APPROVED
TOWN OF
BUDGET COMM= ITTEE - MEETING MINUTES
APPROVED &#=
8211;
CALL TO ORDER – approximately
|
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> Town Administrator Tom = Gaydos, Planning Director Jeff Gowan, Transfer Station Superintendent Ron Hannon,= School Business Administrator Adam Steel, Superintendent Dr. Henry LaBranche |
|
ABSENT: |
None. |
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
MINUTES REVIEW
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Guim=
ond)To
approve the |
|
VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
-------------------------= --------------
|
MOTION: |
(Guimond/Sherm=
an)To
approve the meeting minutes=
of
November 3, 2011, November 7, 2011, November 10, 2011 and November 14, 20=
11
as written. |
|
VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. Mr. Pud=
dister
abstained from voting in regard to the |
-------------------------= --------------
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Cate=
)To
approve the |
|
VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
2012 PELHAM MUNICIPAL FISCAL BUDGET
The Board was provided a =
summary
of changes for reconsideration. Mr.
Hall suggested looking at the gas/oil difference for the Cemetery, Fire
Department, Highway, Park & Recreation, Police and
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Cate=
) To fix
the gas cost at $3.60 per gallon and the diesel cost at $3.90 per gallon =
for
the Cemetery, Fire Department, Highway, Park & Recreation, Police and
Senior Center (excluding the Planning Department). |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Town Administrator Tom Ga= ydos discussed the reduction of Insurance from $1,880,883 down to $1,831,084 (reduction of $49,799). He re= viewed the areas that had been adjusted.
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Pudd=
ister)To
reconsider the Insurance budget. <=
/span> |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
The Board discussed the P= lanning Department budget. The Board = was provided with backup detail; in summary there was a reduction in the Code Enforcement Officer salary ($25,708), the gas/oil and repairs would be taken out of the current budget if the Board decided to put the vehicle back into= the budget.
Mr. Gowan came forward to= discuss the Planning Department budget. Mr. Gaydos stated that the Board was provided with information showing a differ= ent approach; they would have a better tracking system and a different type of = interaction with people (less letter writing, more conversation). He said last time they interviewed= for the position there were a number of people that were retired from law enforcement; that type of individual knew how to approach people and get a point across without being nasty. That is the type of person they would be looking for to fill the position.
Mr. Lavallee said he revi= ewed the new job structure and was concerned that the person in the position would n= ot be reporting to Mr. Gowan. He believed they should report directly to Mr. Gowan so situations could be ac= ted upon immediately. Mr. Gaydos = believed the idea was for the day-to-day scheduling be done by the Planning Office Manager. He said the Director= (Mr. Gowan) would be in charge of making the overall zoning and enforcement decisions. Mr. Lavallee asked= if there would be time restrictions for actions to be addressed. Mr. Gowan commented that sometimes= there were things perceived to be zoning violations that actually weren’t. He said there was a documentation process to be followed so residents could see the status of situations. Mr. Gaydos said the point was that= cases would be handled quicker because there would be a verbal discussion with pe= ople as soon as possible, as opposed to writing letters and making follow up pho= ne calls.
Mr. Dunne asked what had = been happening in the department since the last code enforcer was let go and questioned if there had been a lot of change in what people were doing. Mr. Gowan replied there was a lot = of ‘creep’ because people were aware that the code enforcement per= son was no longer around. He said= he had gone out on a lot of issues himself, but had to limit those to public safety; he wasn’t able to pursue every complaint. He said he wouldn’t be able to keep = up with it and had seen that things were slipping in the couple months that had gone by.
Mr. Farris asked if the p= erson in the office that the code person would report to was conversant on the regulations within the Town. = Mr. Gowan said ultimately the Zoning decisions were his, unless someone took a = case to the Zoning Board, but the Office Manager, Jen Hovey knew as much about zoning as he did. He regularly discussed zoning issues with her and other people in the department so there was a general understanding of was and wasn’t a violation. He said Ms. Hovey was extremely we= ll versed in aspects of zoning and code. Mr. Gowan noted he would spend three months personally training the individual that passed the interview process; they would understand the sys= tem and how to proceed. He would = make the final decisions, but the day-to-day management would be the Planning Of= fice Manager.
