BC20121022

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BUDGET COMMITTEE - MEETING MINUTES

Monday, October 22, 2012

APPROVED – November 5, 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, Mr. Greg Smith, Ms. Daryle Hillsgro= ve, Selectmen Representative Doug Viger, School Board Representative Brian Carton<= /o:p>

ABSENT:

None.

Also Presen= t: Special Services Director Tina McCoy, S= chool Business Administrator Adam Steel, Pelham Superintendent-Elect Amanda Lecar= oz

= =

<= o:p>

M= inutes Review

<= o:p>

October 11, 2012

MOTION:

(Cronin/Cate)To approve the October 11, 2012 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

------------------------------------------------= --

October 15, 2012

MOTION:

(Sherman/Dunne= )To approve the October 15, 2012 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

<= o:p>

F= iscal Year 2014 School Budget Review – District

<= o:p>

Mr. Hall summarized the handouts provided to the= Board for review.

Mr. Steel explained to the Board that a new sect= ion was contained in the budget for the SAU costs rather than having those costs throughout the budget. He said tha= t SAU budget was up significantly due to Pelham having the entire costs to bear because of the split with Windham. He said the School Board was investigating options for housing the SAU; a placeholder is included in the budget. Work has been done to review surrounding districts and across the st= ate to determine the staffing needs and costs for the SAU. Ms. Lecaroz discussed the history of SAU staffing dating back to the 1970’s in comparison to what they currently had employed and what they felt was needed for the new SAU. She discussed the responsibilities of t= he proposed staff. All positions are full year= , with the exception of the receptionist which would be during the school year when additional support was needed. Mr.= Hall asked that the Board receive the job descriptions for all the positions.

There was a discussion regarding the curriculum = position and the duties of the Curriculum Director. Ms. Lecaroz told the Board that they reviewed curriculum on a cyclic= al rotation so data could be reviewed for appropriate revisions.

Mr. Guimond questioned how the proposed SAU sala= ries compared to other SAUs because some seemed to be on the high side. Mr. Steel replied that the State publis= hed salaries. He forwarded a web link = with the information to Mr. Guimond. Mr. Sherman asked if the website contained current data. Mr. Steel believed they had this year’s data. Mr. Sherman wanted to know, = from within a thirty mile radius of single towns, salaries for the Superintenden= t, Curriculum Director, Business Administrator, Human Resources and Director of Special Services. He also wanted t= o know the number of schools in a particular district, the enrollment numbers and number of staff supervised by the Superintendent. Mr. Steel noted that the School Board h= ad executed and signed a three-year contract with Ms. Lecaroz for the Superintendent position. This is t= he only position a contract had been signed with. It was noted that the positions would be posted internally in the fa= ll (2012). A determination will be ma= de from the internal people, who will best fit the positions, after which the positions will be posted outside. There will be more positi= ons posted than current employees, therefore there will be openings.

Mr. Guimond wanted to know if Pelham paid for an= y of the current SAU building. Mr. Stee= l said they had conducted research and found no record of Pelham making a contribu= tion to the building.

Mr. Dunne was under the impression that when the= SAU split from Windham, each district would retain their staff (i.e. Superintendent, Business Administrator). Mr. Steel said every employee at SAU #28 have contracts that expire = June 30, 2013.

Mr. Guimond questioned if the employees would pa= y some portion of health, dental etc. Mr.= Steel replied the current SAU staff contributed toward health insurance (5% suppo= rt staff and 10% administrative staff); however, in the Pelham School District administrative assistants don’t contribute to health insurance. He said the School Board would have to = decide if the SAU administrative assistants would be in a different class from oth= er administrative assistants throughout the district, or which one would change. Mr. Carton believed adjust= ments could be made, but transitions shouldn’t be disruptive to people’s lives. He felt they should work on a step plan= .

Mr. Cate asked if any thought was given to outso= urcing payroll. Mr. Steel answered yes, a= nd explained that due to the complication of payroll, the bulk of the work wou= ld be in preparing it to be outsourced. In looking throughout the State, he wasn’t aware of any district that outsourc= ed payroll.

