APPROVED
TOWN OF
BUDGET COMM= ITTEE - MEETING MINUTES
APPROVED &#= 8211; January 12, 2012
CALL TO ORDER –
|
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 Meghan Larson<= /p> School Business Adminis= trator Adam Steel, Superintendent Dr. Henry LaBranche |
|
ABSENT: |
None. |
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES REVIEW
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Sher=
man)To
approve the |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-1)
The motion carried. Mr. Gui=
mond
abstained. |
-------------------------= --------------
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Sher=
man)To
approve the |
|
VOTE: |
(9-0-2)
The motion carried. Mr. Gui=
mond
and Mr. Viger abstained. |
2012 SCHOOL WARRANT REVIEW / VOTE
Mr.
Steel noted that the submitted warrant articles were not in any particular
order. He reviewed the propos=
ed
articles with the Board as contained in his correspondence/information lett=
er
dated
Article A - Shall the
Pelham School District vote to raise and appropriate up to the sum of
$50,000.00, (Fifty Thousand dollars and no cents) to be added to the previo=
usly
established (1999-2000) School District Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund, w=
ith
such sum to be funded from the June 30, 2012 unreserved fund balance availa=
ble
for transfer on July 1, 2012?
Mr.
Steel said the article had been done for the last four years; the language =
had
not changed. As of
Article B - Shall the
Pelham School District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $31,262.00
(Thirty-one thousand, two hundred and sixty-two dollars and zero cents) for
Child Benefit Services as defined by RSA 189:49 for the 101 Pelham children
attending St. Patrick School?
Mr. Steel said at reconsideration the School Board would ask the Budget Committ= ee to add the money into the operating budget. If the money is added into the bud= get, the article will not appear on the ballot next year. He said because this was an appropriation passed by the voters last year, and it was not a one-time expense, it was included in the default calculation the School Board would review.
It was Mr. Guimond’s impression that St. Patrick’s asked for the f= unds to be on a warrant article a few years ago, because if the amount was in the operating budget the School Board had a chance to spend it, or not. Being in a warrant article it woul= d have to be spent for this purpose. Mr. Steel said the only way the School Board would be restricted in their abili= ty to expend the money was if it was a special warrant article. Last year it was not a special war= rant article therefore the School Board could use their authority to spend the m= oney for a different purpose. He didn’t believe the School Board would ever do that.
Mr. Farris believed last year the article passed by only one or two votes. He said by putting it in the budge= t they would risk the people voting no on the School Budget, or in effect taking a= way the voter’s right to vote on it.&nbs= p; Mr. Steel answered yes.
Mr. Viger asked who would determine if it was a special warrant article. Mr. Steel said currently, the boar= d approved language was not written as a special warrant article. He said the School B= oard might consider taking guidance from the Budget Committee to that regard.
Article C - Shall the
Pelham School District vote to establish a capital reserve fund under provi=
sions
of RSA 35:1-b for the purpose of special education expenses and to raise and
appropriate the sum of $125,000 (One hundred and twenty-five thousand dolla=
rs)
to be placed in this fund and further to appoint the School Board as agents=
to
expend this fund?
Mr. Steel said the School Board had elected to have an article establishing a capital reserve fund for special education expenses. The purpose was many times when a = school district runs a deficit it is because of unanticipated special education ex= penses. The purpose would be to create a s= avings account for those unanticipated expenses if they should arise. They would like to fund it through= a quarter million dollars over two years; once they reach $250,000 they would seek to replenish the amounts that were used. Mr. Steel explained that benefit t= o the taxpayer was as the operating budgets were prepared, they wouldn’t ha= ve to create as much of a cushion in the special education accounts to account= for the unanticipated. They could= in effect budget for what they had at the time, with a small inflationary fact= or and know they had the savings account to fall back on.
Mr. Cate asked what event would trigger usage of the account. Mr. Steel replied that RSA 35 defi= ned Capital Reserve Funds. He exp= lained the nature of how the funds would be expended.
Mr. Dunne asked if the fund would be strictly earmarked for special education.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Steel answered yes. He said the RSA allows for this ty= pe of fund for “special education expenses”. They were following the same langu= age to create the capital reserve fund. He said special education expenses was a broad term and believed it would incl= ude related services as well.