Mr. Gleason wanted the Bo= ard to understand that the proposed plan was a more disciplined approach to code enforcement. It was a Policy = and procedure that would be followed. He said the Office Manager would also serve under the function of closing the loop between the inspectors.&n= bsp; The policy repeatedly says when a decision is necessary, they (code enforcement person) would go to the Planning Director for guidance/final determination. Mr. Gleason reiterated he felt the proposal would be a more disciplined approach to code enforcement and the Board of Selectmen felt it was the right direction.
Mr. Lavallee asked if the= re was an individual in mind for the position.&nb= sp; Mr. Gaydos answered no. They were thinking about the type of person they would like in the position, suc= h as someone who could speak to people about an issue in a non-confrontational manner. They had seen that ty= pe of candidate in the past that had that type of background. Mr. Lavallee asked who would hire = the individual. Mr. Gaydos said t= hey would use the process that was in place; Mr. Gowan would advertise for the position and conduct the initial interview and make a recommendation to the Selectmen for the top three. = The Selectmen would make the final decision based upon Mr. Gowan’s recommendation.
Mr. Guimond questioned if= Mr. Gowan would seek additional funds for the Office Manager, who was taking on additional responsibilities (seemingly a promotion). Mr. Gowan said that wasn’t t= he plan at this time. The Office Manager position entailed management responsibilities; the proposed duties would fill out management components.
|
MOTION: |
(Cate/Sherman)=
To
reconsider $25,708 (code enforcement position salary). |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
( |
-------------------------= ---------------------
|
MOTION: |
To place $25,7=
08 back
in the budget for the Code Enforcement Officer. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
( |
The Board then discussed =
placing the
proposed (code enforcement) vehicle (Ford Focus) back into the budget. Mr. Viger said in order for the ve=
hicle
to be put back into the budget it would have to be through a warrant
article. He said it was a new
vehicle, not a replacement vehicle.
Mr. Gaydos questioned why it wasn’t a replacement vehicle; the
department already had a vehicle.
Mr. Viger said they had a vehicle that was a ‘left over’
from the Police Department that was being used. The vehicle was never allocated to=
the
Planning Department by a vote of the Town’s people. Mr. Lavallee referred to the By-La=
ws and
commented that there had to be new information. He didn’t see any new inform=
ation
from the previous discussion. In
regard to new information, Mr. Hall said the Board had taken out the salary=
and
the vehicle, but had now put the salary back into the budget. Mr. Lavallee said the salary was a=
ltered
because Mr. Gown had presented a whole new structure of how the position wo=
uld
work. He commented there was
nothing new with the $4,668 figure.
Mr. Guimond agreed.
Mr. Gleason said the Boar=
d had a
similar discussion in the past. He
stated it was the position of the Town that it was a replacement vehicle, e=
ven
though it was turned over to Planning from the Police, repeatedly the budge=
ts
in the past had included the vehicle’s maintenance, gasoline etc. The voters had known right along t=
hat
there was a Planning Department vehicle that was being used and never an
attempt to take it out of the operating budget. Mr. Gleason believed it constituted
replacement of a vehicle that was currently in the fleet. Mr. Hall summarized the p=
revious
discussion and believed one reason for the proposed vehicle (Ford Focus) was
the perception of intimidation because the existing vehicle was a police
vehicle. Mr. Gaydos said ther=
e was
a perception that a policeman was coming to see a person. He said regardless of the percepti=
on,
the existing vehicle wouldn’t pass inspection and had to be
replaced. Mr. Viger reiterated that=
the
existing vehicle was a ‘loaner’ vehicle and should be considere=
d as
that until such time the Town’s people decide they wanted to purchase=
a
new vehicle for the department. Mr. Guimond saw that the =
Town was
trying to put the vehicle in the operating budget and also had it as a warr=
ant
article. He assumed if the ve=
hicle
was put into the operating budget the warrant article would disappear. Mr. Gaydos answered yes. Mr. Hall questioned what would hap=
pen to
the gas/oil line. Mr. Gaydos =
stated
if the vehicle was put into the operating budget the gas/oil and repairs wo=
uld
reduce. Mr. Dunne realized that t=
he Board
didn’t have paperwork with new information and commented possibly Mr.
Gaydos or Mr. Gowan could share new information about the vehicle. Mr. Gowan addressed the existing v=
ehicle
and noted it had rust through on both fenders, it was in rough shape and it
quickly ran through tires because it couldn’t be aligned properly.
