mr. Farris aske= d the difference between the responsibility pool and the other stipends that seem= ed to be overlapping each other. Ms. Lacaroz discussed what was required for the responsibility pool, school improvement and teacher incentive grants.&= nbsp; She then provided details regarding the summer programming (summer institute), which provided the opportunity for the district to move forward with a number of initiatives they’ve identified through various colla= borative groups (mostly school and district improvement teams). She outlined what areas they were planning to change/revise within the curriculums. Mr. Guimond questioned why that ty= pe of work couldn’t be done during teacher workshops. Ms. Lacaroz said a lot of it was d= one at teacher workshops, after school and during summer institute. By allowing curriculum work during= the summer, they have back to back days to meet. Previously the work was done during workshops and took twice as long. Other expenses for the summer institute will utilize Title 11a funds. Mr. Gleason asked if t= he current curriculum was structured such that it had an established procedure approved by the state or SAU; if so would it require approval. Ms. Lacaroz replied when they wrote curriculum they based it on state or national standards; the School Board approved all curriculums. The national and state standards were used for what they expected students to k= now and do in each grade level. M= r. Gleason asked if the work would assist in the mitigation of the certificati= on the district was attempting to get, in light of the fact that the accredita= tion was in question. Ms. Lacaroz = said the curriculum instruction program is reviewed to determine if it was in line to standards. Also they had to h= ave assessments in place to measure the effectiveness of the curriculum. Currently the accreditation issues= were primarily facilities. Ms. Lac= aroz provided an overview of the summer program (student learning). She said the purpose of piloting t= he program was to test it and see if it was a good model that would work and g= ive the type of response to increase student achievement in the area of math.

Mr. Hall asked how many s= pecial education case managers at the High School. Mr. Steel said there were five case managers but could not speak to = how the cases were distributed. M= r. Hall asked if the tutors were special education. Mr. Steel believed they were both = math tutors.

Mr. Farris asked if the B= oard would see a default budget. M= r. Steel answered yes; as soon as the School Board approved it. At this time the School Board had = not reviewed or prepared it.

Mr. Sherman wanted to kno= w the percentage increase attributed to the kindergarten being absorbed in the budget. Mr. Steel said the di= strict had been paying for kindergarten expenses for the past three years. Mr. Sherman wanted to know what percentage the Town would pick up now with the state no longer paying for kindergarten. Mr. Steel said = he would inform what they had received in reimbursement during the past couple years which would give an indication of the operation expenses.

The Board began their bud= get review.

Mr. Farris saw that there= were two teachers in the Elementary School salary budget that were placed in bec= ause they were being regarded as positions formerly in the budget. He felt new positions should go in= front of the voters and pointed out that there were a few contingencies in the bu= dget based on what was thought to be needed.&nb= sp; From a budgetary perspective, Mr. Steel said they try to budget to m= ake sure they have the appropriate resources to fulfill their mission and their obligations to the school district. He said they didn’t know how many first grade students would s= how up, they were budgeting on the only information they had available to them = at this time. If there were fewer students than projected, they wouldn’t hire a teacher that wasn’= ;t needed; the money would be returned to the tax payers the following year. Mr. Hall questioned when they woul= d have an updated estimate of the first grade.&nb= sp; Mr. Steel said last year they received enrollment projections in October, but had not received them yet.

Mr. Hall asked if the cus= todians were included in the salary pool. Mr. Steel answered yes. Mr. Hall questioned if they contributed toward their health insurance. Mr. Steel answered no. Mr. Hall as= ked if anyone included in the salary pool contributed to their health insurance. Mr. Steel said administrative assi= stants and secretaries did not contribute. He said administrators hired after July 1, 2010 contributed 15% toward heal= th insurance; those hired before that date did not. Mr. Farris asked if they were union. Mr. Steel answered no.= He briefly discussed what costs employees were responsible for.

