BC20121101

APPROVED

TOWN OF PEL= HAM

BUDGET COMM= ITTEE - MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, N= ovember 1, 2012

APPROVED – = November 5, 2012

CALL TO ORDER – approximately 7:30pm

PRESENT:

Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Dan= iel Guimond, Mr. Bob Sherman, Mr. Greg Farris, Mr. David Cate, Mr. Greg Smith, Mr. Dave Cronin, Ms. Daryle Hillsgrove, School Board Representative Brian Carton, Selectmen Representative Doug Viger

ABSENT:

Mr. Ken Dunne

Also Present: School Business Administrator Adam Steel, Pelham Superintendent-Elect Amanda Lecaroz

MEETING MINUTES=

October 18, 2012

MOTION:

(Sherman/Croni= n)To approve the October 18, 2012 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

FISCAL YEAR 2014 SCHOOL BUDGET REVIEW AND VOTE

Mr. Hall discussed the process the Board would use to review and vote on the bu= dget. The School’s number would be on the flo= or if an amendment is offered each item will be discussed.

Mr. Cronin understood when the Board discussed the Town budget, the Selectmen a= nd Town Administrator had the ability to move numbers around after they were approved. He questioned if that sa= me rule applied to the School Board and Superintendent. Mr. Hall answered yes. Mr. Cronin further understood that the = School wouldn’t be fixed into a line item. Mr. Hall said that was correct.

Mr. Steel and Ms. Lecaroz came forward. Mr. Steel commented regarding Special Education out of District tuition. He said this was a topic that received = much scrutiny each year. The Pelham Sch= ool District is required to provide tuition for students out of District when t= heir IEP requires such. He said that nu= mber and expense was an unknown number. He provided a summary of the past seven years of the budget to actuals. Last year the School Board proposed a w= arrant article creating a trust fund for unanticipated expenses; this was the only article not supported by the Budget Committee. The School Board made the decision in the proposed budget to budget = the known costs and to compensate and prepare for the unanticipated costs, a decision was made to include $160,000 contingency line within the budget. Mr. Steel discussed the unanticipated r= epair costs to the facilities. He said t= hey made great strides at becoming proactive and doing preventative maintenance= at the facilities. This maintenance p= lan is funded this year (for the second year) in the budget. But there are unanticipated repairs tha= t will happen within the three schools; therefore, he requested that the Board not= cut the repair line.

Ms. Lecaroz provided the Board with an update on SAU housing. They had been in conversation with the Selectmen about potentially renovating six classrooms within Town Hall. If they proceed, there will possibly be= a warrant article brought forward. There is $180,000 in the proposed budget that could be used as a placeholder, or tak= en out with the understanding that they would come back at reconsideration to = put in the exact amount that they would need.

The Board began their review. The Scho= ol’s number on the floor was $27,519,055. Mr. Hall asked the Board to begin their review with the Preschool.

Preschool - $467,906 proposed.

Mr. Guimond proposed $446,976. Mr. Far= ris seconded the motion for discussion. This was a reduction of $20,930 for a secretary. He said with it being a= new position, it should be up to the voters to decide. Mr. Cate asked if someone was currently= in the position. Mr. Steel answered t= hat someone was currently in the position. This was a position that had been Federally funded for a number of years. When Federal funding was reallocated last year the District attempted not to fill the position, but = that didn’t work; they weren’t able to effectively run the preschool with all the traffic that came in and out of the building and the work that needed to be done. This was not a new position,= it was previously Federally funded. M= r. Guimond said it was a new position to the operating budget.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget to $446,976 would vote in= the affirmative.

MOTION:

To approve $44= 6,976 as the Preschool budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(4-6-0) The motion failed. Mr. Smith, Mr. Farris, Mr. Sherman and Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remaind= er of the Board voted no.

MOTION:

To approve $46= 7,906 as the Preschool budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

--------------------------------------------------------

Kindergarten / Elementary School- $4,769,664 proposed

Mr. Guimond proposed $4,639,219. Mr. C= ronin seconded the motion for discussion.