Mr. Guimond wanted to kno= w if the person hired had to use their own personal vehicle if their mileage would be reimbursed. Mr. Gowan said th= ey would reimburse mileage, but it would be a difficult position to fill with a salary of $25,000 per year with no benefits and the person needing to use t= heir own vehicle. He believed ther= e was a feeling from the Selectmen that whatever was used for code enforcement sh= ould be labeled as an official Town vehicle.&nb= sp;
Mr. Sherman asked if the = plumbing and electrical inspectors used their own vehicles and received any benefits. Mr. Gowan replied t= hey received a mileage reimbursement. They performed a different type of inspection and were on the road f= or a certain number of those inspections per day. Mr. Gaydos noted that the inspecto= rs all had other jobs. He described = how they performed their job for the Town and stated it wouldn’t be pract= ical for the Town to give them a car. Mr. Sherman said if the vehicle went into a warrant article and was approved, t= here wouldn’t be a problem.
Mr. Cate recalled that th= e proposed vehicle would also be used by Mr. Gowan to attend meetings and other functions. He reviewed the bu= dget numbers and saw if the new vehicle was approved, the department would save approximately $1000 in repairs/gas/oil.&nb= sp; Mr. Gowan answered yes.
Mr. Farris commented both= on the Town and School side that more and more attempts were being made to put thi= ngs in the budget that circumvented the voters from given the chance to say yes or no. He felt this was one of t= hose instances where the voters weren’t given the chance to say if they wa= nted a vehicle. He said in three y= ears when the vehicle was done being paid for, the money would be in the budget = and default budget continually going forward.&= nbsp;
Mr. Viger reminded the Bo= ard that the action being discussed would set a precedent; there were at least two o= ther vehicles in the same situation.
Mr. Gaydos said once the = lease was paid for, the Town would own the car and it would no longer be in the default budget.
|
MOTION: |
(Gleason/Larso=
n) To
reconsider $4,668 (for a Ford Focus in the Planning Department budget) |
|
ROLL CALL VOTE: |
( |
The Board then addressed = the gasoline price in the Planning Department budget for 750 gallons at $3.60 p= er gallon.
|
MOTION: |
(Sherman/Cate)=
To
reconsider the Planning Department gasoline line for 750 gallons at $3.60=
per
gallon. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
The Board discussed Town Buildings. Mr. Hall stated th= ere was a request for a $2,200 reduction. Mr. Gaydos explained that the reduction primarily came from electric= ity. He said they were currently going = out to bid to buy electricity directly and expected it to be reduced further.
Mr. Cate questioned why t= he telephone line had increased $2800. Mr. Gaydos said it was just increases in telephone services; it was still less expensive than going with Verizon. He stated they had a long-range pl= an to eliminate alarm lines to try and get away from telephone lines.
Mr. Sherman asked if anyo=
ne in
Pelham had submitted an application to be put on the Nashua Water Board.
Mr. Viger questioned if t= he $2,200 reduction was in anticipation of savings, or savings that was already realized. Mr. Gaydos replied = that was the current savings, the cost could be reduced further.
|
MOTION: |
(Gleason/Guimo=
nd) To
reconsider the Town Buildings utility line. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
-------------------------= --------------------------
|
MOTION: |
To reduce the =
|
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
The Board discussed the T= ransfer Station. The Board was provid= ed with detail for an increase of $17,451 to the Transfer Station budget. Mr. Gaydos commented that there ha= d been new programs introduced at the Transfer Station, and maybe they were a litt= le too ambitious with those programs. He said the Director, Mr. Ron Hannon was encouraged to come up with = new ideas. He said in the interes= t in keeping the budget down and focusing on other basics that were happening at= the facility, they needed to make sure the loads were going out at full as possible. They were moving mo= re trash and recyclables than they ever had before. The loads would be watched very carefully.
Mr. Dunne asked if the fa= cility would no longer accept C&D materials.&= nbsp; Transfer Station Superintendent Ron Hannon came forward and explained that they had difficulty controlling approximately 10% of the C&D material. To put the budget in prospective, he noted they were coming in with the approximately the same numbers they came in with ten years ago, even though they had increased the= ir volume by over 1000 tons. The demolition portion of the C&D is being eliminated.
Mr. Lavallee questioned i=
f some
of the revenues would offset the requested budget increase. Mr. Hannon said they had added fou=
r new
services, but didn’t account for the expenses that came along with
those. He said they reviewed =
all
the numbers at the facility and eliminated those that weren’t
working. There was a brief
discussion regarding the containers and at what point they were sent out.