The Board reviewed the Memorial School budget. Mr. Hall asked how the aides Mr. Steel said the number of instructional assistants ebbed and flowed from year to year based on student needs, which created difficulty from a budgetary prospective. It also created difficulty for administration to fill those positions each year. Mr. Steel said they were changing = their practice and in the spring would bring a zero based approach to the Princip= als; whereby each and every position would need to be justified and needed for t= he next school year.

The High School budget wa= s then reviewed. Mr. Guimond noticed= that the other school showed an increased in substitutes, but not at the high school. Mr. Steel explained t= hat the high school had two people at the school every day; they are being call= ed employees (hall monitors) who had their salary matched in the daily substit= ute line with the total being the same.

Mr. Guimond asked if the = software automation system would make all three schools and the public library connected. Mr. Steel said all= three schools will be connected together. The system won’t have real time connection with the libraries,= but they can send files back and forth so the library (database) can be searched. Mr. Guimond saw a l= ine for replacement of all student lockers ($60,000) and questioned how old the lockers were. Dr. LaBranche s= aid the lockers were fro 1974.

Mr. Hall asked if the cos= t for gas, electricity, etc. would be amended at reconsideration. Mr. Steel said the numbers were correct.

The Board then reviewed t= he District budget. Mr. Guimond = questioned the increase in contracted direct services. Mr. Steel said the number was base= d on expenditures last year.

Mr. Steel commented regar= ding the contracted speech services. He noted that last year $207,000 was spent and had the new position not been a= dded this year, the budget would have been in that ballpark. The salary for the position was re= duced from the line. He said the Di= rector of Special Services indicated that speech needs had continued to increase a= nd the line would have been budgeted much higher than last year’s expend= ed amount.

Mr. Hall asked if the tec= hnology plan would be available prior to reconsideration. Mr. Steel would find out.

Mr. Viger questioned if a= plan had been formulated to replace the cable boxes when the signal was changed = to high definition. Mr. Steel sa= id they had not addressed it yet, but would have it ready prior to reconsideration.

There was a question rega= rding the increase in regular transportation.&nb= sp; Mr. Steel said they would be going out for an RFP and believed in January they would have a better idea of the budget number. They anticipated a new contract fo= r next year. Mr. Guimond heard that a transportation specialist was reviewing the bus routes and asked if it was being done. Mr. Steel said th= ey hired Transportation Advisory Services who had evaluated all the contracts, held meetings and created a report for moving forward. They have recommended not bringing transportation in house; but instead to work with Windham to develop a five-year RFP to s= elect a vendor through a competitive process.&nb= sp; Dr. LaBranche noted that bus routes had always been the sole proprie= tor of the contractor; it was recommended that the district review a software package where the district designs/controls those routes.

Mr. Gleason asked if the = School Board had approved the budget numbers contained in the worksheets provided = to the Board. Mr. Steel answered= yes; the School Board is updated on every change.

With regard to architectu= ral and engineering fees, Mr. Farris said there were several proposals based on what had been already expended (by various committees) when they looked at the b= est solutions for the Town. He believed there had to be enough information in t= he plans that the school already owned. In his opinion if the school wanted additional information, the vote= rs should be asked if they wanted to expend another $100,000. Mr. Steel said the School Board had hanging issues with respect to facilities within the district. Any solution prepared for a ballot initiative required the work of professionals to narr= ow down the scope and establish an appropriate budgetary figure.

Mr. Dunne asked if the sc= hool had researched the possibility of a new lease for the kindergarten modular vers= us purchasing it outright. Mr. S= teel said the options were: 1) do nothing and have the building removed August, 2012; 2) purchase the building outright ($562,000); 3) extend the current operational lease by one year ($122,000); or 4) enter into a capital lease = to purchase the modulars outright over a period of time. He said all the options were available. Mr. Dunne asked if= the School Board decided to purchase the modular. Dr. LaBranche replied that the Sch= ool Board had not received the information; they would hear a report on Wednesd= ay evening at their meeting. He suspected they would provide direction in their decision that could be brou= ght back to the Board. Mr. Guimond asked if there was a cost for disposing of the modulars. Mr. Steel said it costs approximat= ely $31,000 to remove the modular from the site. If done in August, 2012 the cost would be paid for by the State of <= st1:State w:st=3D"on">New Hampshire.