Mr. Farris asked for a comparison of SAU salarie= s for employees paying for health benefits versus the district salaries of those = not paying for benefits.

Mr. Guimond questioned if the computer software = could be easily transferred over to Pelham. With regards to hard (physical) assets, Mr. Steel said an insurance appraiser came in and appraised all the contents of the SAU building. The SAU transition committee is determi= ning a manner to divide those assets and will be completed by the May, 2013 final = SAU #28 meeting.

There are two computer software programs that ne= ed to be split apart: 1) Budget Sense – used for payroll, accounting, budgeting, = and 2) AppliTrack- used for application process and screening candidates for positions.

There was a discussion regarding the Curriculum Director’s responsibilities. Mr. C= ate asked how much Ms. Lecaroz’s position would overlap. Ms. Lecaroz said she had a lot of conversations with the director because she was doing the curriculum. She was focusing on the Superintendent = duties and having the director assume a majority of the responsibilities for the curriculum. Ms. Lecaroz still assi= sted the director because they were currently split between two districts, and s= he also continued to provide professional development to the teachers.

Mr. Cronin wanted to know the status of the offi= ce space for the SAU. Mr. Steel repli= ed that he and the School Board have looked at many options. Currently they were looking at the six (vacant) classrooms at Town Hall; the Selectmen and School Board have had conversations regarding such. The = School was determining renovation costs. = Mr. Steel said it wasn’t expected that SAU space would be completed by July 1, = 2012 (at the time of the split); therefore, Pelham and Windham have had prelimin= ary discussions about having the Pelham staff remaining in the current building with a transition occurring next fall. Ms. Lecaroz commented that a conceptual drawing was being reviewed b= y a construction firm to determine an approximate figure of renovation costs. Mr. Viger told the Board that the Selec= tmen had a public discussion on the topic and had drafted a letter to the School Board indicating they were more than happy to work with them in developing = the classrooms (in Town Hall); they wanted to remain part of the process.

If a number was developed, Mr. Cate asked if it = would go in a warrant article. Mr. Steel= said they had options; the budget contained a placeholder for rent or renovations. He stated that the Sc= hool Board would also propose adding an addition to Pelham Elementary School for kindergarten. They wanted to get r= id of the portables currently being used. The four room addition will allow preschool to be housed in the elementary school. Further if the SAU is hous= ed within Town Hall, there will no longer be a need for the portables and they= can be returned. Mr. Steel reminded the Board that this was the last year for Pelham to receive up to one million dollars in State funding for the kindergarten addition; the law sunsets Jun= e 30, 2013. The School Board will be loo= king at a $1.75 million dollar addition to the elementary school, with $1 million dollars coming from the State aid.

Mr. Sherman asked if the remainder of the money = could be bonded. He wanted to know if th= e Town Hall renovations and elementary school addition could be combined into one bond. Mr. Steel said the current b= udget had a placeholder of $180,000 for lease/rent/renovation for the SAU. It also contained funding for lease/pay= ments for the portable classrooms. If bo= th items (renovations and addition) were to pass on the ballot, there would be savings within the budget from the cost of the portables.

Mr. Guimond recalled two years ago there was a proposal to have a building between the elementary and middle schools. The Board at the time kept asking if an addition could be done at the elementary school and was told by the School Board that they couldn’t. He wante= d to know what had changed. Mr. Steel s= aid he didn’t know what had changed and told the Board that two additions could be= put on the back of the elementary school building. Mr. Hall believed that topic could be discussed at the time the warr= ant article was reviewed. A number for= SAU costs will be provided to the Board during reconsideration.

Mr. Farris questioned why there was a decrease in private tuition in state and questioned if the money was being spent for wh= at the presentation was for. Mr. Steel replied they were budgeting only for the students they knew about; in the p= ast they included the contingency. The= re were students who would age out prior to the budget commencing. A contingency line was added for those students the district was not yet aware of, or who would move into Town dur= ing the next fiscal year. Having a sep= arate contingency will aid in tracking actuals. Mr. Cate commented with the contingency being in the budget, it coul= d be spent for other things. He preferr= ed to see it differently in the budget. = Mr. Steel said when the budget is reviewed the Board would be able to see that a transfer was made out of the account.

