BC20121011

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BUDGET COMMITTEE - MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, October 11, 2012

APPROVED – October 22, 2012

CALL TO ORDER – approximately 7:30pm

PRESENT:

Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Daniel Guimond, Mr. Bob Sherman, Mr. Greg Farris, Mr. Dav= id Cate, Mr. Dave Cronin, Mr. Ken Dunne (arrived at approximately 7:55pm), School Board Representative Brian Carton, Selectmen Representative Doug V= iger

ABSENT:

Mr. Greg Smith, Ms. Daryle Hillsgrove

Also Presen= t: School Business Administrator Adam Stee= l, Pelham Superintendent-Elect Amanda Lecaroz

= =

<= o:p>

F= iscal Year 2014 School Budget Review – Pelham Elementary School=

<= o:p>

Mr. Steel provided the Board with an overview of= the School District budget (as contained in the attached Executive Summary)

Spec= ial Education Preschool Program – M= r. Steel explained that the District was required by law to have this program. Currently, it services ev= ery 3,4 and 5 year old student that require special services until those studen= ts enter kindergarten. The largest ch= ange in the program didn’t change the bottom line, but changed the Pelham School District’s practice. They are prop= osing an inclusionary program where non-disabled peers are added to that program. Mr. Steel explained in the current practice, some students require, as a part of their Individualized Educational Program (‘IEP’), that they have to be around non-disabled peers. He said currently students = with this requirement are tuitioned to local schools. He stated it was always their intention= to have non-disabled peers attend the program and were compelled to do so base= d on the recent focus monitoring evaluation process performed by the State of New Hampshire. It was made clear to the District that they would be required to move in this direction sooner rather than later. There would be a posit= ive financial impact to move in this direction. Mr. Steel stated they currently had expenses of approximately $73,00= 0 in tuition and instructional assistant costs for those students they had to tuition out to be around non-disabled peers. In the District’s pilot year, they will be able to reduce those expe= nses to approximately $26,500 as well as take in revenue of approximately $5,500= for enrollment of non-disabled students into the program. By moving in this direction, the bottom= line with have a reduction of approximately $52,000. Mr. Steel stated they would not need additional teachers or classrooms. They would need only a modest increase in supplies. He to= ld the Board there would be a further reduction in the FY15 at which time they wou= ld be able to eliminate tuitioning students outside the District at the presch= ool level. Expenses would be zero and revenue would increase to approximately $22,000. In short, the bottom line would have a = net increase of approximately $95,000 every year moving forward.

Mr. Guimond asked if they would be providing day= care for children. Mr. Steel said they would have students whose parents will choose to tuition their children to = the Pelham School District Preschool Program rather than to a private daycare or preschool. Students will be accept= ed on a first come, first served basis into a limited number of spots. They have the ability to restrict the n= umber of students who attend the program.

Mr. Cate wanted to know the admission requiremen= ts for the preschool. Ms. Lecaroz address= ed the question about daycare versus preschool. She explained daycare is when care is provided to someone during the day; preschool is an educational program. Preschool is a partial day program and will not be run for full day. She said they will be adverti= sing out the preschool program. There will be an opening day at which students w= ill be accepted on a first come first served basis. For the Typical Peers piece of preschool, the only criterion is a student can’t be a student that has special needs. They can’t have over 50% of students be Typical Peers because it’s a special education program. Mr. Cate questioned the admittance proc= ess for special needs students. Ms. Le= caroz said the process used is through Child Find. Once a child has been brought = to their attention (through a doctor, or care provider) they conduct various assessments to determine whether a student would benefit from early intervention services. =

Mr. Guimond asked how many special education stu= dents the district currently had in the preschool program. Ms. Lecaroz said they currently had eig= ht students in two classrooms. There = are eight additional students tuitioned out to community preschools. There are also approximately twenty stu= dents that come in for individual services. She believed they serviced a total of 42 students last year. With those numbers, there will be approximately eight Typical Peer students in the program.

Mr. Hall asked if the focus monitoring report co= mplete. Mr. Steel believed it was; a copy will = be provided to the Board. He saw that= there was one less instructional assistant and asked Mr. Steel to explain the pro= cess they went through to determine the number of instructional assistants. Mr. Steel replied the preschool had one= less instructional assistant because of the inclusionary program of non-disabled peers. He told the Board that they= had been working the past couple years to determine the number of instructional assistants they needed, what their duties and responsibilities would be and= how many are allocated in the budget. = Ms. Lecaroz discussed the process she took during the past spring to work with = the special education specialists and review each student’s IEP thereby determi= ning how many instructional assistants were needed in each building.