Mr. Farris said in this year’s budget there was discussion about what was being planned for. He said currently there was a lot of extra money in the budget for unknowns. He suggested if the article were t= o pass the existing budget should be reduced.&nbs= p; He asked what there was to stop the board from using the reserve fun= ds and using the money in the budget for something else. Mr. Steel said lawfully they would= only be able to use the funds for special education expenses. Mr. Farris noted that the cushion = in the existing budget could be moved anywhere they chose. Mr. Steel said it was correct that school boards had line item transfer authority. He said if the fund was funded, mo= ving forward during next year’s budget review, the special education budget for FY14 would be tighter because they’ll know they have half the recommended funds set aside. = Setting up the fund was in effect a way to reduce that ‘unknown’ in the budgetary process.
Mr. Guimond said the warrant article scared him because if gave a $125,000 cush= ion for the School Board to do whatever they wanted. Mr. Steel said the School Board ha= d wide latitude in their ability to transfer funds around and was only held by the= ir ethical obligations.
Mr. Viger understood having to build up the special education budget in order to make end meet. He asked how o= ften they missed the goal and if the special education budget had ever been over expended and if so, how often. Mr. Steel said it had happened last year and would more than likely happen this year. Mr. Viger said the word ‘expenses’ was a term that could mean anything. He would hate to see the funds use= d for conferences etc. Mr. Steel re= plied that the language was taken from the RSA.&= nbsp; He said the School Board had latitude in how the bottom line budget = was expended. He understood the concern, but felt it was a matter for the School Board at the time to weigh their ethical obligations to expend according to the voters intent.
Article E - Shall the <=
st1:place
w:st=3D"on">
Article F - If and only=
if
article E passes, shall the
Mr.
Steel commented that Article D was for the School Board to dispose of the <=
st1:Street
w:st=3D"on">
Mr. Viger didn’t have a problem giving the School Board permission to sell the property, but he didn’t want to sell it at a loss. Mr. Steel said because the article didn’t have an appropriation associated with it, it would not lapse.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Once authority was granted to the = School Board they were not compelled to sell the property.
There was a brief discussion regarding the manner in which the property was purchased.
Mr. Sherman questioned what would happen to the money that came in from the sal= e of the property. Mr. Steel said because the article didn’t specify where the funds would go, by defau= lt and by law it would go to offset taxes the following tax year.
Mr.
Steel said Article E was for the HVAC system at the high school. It was their position that no matt=
er
what happened in the future with the high school students, that the physical
building would be used for a Town purpose.=
Given the list of things that needed to be done to the building, they
believed they needed to start somewhere in the best interest of the Town.
Mr.
Steel explained that he called a design firm that does HVAC systems and had=
them
review the building to obtain a more realistic view of what could be done.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The result of this work was the Sc=
hool
Board drafting two warrant articles to address the HVAC needs at
Mr. Guimond understood that the proposal would take the current blueprint of the high school. He said in the f= uture if the use of the building changed, that blue print may also change. He asked if a lot of additional co= st would be added in the event that the blue print changed and questioned why = they were changing the building before knowing what they would do with it. Mr. Steel said it would not involve substantial cost. Most of the heating within the building was done with exterior fin tubes. They were going back to the idea of placing the units on the roof using the existing eight cuts. If the interior of the building was changed, the duct work would need to be reworked, but wouldn’t carry a substantial cost similar to replacing the entire system.
Mr. Gleason stated he read the reports of Foley Buhl & Roberts relative to = the fire suppression system. He s= aid they indicated that the system would not impact the roof, provided it was installed in a special manner. He asked if anyone had looked at the combination of the HVAC and the fire suppression system because it appeared that the roof impact for snow loading would be marginal. Mr. Steel = said they would be going back to the way the building was originally designed by putting the units on top of the curves on the roof that have additional str= uctural steel underneath. He said a structural engineer would review the building, but they had no concerns abo= ut it. Mr. Gleason asked if Fole= y Buhl & Roberts agreed because they indicate the system had to be laid out in= a certain manner. Mr. Steel sta= ted that they would verify with them as they got closer to installation. Mr. Gleason asked if any of the To= wn inspectors had been involved in the process. Mr. Steel said they had not spoken= with the inspectors. He stated tha= t the Fire Chief had been very involved with all of the discussions and inspectio= ns in the building and had indicated that a sprinkler system was a desired out= come for the building.