Reduction of $41,860 for a Reading Specialist. Mr. Hall discussed the history of the position and believed the voters should m= ake the decision. Mr. Cate shared the sentiment. Mr. Viger commented tha= t in having the position in the budget, and the budget being passed by the Board= (in the past) and voted on by the voters, it had been accepted. He said there was a level of service th= at had to be maintained. He commented tha= t the level of service that had to be maintained was exactly what the school was looking to do.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $41,860 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $41,= 860 for a Reading Specialist from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(6-4-0) The motion carried. Mr. Cate, Ms. Hillsgrove, Mr. Farris, Mr. Sherman,

Mr. Guimond and Mr. Hall voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $2,000 for a track change. Mr. = Cate proposed the reduction for (for each school) based on actual expenditures.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Even with the reduction, the schools wo= uld have $2,500 more than they spent during the past year. It was noted that the school provided l= ast year’s numbers; they didn’t have the data for previous years. Mr. Sherman n= oted that track changes were required to be paid if a teacher earned the necessa= ry credits whether or not there was a contract.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $2,000 would vote in t= he affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $2,0= 00 for track changes from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(2-8-0) The motion failed. Mr. Cate and Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction $2,500 to remove mentoring program. Mr. Guimond stated the mentoring program was not in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (‘CBA’). With the present economy, he felt the Board had to make some hard decisions. Mr. Sherman said the mentoring program = was important in bringing in and training new teachers. He said they needed an experienced teac= her within the building that was willing to help. He didn’t feel mentoring should be cut. Mr. Cronin questioned how many first year teachers the school would = have in the coming year. Ms. Lecaroz sa= id there would be at least two. Some teachers took FMLA and the substitutes would need mentoring. There would be= a need to mentor a total of possibly four or five teachers within the school.

Voice vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $2,500 would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $2,5= 00 for mentoring from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of= the Board voted no.

Reduction $3,000 to remove professional meetings (Handwriting Without Tears training). Mr. Guimond said there = was a duplication of the expense. Mr. St= eel said there were two lines, one for professional development for Handwriting Without Tears and the other line showed the supplies for that program. They were not the same line item. Mr. Guimond asked if it was a new program. Ms. Lecaroz said it would= be for grade 2; they already had the program for kindergarten and grade 1. Mr. Guimond said this was another place= where a hard decision had to be made given the present economy.

Voice vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $3,000 would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $3,0= 00 for professional meetings (Handwriting Without Tears) from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of= the Board voted no.

Reduction of $13,087 for supply lines to Science ($4,489), Enrichment ($1,647), Readi= ng ($3,961), New Furniture & Fixtures ($2,990). Mr. Guimond understood the calculation = of using averages (2 or 3 year) plus a percent. He said items over a $1,000 difference he moved to use a 2% increase based on a 2 year average. Mr. Ste= el said they wanted to have a consistent method for budgeting supplies. He said they were open to using either = a two or three year average. He commente= d that in these lines a two year average reduced the budget; there were other lines that would be increased if the two year average was used versus using a thr= ee year average. It was his preferenc= e to have a consistent approach throughout the budget. Mr. Farris said a comment was made that= there was a reduction in the number of students, which would be a reason to not u= se a ‘blanket’ approach of using two years or three years as the average. He felt each line item was different an= d supplies were based on the need for a certain number of students, which was declining. In this case, he believ= ed using a two year average was what should be used. Mr. Carton was in agreement to using a = consistent approach. He told the Board that t= he School Board went through a similar review of the budget and didn’t find a great deal of difference by using either the two or three year average approach.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $13,087 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $13,= 087 for supply lines to Science ($4,489), Enrichment ($1,647), Reading ($3,961), = New Furniture & Fixtures ($2,990) from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(5-5-0) The motion failed. The Board was split. Mr. Cronin, Mr. Cate, Mr. Farris,= Mr. Sherman and Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Bo= ard voted no.

Reduction of $720 for educational discount for iPads. Mr. Dunne, who was absent for the meeting, had forwarded information= for the Board’s review. Mr. Guimond wo= uld like to move all iPads to a Technology Plan warrant article. He felt the voters should have the opportunity to vote regarding that plan for the schools. Mr. Carton said the School Board voted whether to put the technology plan into a warrant or to put it in the budget. He said in 2012 technology= was a fundamental aspect of any going concern. He said it was as optional today as electricity or water. Mr. Hall asked if Mr. Dunne’s informati= on was correct. Ms. Lecaroz stated they d= id not get educational discounts with iPads; Apple was not yet giving them to educational institutions. Mr. Stee= l said they weren’t opposed to an educational discount if one exists.

Voice vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $720 would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $720= for an educational discount for iPads from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(9-1-0) The motion carried. The Board vo= ted in the affirmative with the exception of Mr. Viger, who voted no.