Mr. Cronin asked how many students were enrolled= in Student Services (vocational and CBI program). Ms. McCoy said it differed between the summer and school year. She believed there were approximately s= ix last summer and said she would provide a firm number for during school year.

Mr. Sherman saw there was a new ESOL teacher pos= ition and questioned how many students would be serviced. Ms. Lecaroz explained that positions wo= uld be shifted and redefined to create a savings. As of October 1, 2012 there were sixteen ESOL students. The teacher was listed as being 1.20FTE because they taught during the school year and in the summer.

There was a brief discussion regarding independe= nt evaluations. Ms. McCoy explained t= he school’s responsibilities and functions of the contracted evaluations in accordance with student IEP’s.

Mr. Dunne asked the difference between the speech pathologist and the contracted speech services. Mr. Steel said the speech pathologist was an employee of the District. They couldn’t service al= l of the students with the employees, so the remaining was contracted out on a 1= 099 basis. Mr. Hall recalled in the pa= st there were a number of contracted people and the Board was told if the scho= ol hired someone they could service more children and costs could be reduced because the District would have their own employee. Ms. McCoy explained the current structu= re for speech therapists. She noted costs= had decreased in the services line since FY2011 compared to what was requested.

Ms. McCoy spoke about the focus monitoring report process. She said one of the major things they determined was what the Department of Education was looking for= as far as measurable goals had changed and evolved. She felt it was a good thing, and at th= e same time it was a learning experience. She explained that they would write the goals for how the student was currently functioning and then where they would like them to be in a year. Ms. McCoy said they also discussed the preschool environment and the lacking ability to provide an integrated prog= ram to students with and without disabilities being educated together. She said the consultants came forward w= ith the idea that the District must provide that option within the public school system. She had a lot of discussi= ons on the topic and didn’t see that they were violating any New Hampshire State Regulations. The State felt things= had evolved; the District was in violation and must provide an integrated educational op= tion within the public school system. = She hoped the Board would support the proposed budget for the program.

Mr. Guimond asked what Summer Programming was. Ms. Lecaroz said it was an item previou= sly funded out of title grant money and left over PCM money. It was summer programming for middle sc= hool students were not proficient in mathematics; the program was expanded to include reading as well.

Mr. Guimond wanted to know if the network was up= and working in all of the buildings, because he was lead to believe that there = were network problems. As far as Mr. St= eel knew for the last solid month they were up and running; there were still is= sues far and wide. Mr. Guimond heard st= udents couldn’t check books out of the library. Ms. Lecaroz noted it wasn’t a network issue; the library was transitioning into a new system. T= he process should be complete in the next couple weeks. Mr. Cronin asked where the Technology Coordinator originated. Mr. Steel explained the position was basically an account change. Mr. Sherman asked if the IT open positi= on was filled. Mr. Steel answered no; it = was difficult to fill because it was less than full time. Mr. Dunne questioned the difference betw= een the Technology Coordinator and the Technology Integration Specialist. The coordinator was the director and ma= naged the employees and interacted with the department heads throughout the Distr= ict; the integration specialist was an educator who worked directly with teachers and department heads on the best practices and integrating technology within the classrooms to promote educational growth. Mr. Carton noted that the integration position was created in respon= se to some accreditation criticisms. = It was pointed out to the school district that teachers weren’t adopting technolog= y in the classrooms. The technology pos= itions were discussed; the technology technicians were previously instructional assistants.

The Board discussed the budgeted software progra= ms and their purposes. Mr. Steel will pro= vide the Board with an explanation about each of the programs. Mr. Farris commented that the previous technology plan was allowed to lapse for approximately two years. The initial plan (3-yeasr plan for seve= ral hundred thousand dollars) when presented was going to be an ongoing/renewab= le plan that never happened. He said = now the Board was seeing a plan for several hundred thousand dollars in the budget. Mr. Farris felt the voters should have an opportunity to vote on the plan and regain confidence in the School Board that they were going on the right track with the software.