Mr. Dunne saw that there was a huge monetary gap between the study and the proposal. He asked what would happen if the HVAC passed and the air conditioning failed. He also wanted to know why the maintenance capital reserve fund couldn’t be used to offset the costs. Mr. Steel responded to= the question regarding the differences between the study and the proposal and explained how the proposal would be beneficial to the building. He said the air conditioning optio= n was a bolt on system; each of the proposals could be independent of each other. He ended by saying he = viewed the capital reserve fund as a contingency fund meant for emergencies and unanticipated costs.
Mr.
Hall asked if the proposed air conditioning units would be similar to those=
at
Mr. Sherman understood that the requested funds would put all the units on the roof. He asked if that those = funds would also cover removal of the units already on the roof. Mr. Steel answered yes. Mr. Sherman noted that the school = had in-ground oil tanks and asked how long they had been in the ground. Mr. Steel believed the tanks were installed in 1995 when the system was re-worked. The system had been an all electric system. Mr. Sherman asked when those tanks would become not safe and need replacement. Mr. Steel didn’t know at what point the tanks would become unsafe; he didn’t suspect it happening a= ny time soon.
Mr. Farris was commented that when the budget was presented for these items the Board was told the numbers in the operating budget would good. Now the Board was told there were different numbers needed to get the work done; and there would be even bett= er numbers by the end of the month. Mr. Steel said the budget report stated that the studies were still = on going for the HVAC and sprinkler system; those numbers were in development = and included in the budget at that time as informed estimates. He now believed the numbers were g= ood numbers.
Mr. Viger asked for clarification of the units being proposed for the roof. Mr. Steel said they would have uni= ts on the roof rather than in the plenum space.&= nbsp; Mr. Viger asked if the existing boiler would be used, or if each unit would have its own heating system on the roof. Mr. Steel said the roof top units = would only provide air handling; they wouldn’t be doing heating. The existing boilers would remain = in place and continue to provide heat throughout the perimeter of the building= . They will be cutting in controls t= o the existing boiler system. Mr. V= iger wanted assurance that the proposed system was what the building needed. After speaking to experts, Mr. Ste= el said the benefits would be controllability within the building and a more energy efficient system. Mr. = Viger wanted information provided that would explain how the balancing would occur giving the layout of the building.
Mr. Cate asked what impact on energy usage the new systems would have and if th= ere were projected savings. Mr. S= teel said they didn’t have projected savings besides knowing that it would= be somewhat significant. Mr. Cate questioned if there would be a significant impact to the fuel usage in the operating budget next year; if the amount would be lower. Mr. Steel believed it would.
Mr. Steel provided an explanation of the type of work that would be done. Mr. Farris asked if the $3.2 milli= on number included the replacement of the boilers. Mr. Steel said it wouldn’t r= eplace the boilers, but pretty much everything else. Mr. Farris questioned at what poin= t the existing system would need to be changed.&= nbsp; Mr. Steel said the existing system consisted of two boilers, two pum= ps, the fuel pump and all the piping around the system. He didn’t see foresee replac= ement of those items in the near future. <= /span>
Mr. Hall asked if climate controllers could be added in the event the system or building was altered. Mr. Ste= el answered yes. He discussed ho= w the building was currently set up and what could be done to better control the system.
Mr. Cate asked if the system would make the building in compliance for maintain= ing the school’s accreditation. Mr. Steel believed both systems would be steps forward in terms of a= ccreditation; he believed both to be necessary.
Mr. Viger reviewed the description of the HVAC and saw that heating coils were proposed. He asked if they wo= uld feed from the existing boiler, or if a boiler would need to be added. Mr. Steel said in the $3.2 million scenario, each of the heating units on the roof would have hot water pipes going to them. He was unsure = if there would be heating in the proposed system; if there were, they would be= fed off the existing boiler. They= would not be doing electric heat. <= /p>
Article G – Shall the Pelham School District vote to rai=
se
and appropriate the sum of $500,000 for the purpose of installing an automa=
tic
sprinkler system at Pelham High School?
In
developing the article, Mr. Steel stated they had spoken and worked with a =
fire
protection engineer, a civil engineer (who originally designed Pelham
Elementary and the site) and a mechanical engineer. The largest expense for a sprinkler
system would be to get a water source that could sustain an automatic fire
sprinkler system. The two cho=
ices
to do it are: 1) extend Pennichuck Water to
Mr.
Viger recalled there was an option to put water to the high school at the t=
ime
the elementary school was constructed.&nbs=
p;
He asked if Pennichuck had been contacted to find out if the piping
being proposed could be done. Mr.