Mr. Guimond asked if the instructional assistant= s for special education worked fewer hours than a regular instructional assistant. Ms. Lecaroz said most o= f them did because they provided support in the students related services. She explained that the preschool progra= m ran from 9am-1pm, but there were a number of students that stayed for additional services, such as occupational therapy, speech/language or physical therapy. Mr. Steel commented that = they weren’t salary positions; they were paid by the hour.

Mr. Farris questioned if contracts were being negotiated this year. Mr. Steel sa= id they were in negotiations with both the Teacher’s Union and PESPA. Mr. Farris asked if the school had a pr= ofessional negotiator. Mr. Steel said there w= ere attorneys that represented the School Board and assisted with negotiations. He said during negotiations the management team was represented by himself, two members of= the School Board and an attorney.

Mr. Steel addressed the secretary line. He said this was a position titled Secr= etary that existed in the past as a Federally funded position. The funds were no longer available for the position and the District attempted to not have the posit= ion filled for the past number of months. He said it didn’t work out not having the position filled explaining that there was a large number of people going in and out of the building during the co= urse of the day and there is no one there to coordinate phone calls and manage t= he processes for the building. The Fe= derally funded position is now included in the budget.

Mr. Sherman asked which Federal program it had b= een funded under. Mr. Steel said it ha= d been under the IDEA grant. Mr. Sherman questioned if less money was due to be received. Mr. Steel was unsure if it was less mon= ey, or more needs required other than funding the secretary.

Mr. Guimond understood that the position was Fed= erally funded in the past, but as far as the budget was concerned, he questioned i= f it was considered a new position that should go into a warrant article. Mr. Steel said as the Budget Committee = they could make whatever determination they wanted. The School Board had funded the position in the current fiscal year = and anticipated having a need for the position in order to function properly as= a preschool next year. Mr. Cate ask= ed if there was someone currently in the position that would lose it if it weren’t funded. Mr. Steel answered yes. Mr. Viger questioned if the secretary w= as a shared position in the SAU prior to it splitting. Mr. Steel only knew the history from af= ter the preschool split. He said it wa= s a secretarial position in Pelham only that was Federally funded.

Mr. Farris spoke about the secretarial position.= He said normally, such as with the Pol= ice Officers, when the Town had the opportunity for Federal grant money to fund= the position the warrant article stated with the acceptance of the grant after three years, the position would be picked up in the fourth year. He said in a sense, the secretarial pos= ition was never accepted by the voters outside of it being subsidized by the Fede= ral grant. Mr. Steel said that was correct. Mr. Hall felt a better description would be that the grant money was used to fund positions in the budget. He believed the positions = were already there. Mr. Farris asked if= the position was created or initialized by that grant. Mr. Steel answered no. Mr. Farris asked if there was money in = the grant prior and the position was subsidized for the last four years. Mr. Steel explained that the Pelham/Win= dham preschool separated four years ago. When the program started it became apparent that they needed someone in that rol= e; they chose to use Federal funds to fund the position in the short term. The School Board believes the position = to be vital to the operation of the program, and as such, included it in the budget. In summary, there had be= en a secretary paid for by tax dollars when the SAU was combined with Windham; l= ater the position was paid for through the grant and now they were seeking to ha= ve the position paid through the budget. <= /span>

Pelh= am Elementary School (including Kindergarten)

Mr. Sherman asked if the perfect attendance amou= nt was per the contract. Mr. Steel answer= ed yes; it was an estimate.

Mr. Farris commented regarding the two classroom teachers that had been eliminated, and moved to the High School to expand o= ther positions. He wanted to know if in= the future the elementary school decided they needed additional teachers if they would be proposed in a warrant article, or if it would be proposed as posit= ions that were previously in the budget. Mr. Steel expected if they had more than the number of teachers than they’ve ha= d approved by the voters in the past they would be warrant articles. He discussed what had occurred recently= with teachers being eliminated, moved to other schools and then put back into the budget. He stated at this time the= ir enrollments numbers were decreasing.

Mr. Cate asked what the track change allowance was. Mr. Steel said a teacher in t= he Collective Bargaining Agreement (‘CBA’) had the opportunity to advance their degree. If they advance their degr= ee they would move over in the scale to a different track. It was a salary structure based on the degrees they’ve earned. Mr. Cate a= sked for data from the past couple years for how many changes had occurred.

Mr. Hall questioned how many students were enrol= led in kindergarten. Ms. Lecaroz said the= re were 85 students enrolled in kindergarten this year.