Reduction of $16,280 for iPads. Mr. Farris a= greed that everyone needed a technology plan; there hadn’t been one for two years. Now technology was being in= cluded in the budget without a plan. He f= elt the voters had the right to have a say whether they agreed with the plan; t= here had been no presentation, or discussion regarding the plan.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $16,280 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $16,= 280 for equipment/iPads from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(2-8-0) The motion failed. Mr. Farris and Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; t= he remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $15,897 for Salaries-Special Education Aides. Mr. Cronin saw that there was a conting= ency position as well as an open position. He was looking to eliminate the contingency position. Mr. Sherman questioned if there was one less position also listed for the middle or high schools. Mr. Steel said no contingency positions= were listed at the middle or high schools. He said there were open positions listed at the time the budget was printed. T= hose have since been filled. Mr. Sherma= n felt it was important to leave the contingency position in the budget because a student may move into the schools for which that position would be needed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Smith wanted to know the implicatio= n if the Board voted no. Ms. Lecaroz sa= id there was an indication that a student needed an instructional assistant wi= th them, they would have to hire someone and pull the salary from somewhere el= se in the budget. Mr. Farris commente= d that the school budgets previously had surpluses (at least in the past several years), therefore if the money was taken out they should be able to find fu= nded if the need arose.

Mr. Cronin asked how many of the instructional aides were one on one. Ms. Lecaroz said there were fifteen.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $15,897 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $15,= 897 for Salaries-Special Education Aide from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(6-4-0) The motion carried. Mr. Cronin, Mr. Cate, Mr. Smith, Mr. Farris, Mr. Guim= ond and Mr. Hall voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted n= o.

Reduction of $2,000 for Equipment - room dividers. Mr. Guimond didn’t believe they were necessary at the present time.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The room dividers will be used in their Special Education program to help decrease noise and distractions for stude= nts to focus.

Voice vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $2,000 for Equipment-room dividers would vote in the affirmative. <= /span>

MOTION:

To remove $2,0= 00 for Equipment-room dividers from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond v= oted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $999 for software contract. Mr. Guimond commented that they were into the third month of school and the pro= gram was still not working.

Voice vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $999 for software would vot= e in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $999= for software contract from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(2-8-0) The motion failed. Mr. Farris an= d Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $110 from Professional Meeting – mileage. Mr. Guimond said the School rate was proposed at $.55 and the Town r= ate was $.44 per mile. He felt since everyone lived in the same community the rates should be the same. Mr. Steel said they reimburse based on = the IRS reimbursement which is by contract with the teachers. Mr. Guimond withdrew his suggested reduction.

Reduction of $15,000 for unanticipated repairs (two proposals: $5,000 and $10,000). Mr. Cate felt the line had a large numb= er that didn’t make sense looking at prior history. He was looking to decrease the amount, = which would still be more than they previously had. Mr. Cronin concurred with the comments and didn’t feel that a 20% reduction would tie their hands. M= r. Carton cautioned the Board about eliminating funding from building repairs. He told the Board if the = Town was going to get any funding from the State for building aid, one of the th= ings they will look at is if the Town was taking care of what they already had.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> They don’t want to put additions onto r= undown buildings or abandoning buildings that have been used up and worn out. As State aid returns there are going to= be more tests than seen in the past. =

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $15,000 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $15,= 000 for Building Repairs-unanticipated from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(2-8-0) The motion failed. Mr. Cate and Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $5,000 would vote in t= he affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $5,0= 00 for Building Repairs-unanticipated from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(7-3-0) The motion carried. The Board voted in the affirmative with the exception= of Mr. Viger, Mr. Carton and Ms. Hillsgrove who voted no.

Reduction of $5,896 for heat. Mr. Guimond suggested having a 15% increase versus a 25% increase for heat. He said the cost for gas and heat had increased, but were now stabilizing and beginning to decrease. Mr. Sherman commented that he would go = along with the decrease at this point in time because the Board generally reviewed the number for gas, heat etc. again during reconsideration. Mr. Steel stated that heat had two vari= ables, neither of which could be controlled; the cost of fuel oil and intensity of the winter.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $5,896 would vote in t= he affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $5,8= 96 for heat from the Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(2-8-0) The motion failed. Mr. Sherman and Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; = the remainder of the Board voted no.

The Board concluded their review of the Kindergarten/Elementary School Budget.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The total reduction to the budget was $63,477; the new budget number would be $4,706,187.

Voice vote – those in favor of the new proposed budget for the Kindergarten/Eleme= ntary School would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To approve $4,= 706,187 as the revised Kindergarten/Elementary School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(9-1-0) The motion carried. The Board vo= ted in the affirmative with the exception of

Mr. Carton, who voted no.