Steel said the pipe around the elementary school was owned by the school.
There was a discussion regarding how the existing fields were irrigated. Mr. Sherman asked if drinking foun= tains would be installed near the tennis courts.= Mr. Steel said there were no plans at this time.
Mr.
Farris asked if Pennichuck had been contacted regarding their ability to
maintain water pressure. He a=
lso
wanted to know how much would need to be added to the budget for the use of
Pennichuck everyday. Mr. Stee=
l said
before the
Mr. Viger asked if the sprinkler system would be a dry system. Mr. Steel answered no; they didn&#= 8217;t need any dry systems in the building. He said the plenum space was for air return; it was heated and insulated. Mr. Viger commente= d that there had been problems with the pipe in the elementary school. Mr. Steel said there was an issue = with the pipes installed at the elementary school not being pitched. They were told it was code at the = time, but upon further analysis by the fire protection engineer, it was not the c= ase. He said the system was installed to code, but it wasn’t an intelligent decision by the designer at the ti= me because the dry system pipe is rotting.&nb= sp;
Mr. Dunne confirmed the figures that were contained in the information provided= to the Board.
Mr. Puddister asked if the plan would include any outside hydrants at the high school. Mr. Steel replied it = would be an option to discuss with the fire department; if the request was made t= hey would work with them. It woul= d be included in the contingency.
Mr. Cate questioned if the fire chief had reviewed the plans and was okay with them. Mr. Steel said they weren’t at the point of having a plan yet; they had a budget they knew would be subject to NFPA13. T= hey knew the fire chief was in favor of having a sprinkler system and would work closely with him.
Mr. Hall
reviewed the information and saw notes regarding the roof’s snow load
capacities not meeting the current standards. Mr. Steel said they would be makin=
g a
modification to the building and had to do their best to make sure it adher=
ed
to current code. The building
inspector, fire inspector and fire chief will review the work being done.
Mr.
Viger asked which of the proposed projects would provide the best effort to=
ward
accreditation (‘biggest bang for the buck’). Dr. LaBranche responded neither one
would. He said the accreditat=
ion
process was not solely contingent upon doing one, or the other, or both.
The Board discussed how they would proceed.&nb= sp; Mr. Steel commented if he received firmer numbers they would be brou= ght back at reconsideration.
|
MOTION: |
To vote regard=
ing the
school warrant articles at the present meeting. |
|
VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
|
MOTION: |
To accept Arti=
cle A. |
|
VOTE: |
( |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -
|
MOTION: |
To accept Arti=
cle B. |
|
VOTE: |
( |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------=
|
MOTION: |
To accept Arti=
cle C. |
|
VOTE: |
( |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
To accept Arti=
cle E. |
|
VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
To accept Arti=
cle F. |
|
VOTE: |
( |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
To accept Arti=
cle G. |
|
VOTE: |
( |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Viger questioned the status of the kindergarten funding through the state.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Dr. LaBranche stated there were no= funds appropriated at this point in time. The law is still on the books that require them to pay 75%; however = it is anticipated that they will put into their next fiscal budget a sum of mo= ney to accommodate the districts that are still eligible for kindergarten reimbursement. He said the fi= rst time it would become available to Pelham would be FY2013. Mr. Viger asked if they would pick= up the cost of the portables until that time.= Dr. LaBranche answered no; that topic had previously been explored.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
ADJOURNMENT
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Sher=
man) To
adjourn the meeting. |
|
VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
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
PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE
2012 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE
Article A - Shall the Pelham School District
vote to raise and appropriate up to the sum of $50,000.00, (Fifty Thousand
dollars and no cents) to be added to the previously established (1999-2000)
School District Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund, with such sum to be funded
from the June 30, 2012 unreserved fund balance available for transfer on Ju=
ly
1, 2012?
|
Board Member |
YES |
NO |
ABSTAIN |
|
Larry Hall |
YES |
|
|
|
Dan Guimond |
YES |
|
|
|
Dennis Viger |
YES |
|
|
|
John Lavallee |
|
NO |
|
|
Greg Farris |
YES |
|
|
|
Bob Sherman |
YES |
|
|
|
Joe Puddister |
YES |
|
|
|
Dave Cate |
YES |
|
|
|
Ken Dunne |
YES |
|
|
|
Meghan Larson (School Bo= ard Rep.) |
YES |
|
|
|
Ed Gleason (Selectmen Rep= .) |
YES |
|
|
Motion: (
BUDGET COMMIT=
TEE
APPROVED: YES
PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE
2012 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE
Article B - Shall the Pelham School District
vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $31,262.00 (Thirty-one thousand, t=
wo
hundred and sixty-two dollars and zero cents) for Child Benefit Services as
defined by RSA 189:49 for the 101 Pelham children attending St. Patrick Sch=
ool?