Mr. Steel spoke about the new Reading Specialist position included in this year’s budget. He said the elementary school was identified by administration and teachers as needing improvement in the area of reading. Mr. Viger understood there was a slot f= or a reading specialist at the elementary school and wanted to know if the propo= sed position would increase the number of specialists the school would have. Ms. Lecaroz said one of the school’s Assistant Principals was also a reading specialist and provided oversight to the reading program. She didn’t pr= ovide individual instruction to students. The additional reading specialist would allow the school to service up to twenty-five additional students. Currently there are two literacy tutors that provide services to Spe= cial Education students. The additional position will give the school the ability to intervene early with students = not identified for Special Education. = Ms. Lecaroz discussed the importance of Response to Intervention (‘RTI’) servic= es which is one of the most significant factors in predicting student achievem= ent all the way through the schools. She explained the expertise that reading specialists had in comparison to instructional assistants.

Mr. Hall believed the members of the Board felt reading specialists were important. He spoke about the history of adding positions in the budget. In 2009 there was a vote for an Assista= nt Principal that failed and in 2012 the position was changed to a Dean of Students which also failed. After = that, the Superintendent came to the Board and explained they would like to modify the position and have the reading specialist have administrative duties; the Budget Committee agreed to do that. He felt it was a dilemma because the voters hadn’t really approved an Assistant Principal and they needed a reading specialist. Ms. Lecaroz stated that one of the Assistant Principals was a Reading Specialists who provided oversight to the reading program. She said reading specialists had two pr= imary functions (provide services to students and oversee a program) and in a sma= ller sized school were able to do both; however, it’s not feasible to provide individual services to students when there is enrollment of approximately 8= 00 students.

Mr. Farris questioned what would change in the Assistant Principal/Reading Specialist position by having an additional rea= ding specialist. It seemed the position= had evolved into a Vice Principal position, even though it had been turned down= by the voters. Ms. Lecaroz said that = Assistant Principal provided oversight to Special Education and the RTI program. She noted that RTI was a Federally mand= ated program as a result of the IDEA law that was in place for Special Education= . She noted that approximately 37% of the students were part of the RTI program. Mr. Steel forwarded the Board a list of responsibilities for each of the Assist= ant Principals.

Mr. Hall asked if the additional instructional assistants had anything to do with intervention. Ms. Lecaroz replied that three of the instructional assistants were for kindergarten and the other three were use= d in general educational services. One = of the three for general education had been moved from Special Education to specifically address the RTI students.

Mr. Cronin wanted to know how many long-term abs= ences there were last year and if there were any anticipated for this coming year. Mr. Steel said he could prov= ide information from last year and what they anticipated this year; however, he= was unable to make a prediction for next year. Long-term absences were typically based on unforeseen medical circumstances or pregnancies. The = budget number was calculated by taking the average of the actual amount spent and added five percent. The calculatio= n was done at the current rate of pay with no allowance for an increase of that r= ate; long-term pay is typically the Bachelor step 1 rate prorated on a daily basis. It was believed that the short-term substitute rate was $65 per day.

The Board continued to review the proposed budge= t and spoke about the iPads. There was f= unding in the budget to purchase thirty iPads for the elementary school to be put = on a cart and used throughout the building to support technology instruction. Ms. Lecaroz said she drafted a proposal= for the School Board and would send the Budget Committee a copy. She said iPads would be used in differ= ent ways at the school, such as whole class instruction with the reading and mathematics programs providing assessments and interventions. They would also be used in their interv= ention blocks during which time students receive instruction at their own level.

Mr. Farris said in the past the Board was given a technology plan, but had not seen it in a few years. Ms. Lecaroz replied that a technology p= lan that was approved a couple weeks ago. She will forward a copy to the Board. Mr. Steel said a technology person had started in January, 2012 and = had taken great strides to get the schools back on track to where they once were. That person created a techno= logy plan that was reviewed by the School Board and would be shared with the Bud= get Committee. The School Board electe= d to include the funding for the technology plan in the budget; it was not their intention to have it separated from the operating budget on the ballot.

Mr. Cronin asked if the iPads were part of a progressive plan to bring them in, or a one-time budget item. Mr. Steel said it was step one of a progressive plan to bring in iPads each year. Mr. Guimond confirmed that children wouldn’t be bringing the iPads home. Mr. Steel indicated they wou= ld not.

Mr. Dunne questioned if the cost for the iPad in= cluded a warranty. Mr. Steel commented th= at the cost for a warranty was generally one third the cost of purchasing a new device. He preferred to replace th= ings that got broken. In the event of intentional damage to equipment, the cost for such would be recouped from t= he person. Mr. Dunne wanted to know i= f Apple offered an educational discount. M= r. Steel answered no.