Mr. Guimond asked for an explanation why the miscellaneous equipment line was doubling from $5000 to $10,000. Mr. Hannon said they= found out that the trailers inside the floors were going and recently received the cost from Allied.
Mr. Sherman wanted an exp=
lanation
regarding the pick up service and asked how long they had been doing it.
|
MOTION: |
(Viger/Lavalle=
e) To
reconsider $16,740 in the Transfer Station budget. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
-------------------------= -------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
To increase the
Transfer Station budget by $16,740. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
The new 2012 Town Budget = number, reflecting the changes made during the meeting $12,507,402.
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Cate=
) To
increase the 2012 Town Budget to $12,507,402. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Hall closed the public hearing regarding the 2012 Town Municipal Budget.
2012
The Board was provided wi= th an information packet that contained requests for reconsideration. Some of the warrant articles have = been amended to read ‘special’ warrant article.
School Business Administr=
ator
Adam Steel reviewed a memo (dated
Mr. Viger stepped out of = the room.
Mr. Farris asked if there= would be an adjustment in the salary line for the Elementary School Principal, gi= ven the fact that they had left, and what the replacement would receive. Mr. Steel replied they would like = to keep the line as budgeted because they didn’t know the salary range t= hat would be set by the board.
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Guim=
ond) To reconsider
the benefit line. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
-------------------------= ------------------
|
MOTION: |
To increase the
benefit line by $8,204. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Viger returned to the Board.
Mr. Hall noted that the B= oard had been provided with a Food Service Equipment Replacement Schedule. As a result of that schedule there= has been a $21,000 increase. Mr. = Steel commented that they had budgeted $10,000 for equipment replacement; the Boa= rd requested that a replacement schedule, similar to the one for maintenance a= nd facilities, be created. After listing all the equipment they readjusted the numbers so as to not have spi= kes and valleys. The equipment replacement cost total for next year is $31,000; because it is Food Service= there will be no tax impact.
|
MOTION: |
(Guimond/Sherm=
an) To
reconsider the Food Service line.
|
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
-------------------------= ---------------------
|
MOTION: |
To add $21,000=
to the
Food Service budget line. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Steel reviewed the pricing for the Comcast digital service boxes, which were approximately $60 each. At th= e time of purchase they intend to work with the Comcast representatives to see if there is a bargain or a deal they could work out. Currently the total is $6,600. They requested an increase from $1= 25,000 to $131,600.
Mr. Farris recalled there had been a discussion about the fact that there wasn’t a technology plan in place.&n= bsp; It was unknown what the $125,000 would be spent on and questioned if= the $6000 could be found within the budgeted number. Mr. Steel believed they had identi= fied how the $125,000 would be spent. He noted although they didn’t have a technology plan from this point mov= ing forward, they had continued the replacement scheduled that was created three-four years ago. The one= major difference was the request for a wireless system for the three schools to be tied together.
|
MOTION: |
(Guimond/Cate)=
To
reconsider the technology line increasing it by $6600. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
--------------------------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
To increase the
technology line by $6600. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr.
Hall indicated that the School Board requested that the Budget Committee add
$31,262 to the Child Benefit Services line. If the Board accepts the recommend=
ation,
warrant article #8 (for St. Patrick’s) will be removed. He said the Board typically looked=
for
new information when something is requested to be added into the budget.
Mr.
Guimond stated he had a problem putting it into the operating budget because
the item only passed (via warrant article) by a handful of votes. He felt the Town’s people sh=
ould
have a say in the fact that money is being given to a non-public entity.
|
MOTION: |
(Gleason/Dunne=
) To
reconsider putting the Child Services line ($31,262) into the budget. |
|
ROLL CALL VOTE: |
( |
The
Board then discussed the proposed
Mr. Steel discussed the recommendation.
Mr. Viger didn’t see any new information other than the amendment to the article wording. He was hopin= g the School Board would come back to bring the water to the school and not do the sprinkler system. He didnR= 17;t feel there was a need to do it at this time.