Mr. Steel stated the School Board decided to add= the technology plan presented to them and accepted by them into the budget. He said the class A/V equipment would a= dd projectors and multi-media speakers, DVD player and cable connection in the classrooms at the middle school and high school. Mr. Viger asked if the line items were = to maintain current level of service. Mr. Steel pointed out the lines that were a continuation of the technology plan= and discussed the three new lines (SAU Equipment, Teacher laptops, Class A/V Equipment). The high school teache= rs would receive the laptops; in the following years the middle school and elementary schools were scheduled to receive laptops. Mr. Dunne asked if there were any educa= tional discounts for the laptops. Mr. Ste= el answered yes.

The Board continued reviewing the proposed budget. Mr. Dunne saw that the leg= al fees had decreased and he wanted to know if there was a specific reason. Mr. Steel commented that the budget was= based off past expenditures. =

Mr. Cate questioned why the landscaping contract= was increased (35.4%). Mr. Steel said = it was probably too conservative. At the = time the budget was put together they were considering there may be some costs f= rom the water line being done. They wo= uld be comfortable reducing it by approximately $10,000. Mr. Hall asked if the landscaping compa= ny also removed snow. Mr. Steel answe= red no; the school used custodial overtime hours to do snow removal. Mr. Farris asked if figures were review= ed to compare having the landscaping company remove the snow versus paying custod= ial overtime. Mr. Steel answered yes.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the landscaping company did landscaping and snow removal for a neighboring district; the budgeted amount was significantly more for that district (they had a combined contract). Mr. Hall asked if the Town removed snow= in the school parking lots. Mr. Steel answered no; the Town sometimes made a pass, looping around the school, but= in general the school was removing snow with their maintenance truck and front= end loader.

Mr. Guimond questioned the increase in busses. Mr. Steel explained with the help of a consultant the School Board combined with Windham and did a competitive RFP process. Three responses were rece= ived with all the bids being higher than what the contract at the time had been; they opened negotiations with the middle bidder, who lowered their cost. The increase reflected the increased requirements for the busses (no more than 5 years old, added technology, etc). On top of that fuel was broken out from the contract because the Dis= trict purchased separately. The budget reflected what would be spent next year. It was noted that the increased cost was for the increased safety of students and increased customer service.

Mr. Guimond asked what percent would be given to= the employees as part of the non-union salary pool. Those employees would receive a 3% increase.

Health insurance will have an updated number provided. There will be a refund n= ext August of approximately $100,000 for the GMR. There was further discussion regarding insurances and who paid for t= hose costs.

The Board reviewed the Food Services budget. Mr. Guimond questioned the increase in salaries. Mr. Steel explained ther= e was an increase associated with having a new director and an employee changing roles. He commented that the Food Service Fund was a unique area in the budget in that it didn’t affect taxes unless there was a deficit, which hadn’t been run in several years. There was a decrease in food costs base= d on the fact that the department participated in a consortium. As non-profits they were able to save f= unds by having a joint purchasing agreement. It was noted that the food service expenditures were based on the incoming monthly revenues. <= /o:p>

The Board concluded their budget review.

Mr. Steel told the Board that the School Board w= ould be requesting an addition to the budget versus a separate warrant article f= or the repair work to the elementary school sprinkler system. Mr. Guimond asked for the estimated cos= t that would be added to the budget. Mr. = Steel replied it would be in the hundreds of thousands, possibly between $200,000= to $400,000.

<= o:p>

Mr. Sherman asked that clarification be obtained= from legal regarding the default budget, given the SAU costs were new. Mr. Steel commented that the SAU portio= n of the proposed operating budget would be the default budget as presented.

<= o:p>

A= DJOURNMENT

<= o:p>

MOTION:=

(Cate/Sherman)To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:15= pm.

= Respectfully submitted,

= Charity A. Landry

= Recording Secretary