Mr. Guimond asked if the Board could receive a b= ook replacement schedule to understand the costs that would be coming forward.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Lecaroz said they had a schedule, b= ut wanted the Board to understand that it may adjust based on the common core State standards that were coming out; it was presently unknown when they wo= uld be released.

There was a brief discussion regarding the consu= mable materials for kindergarten. In the past the = school copied the materials, but had found that purchasing them was less expensive= and they saw a reduction in their paper expenses. Mr. Cronin questioned the cost of the reading consumables for the elementary school. The Board wante= d to know what was purchased in FY2010 when there was a 42.4% increase. Since that time the budget line had been decreasing and now for FY14 showed an increase of 127.2%. Mr. Farris used this line as an example= of how using the average of historical numbers could skew actual expenditures. He said it seemed to= be a large skew based on a decreasing average. In this case, Mr. Steel agreed the numbers were skewed in the wrong way. He said there would be other = cases where the numbers were skewed in the other direction, where the most recent year is a lot higher than the previous years. Ms. Lecaroz told the Board this line was the workbook issue; it was = the line they put consumables to save on their paper budget.

Mr. Hall asked what percentage of the student population was involved with Special Education. Mr. Steel said there were 191 students out of 897 (representing approximately 21%).

Regarding salaries, Mr. Steel said he would adju= st the lines to take retirement costs out. He will show a line for PEA members and another line for administrators. Mr. Farris asked if a figure could be provided showing the potential unfunded liability for retirement. Mr. Steel said they were required to ha= ve analysis showing post-employment benefits and would provide the Board with a copy of the report.

Mr. Cate saw under instructional assistants that= there was one open position and one contingency position. He questioned why the contingency posit= ion paid more than the other. Mr. Stee= l said the open position was in the budget when the budget was finalized; he assum= ed the position had since been filled. The contingency position was put in the budget should an unanticipated need arise. The hours made no differenc= e, the position was simply a place holder.

Mr. Cronin asked how many of the aides listed we= re one-on-one. There are fifteen instructional assistants that are one-on-one with students.

Mr. Guimond asked how old the room dividers were= as listed for the PAL’s program. The = room dividers are additional and not replacements.

The Board continued reviewing the budget. Regarding the copier machines, Mr. Ste= el stated they had a four-year replacement cycle. The cost of leasing machines and giving them back was no different f= rom the cost of purchasing the machines. After making two million copies the machines have almost no residual value. Mr. Steel felt it made sens= e to purchase the machines and not pay interest costs.

Mr. Sherman asked how long the custodian’s contr= act ran. Mr. Steel said it ran for one= year, they were not a collectively bargained group.

Mr. Guimond questioned why there was no cost in = FY13 to empty the septic. Mr. Steel sai= d it was either done early or late so it didn’t happen during FY13. This was placed in their routine repairs account.

Mr. Steel spoke to building repairs. He said a maintenance plan was put toge= ther last year that involved looking at every system that would need replacement over a course of time within the district. The items contained in the = budget were a continuation of that plan. = Mr. Cate asked if there was any history of what the unanticipated repair budget= was for the past couple years. Mr. Ste= el said they didn’t have a replacement schedule for FY10, 11 and 12 during whi= ch time they spend between $27,000-$30,000. The proposed budget lists $25,000 for unanticipated repairs.

Mr. Hall asked Mr. Steel to address the grassy a= reas and wanted to know if there were plans for irrigation. Mr. Steel said the issue was having no irrigation in some locations. When= the water line was run from the Elementary School to the High School lines were placed under the roadway for a possible future irrigation system they could= tie into. At present there was nothing budgeted, but it would be an item for future consideration. It was noted that the current well woul= d be used for irrigation; they would not use Pennichuck water for irrigation.

Mr. Hall asked if the School and Town worked tog= ether to lock a fuel oil rate. Mr. Steel= said Pelham and Windham schools worked together to lock a rate in August. That rate is made available to the Town= of Pelham and Windham who decide if they want to use that same rate. Mr. Hall asked if the school districts = made bulk purchases together. Mr. Steel said= he would like to assume that both districts would continue to make bulk purchases.

The Board concluded their budget review.

<= o:p>

A= DJOURNMENT

<= o:p>

MOTION:=

(Viger/Guimond)To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:13 = pm.

= Respectfully submitted,

= Charity A. Landry

= Recording Secretary