Mr. Cate saw the system as needed in order to meet accreditation. He asked if there was a plan for t= he items that were needed in order to meet accreditation; so the voters could understand what needed to be fixed. Ms. Larson said although there was no plan to fix all the problems at the high school, she told the Board that on the NEASC report there was an i= ssue with some of the windows being undersized and needing to be replaced. Installation of sprinkler system w= ould eliminate the need for those windows to be replaced. She said having a sprinkler system= in the high school was best for the children in the school and would address o= ne of the issues on the NEASC report. Mr. Cate reiterated that the voters didn’t know how many proje= cts or how many years it would take. Ms. Larson said although there was no plan for the high school, the building wo= uld be used in the Town. She said= the School Board felt installing the sprinkler system and the HVAC would not be= a waste of the taxpayer’s money.
Mr.
Sherman believed there was new information and asked that Mr. Steel explain=
the
process in the event both systems were approved by the Budget Committee.
Mr. Viger asked what the cost would be to replace the windows. Mr. Steel didn’t have an estimate. He believed the iss= ue was the holes/penetrations in the walls weren’t big enough; he believed it was more expensive than just replacing the windows. Mr. Viger asked if there was an is= sue with the evacuation time of the building.&= nbsp; Mr. Steel had not heard from the Fire Chief that there was a concern.
Mr. Dunne asked how much of the $500,000 would be used to actually bring water = to the high school. Mr. Steel br= oke the information down in a previous memo; he believed it was approximately 50/50.
Mr. Farris commented that he hadn’t heard any new information based on the Board’s discussion at the last meeting. He said it was also brought up tha= t the Fire Chief told the Board that it would be nice to have a sprinkler system at the high school, but it was up to code and safe and the evacuation process was = up to his satisfaction. He reite= rated that there was nothing new except for the words for ‘special warrant article’.
Mr.
Hall believed the items needed to be done, and the Board had supported $900=
,000
in work to be done at the school, which he felt was a good start. He discussed the sprinkler system =
done
at
|
MOTION: |
(Gleason/Sherm=
an) To
reconsider the sprinkler system at the High School. |
|
ROLL CALL VOTE: |
( |
--------------------------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
To recommend Warrant Article #6 - Shall
the |
|
ROLL CALL VOTE: |
( |
Mr. Steel highlighted the information that was contained in the PESPA Collective Bargaining Agreement. The req= uest was for a budget line of $39,973. Mr. Viger understood that the grandfathered employees would start to contribute toward their health benefits. He asked if that would be at the same level as the rest of the union membership. Mr. Steel said it= was a 70/30 split (for three employees). For the rest of the membership, the school pays 50% of the cost for a single plan only; the employee covers the remaining cost.
Mr. Dunne asked if the agreement would be year-to-year. Mr. Steel said he didn’t participate in the negotiations; both sides agreed to a one year agreement. School Board membe= r Deb Ryan came forward and told the Board she participated in the negotiations.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She said the reason they did a one= year agreement was because of the impending health care changes that would be co= ming into effect in 2014.
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Sherman) To reconsider Warrant Article #3 - Shall the Pel= ham School District vote to approve the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the School Board and PESPA (Pelham Education Support Personnel Association) which calls for the following in= creases in salaries and benefits at the current staffing level: Fiscal Year Estimated Increase 2012-2013 - $39,973 and further to raise and appropriate the sum of $39,973 (thirty-nine thousand, nine hundred and seventy-three dollars) for the 2012-2013 year, such sum representing the additional costs attributable to the increase in salaries and benefits required by the new agreement over those that would= be paid at the current staffing levels.&nbs= p; |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(9-0-2)
The motion carried. Mr. Gui=
mond
and Mr. Cate abstained. |
Mr. Hall read for the Board based o= n the recommendation of administration the School Board would be placing an additional warrant article on the ballot as a deficit appropriation for Spe= cial Education Services – anticipating a $377,000 shortfall on the current year’s budget as a result in out-of-district placement for students w= ith IEP’s. If passed the appropriation would be raised in taxes next year, but could be spent this year. The advantage of the ar= ticle was if the district was able to finish the year with a surplus, they wouldn’t have to spend all of the money requested. The Budget Committee is being requ= ested to add an additional $200,000 to the FY13 operational budget to cover the a= dditional anticipated expenses of out-of-district placements.