|
Board Member |
YES |
NO |
ABSTAIN |
|
Larry Hall |
YES |
|
|
|
Dan Guimond |
|
NO |
|
|
Dennis Viger |
YES |
|
|
|
John Lavallee |
YES |
|
|
|
Greg Farris |
|
NO |
|
|
Bob Sherman |
YES |
|
|
|
Joe Puddister |
YES |
|
|
|
Dave Cate |
YES |
|
|
|
Ken Dunne |
YES |
|
|
|
Meghan Larson (School Bo= ard Rep.) |
YES |
|
|
|
Ed Gleason (Selectmen Rep= .) |
YES |
|
|
Motion: (
BUDGET COMMIT=
TEE
APPROVED: YES
PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE
2012 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE
Article C - Shall the Pelham School District=
vote
to establish a capital reserve fund under provisions of RSA 35:1-b for the
purpose of special education expenses and to raise and appropriate the sum =
of
$125,000 (One hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars) to be placed in this
fund and further to appoint the School Board as agents to expend this fund?=
|
Board Member |
YES |
NO |
ABSTAIN |
|
Larry Hall |
|
NO |
|
|
Dan Guimond |
|
NO |
|
|
Dennis Viger |
|
NO |
|
|
John Lavallee |
|
NO |
|
|
Greg Farris |
|
NO |
|
|
Bob Sherman |
YES |
|
|
|
Joe Puddister |
|
NO |
|
|
Dave Cate |
|
NO |
|
|
Ken Dunne |
YES |
|
|
|
Meghan Larson (School Bo= ard Rep.) |
YES |
|
|
|
Ed Gleason (Selectmen Rep= .) |
YES |
|
|
Motion: (
BUDGET COMMIT=
TEE
APPROVED: NO
PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE
2012 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE
Article E - Shall the
|
Board Member |
YES |
NO |
ABSTAIN |
|
Larry Hall |
YES |
|
|
|
Dan Guimond |
YES |
|
|
|
Dennis Viger |
YES |
|
|
|
John Lavallee |
YES |
|
|
|
Greg Farris |
YES |
|
|
|
Bob Sherman |
YES |
|
|
|
Joe Puddister |
YES |
|
|
|
Dave Cate |
YES |
|
|
|
Ken Dunne |
YES |
|
|
|
Meghan Larson (School Bo= ard Rep.) |
YES |
|
|
|
Ed Gleason (Selectmen Rep= .) |
YES |
|
|
Motion: (11-0=
-0)
BUDGET COMMIT=
TEE
APPROVED: YES
PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE
2012 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE
Article F - If and only if article E passes,
shall the
|
Board Member |
YES |
NO |
ABSTAIN |
|
Larry Hall |
YES |
|
|
|
Dan Guimond |
|
NO |
|
|
Dennis Viger |
|
NO |
|
|
John Lavallee |
|
NO |
|
|
Greg Farris |
|
NO |
|
|
Bob Sherman |
YES |
|
|
|
Joe Puddister |
YES |
|
|
|
Dave Cate |
YES |
|
|
|
Ken Dunne |
YES |
|
|
|
Meghan Larson (School Bo= ard Rep.) |
YES |
|
|
|
Ed Gleason (Selectmen Rep= .) |
YES |
|
|
Motion: (
BUDGET COMMIT=
TEE
APPROVED: YES
PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE
2012 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE
Article G – Shall the Pelham School
District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $500,000 for the purpose =
of
installing an automatic sprinkler system at 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 |
|
|
Joe Puddister |
YES |
|
|
|
Dave Cate |
YES |
|
|
|
Ken Dunne |
YES |
|
|
|
Meghan Larson (School Bo= ard Rep.) |
YES |
|
|
|
Ed Gleason (Selectmen Rep= .) |
YES |
|
|
Motion: (
BUDGET COMMIT=
TEE APPROVED: NO
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING/Thursday,