Mr. Guimond commented tha= t the high school sprinkler system and HVAC system were both put forth as petition warrant articles and not supported by the School Board. He questioned why the School Board= had changed its mind. Ms. Larson couldn’t speak to what happened the previous year (she wasn’t on the board at that time). She = said they had done due diligence and made sure that the building could support b= oth systems. Because they believe= d the building would remain in use within the district, and they had support from engineers who believed the upgrades could be made with no harm to the build= ing, the School Board felt it necessary to start making improvements. Mr. Guimond questioned if the taxp= ayers should have the choice in a warrant article, since the systems were in a warrant article last year. Dr. LaBranche said the School Board had made a different decision. He supported the comment that the building would continue to be used in the future. He noted that the accreditation st= atus was not about instructional efforts and curriculum, but was based upon maki= ng improvements to the building. He felt there was a responsibility by the School Board, Budget Committee and community at large to make the building a safe environment. Mr. Guimond reiterated his questio= n of if the taxpayers should have a say. Dr. LaBranche said they would have a say at the deliberative session.

Mr. Dunne asked where the estimated costs came from for the two items. Mr. Steel said both numbers were s= till in development. Mr. Hall aske= d when the Board would have solid numbers. Mr. Steel said by reconsideration.&= nbsp; Mr. Viger agreed that the building would probably be used in the fut= ure, but believed it wouldn’t be used in its current state. He said the changes being proposed= were permanent and questioned if provisions had been made for the systems to be moved/relocated in the future without a lot of expense. Dr. LaBranche said the engineers u= sed for both projects indicated that those concerns were being addressed. Mr. Farris said one of last year&#= 8217;s arguments (by the School Board) was they didn’t know what would happe= n to the building and by installing the systems would limit its use. Dr. LaBranche couldn’t comme= nt about last year. He said the building’s configuration had been taken into consideration by the engineers in planning. He sai= d the building needed both of the improvements and couldn’t imagine not seriously considering them as they move forward given that the facility wou= ld still be there. He felt the c= oncern should be having the building appropriately addressed/improved, rather than what type of school the building would be.=

The District budget was r= eviewed.

Mr. Guimond was under the impressio= n that Food Service was in the ‘black’ and questioned why $10,000 was being put into the budget. Mr. Steel said the budget had been significantly in the ‘black’ the last several years. In the pa= st the medical and dental benefits for the food service employees was being paid f= or out of the general fund. The correction was made to have their benefits paid out of the food service fund and as a result that fund was closer to being even. It was felt there was an increased= risk for a potential deficit, which by law had to be covered by the general fund. Mr. Hall asked for the current surplus amount. Mr. S= teel said last year it was between $5000-$6000.= There was a brief discussion regarding the budget. Mr. Steel noted that the director = was establishing a replacement schedule for the equipment; the budget would show purchases on an annual basis moving forward. Mr. Farris asked how much revenue = the food program generated. Mr. S= teel said last year it generated approximately $5000-$6000 more than their expenses.

Under Federal Funds, Mr. = Viger asked if the number had decreased under Title I for the number the Town was subsidizing. Mr. Steel said t= hey budget federal funds based on the appropriation from the current year. The appropriation for next fiscal = year is unknown; however they did know they would have offsetting revenue to mat= ch the appropriation. They were = seeing a trend downward. Mr. Viger questioned if Title I would remain being funded in the district even if fed= eral funding was not received. Mr.= Steel didn’t hear the School Board discuss that issue.

Food Service was the last= budget reviewed. Mr. Hall asked if s= alary pool money would become part of the employee’s base salary. Mr. Steel answered yes. Mr. Hall asked if those employees = also received heath benefits. Mr. = Steel said the managers and director received benefits; those hired after July 1, 2010 contributed.

Mr. Farris saw there was = $10,000 for possible new equipment. He asked if the equipment replacement program would show what those funds would purchase. Mr. Steel answered yes.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(11-0-0) 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