Mr. Steel stated there were six cases of students requiring out-of-district placements that had come to their attention from when they budgeted through= out the coarse of the school year until now.&n= bsp; When they reviewed their expense reports and what they expected to expend from the out-of-district and the residential tuition lines he couldn’t say they would finish the year in the black. It was illegal for them to spend m= ore than what the voters had appropriated to them, therefore Mr. Steel made the recommendation to the School Board to put the deficit appropriation on the ballot. He said if approved, = it would increase the amount of money the district was allowed to spend in the current fiscal year. He noted= that some of the cases were fairly sever that no one could have predicted.
Mr. Cate asked if the $377,000 included any reimbursements from the state or federal levels. Mr. Steel sai= d they receive catastrophic aid reimbursement from the state, but it always comes a year later.
Mr. Farris asked how the current budget was running. Mr. Steel said they currently had approximately 3%-5% of their funds unencumbered. They were doing well with the wint= er (heating oil). He considered the schoo= l to currently have a small margin for error to make it through the school year.
Mr. Sherman questioned if the school would still be in trouble even if the Board approved the requested number. Mr. Steel answered yes. He said i= f the district was unable to stay in the black and run a deficit, then by law, the next March there would be another article on the ballot as a deficit appropriation. This occur unt= il the voters approved the deficit appropriation, no matter how many years into the future it went.
There was further discussion regarding the request. If the amount is approved, it woul= d not be reflected in the operating budget next year; it would only be reflected = in the MS22 in late March as a deficit appropriation. At the end of the year when the su= rplus they would have had is reviewed, that surplus is backed into the $377,000.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> They subtract whatever wasn’t spent from the $377,000 and apply the remaining amount to the next yearR= 17;s tax rate.
Mr. Dunne asked how much of the $377,000 would be recouped through the state’s catastrophic funding. Mr. Steel said it wouldn’t be as much as they were entitled to= by law. He said catastrophic aid= was a complicated formula in which the per student cost (for educating) is reviewed. When that figure go= es above 3.5X the average cost for every student, the district would get a cer= tain percent of those funds back. = If it goes 10X above the per pupil cost the district would get a higher percentage back; however the state prorates the amount. At this point, Mr. Steel couldn= 217;t speculate how much they would get back of the $377,000 because not all the children were above the 3.5X per pupil cost amount.
Mr. Guimond understood that the school was requesting the addition of $377,000 = to this year’s school budget. He questioned what stopped the School Board from spending the money on other items. Mr. Steel replied pers= onal integrity. He noted they wrot= e the warrant article specifically to say the amount would cover unanticipated expenses related to providing special education services. Mr. Guimond said they could take s= pecial education services money and move it somewhere else. Mr. Steel said that would always b= e the case, but noted there was specific RSA language around deficit appropriatio= ns for special education services.
Mr. Viger asked if the six students been addressed in the current year’s budget. Mr. Steel said partly= and noted they were requesting an additional $200,000 for next year. He pointed out that the two budget= lines were already up $233,000. Mr.= Viger asked if the request could be a special warrant article. Mr. Steel said it may be already by definition; he had never done a deficit appropriation. He would find out. If it could be done he would make = that recommendation to the School Board.
Mr.
Hall read aloud the proposed warrant article: Shall
the
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Cate)
To approve the following warrant article for the 2012 |
|
ROLL CALL VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
-------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
(Guimond/Laval=
lee) To
reconsider the Special Education lines #100.1200.00.564.199 and
#100.1200.00.569.199. |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
-------------------------------------
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Guim=
ond) To
add $200,000 to the Special Education budget (lines: #100.1200.00.564.199=
and
#100.1200.00.569.199). |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
The
new 2012
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Guim=
ond) To
approve the new 2012 |
|
VOICE VOTE: |
(11-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Farris asked if the School had an updated or new default budget number. Mr. Steel said the current default= was $25,390,455.
Mr. Steel told the Board that the School had received the same petition warrant article as the Town had received (regarding the default budget). He said the School was required to= hold a public hearing between 15-30 prior to the vote.
Mr. Hall asked if the Board would like to hold a meeting to discuss the petition warrant article (regarding the default budget) inviting the Town and School. Mr. Lavallee asked if= the Selectmen or School Board had the right to not present a petition warrant article if it was signed by citizens. It was Mr. Gleason’s understanding that a citizen’s peti= tion warrant article had to appear on the ballot. After a brief discussion, Mr. Hall indicated he would schedule a meeting inviting the petitioners, the Selectm= en and the School Board to field and answer questions.
ADJOURNMENT
|
MOTION: |
(Lavallee/Dunn=
e) 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
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING/Thursday,