Pelham Memorial School - $3,028,931 proposed

Mr. Guimond proposed $2,963,634. Mr. F= arris seconded for discussion. Mr. Cate withdrew his proposed track change ($2,000). Mr. Guimond withdrew his proposed reduction of $2,350 for equipment.

Reduction of $15,897 for Salaries – Special Education Aides. Mr. Cronin said the Board had eliminate= d one. His proposal was to eliminate a second position. He asked if the positions had been filled. Ms. Lecaroz said the two o= pen positions at Memorial School had been filled as being one on one aides. Mr. Cronin withdrew his proposal. Mr. Guimond left his reduction proposal in. He felt the decision should be= up to the voters. Ms. Lecaroz felt it was important to note that the position may be new to Memorial School however, = the positions at the other schools may have decreased. She explained that as students transiti= oned through the school the instructional assistants moved between the schools.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Steel noted that one of the open po= sitions had already been removed and not included in the proposed budget number.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $15,897 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $15,= 897 Salaries for Special Education Aide from the Memorial School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of= the Board voted no.

Reduction of $6,614 for Salaries – Principal. Mr. Guimond asked if the reduction was in line with the principal’s salary. Ms. Lecaroz answered yes.

Voice vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $6,614 would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $6,6= 14 Salaries-Principal from the Memorial School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(9-1-0) The motion carried. The Board vo= ted in the affirmative with the exception of

Mr. Viger, who voted no.

Reduction of $33,000 from repairs (two proposals: $8,000/unanticipated and $25,000/li= ft). Mr. Guimond said he was proposing to de= lay the lift for one year ($25,000). M= r. Smith asked for a description of the lift. Mr. Steel explained that a wheelchair would roll onto the lift which attached to the two staircase rails and would bring the wheelchair up to the second floor. In lieu of an elevat= or, the lift is how the school maintains ADA accessibility. Mr. Smith asked if the lift was broken,= or if the proposal was for a new one to make the building ADA compliant. Mr. Steel said the proposal was to repl= ace the lift that had been in the school for a number of years and at the end of its useful life. In his opinion th= e lift could not wait another year.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $33,000 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $33,= 000 Repairs for the lift in the Memorial School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of= the Board voted no.

Reduction of $8,000 from Repairs-unanticipated. Mr. Cronin proposed a 20% reduction in unanticipated repairs.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $8,000 would vote in t= he affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $8,0= 00 Repairs-unanticipated from the Memorial School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(6-4-0) The motion carried. Mr. Cronin, Mr. Smith, Mr. Farris, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Guimond, and Mr. Hall voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Mr. Guimond removed his proposed reduction of $3,436 from supplies.

Reduction of $2,000 for Equipment Replacement contingency. Mr. Guimond didn’t like having continge= ncies in a budget and suggested removing $2,000.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $2,000 would vote in t= he affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $2,0= 00 Equipment Replacement-contingency from the Memorial School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(4-6-0) The motion failed. Mr. Cate, Mr. Smith, Mr. Farris and Mr. Guimond voted = in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

The Board concluded their review of the Memorial School Budget. The total reduction to the budget was $= 14,614; the new budget number would be $3,014,317.

Voice vote – those in favor of the new proposed budget of $3,014,317 for Memorial School would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To approve $3,= 014,317 as the revised Memorial School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried. The Board vo= ted in the affirmative.

Pelham High School - $4,897,433 pr= oposed

Mr. Guimond proposed $4,685,976. Mr. F= arris seconded for discussion. The Board began their discussion with the proposed Athletic Director position.

Reduction of $56,460 for Athletic Director salary. Mr. Guimond said he didn’t dispute that the school may need an Athle= tic Director, but felt the decision should be up to the tax payers. He noted in the past the voters voted 3= -1 (in the negative) regarding the position. Mr. Carton stated that they weren’t adding a person to the head count of teache= rs or professional positions within the organization. He said the people that designed the organization that have the responsibility for having a functional organizat= ion that meets the current needs are Mr. Steel and Ms. Lecaroz. He felt there was plenty of precedent t= hat people had been moved around in roles within the schools. He said they weren’t asking for additio= nal head count but instead to redeploy existing people to make the best use of = what they had. Mr. Guimond said the sch= ool was asking for another head count of a math teacher because the current per= son was taking the Athletic Director position. Mr. Carton replied the net headcount for teachers was down District = wide by one. Ms. Lecaroz said they need= ed an Athletic Director in order for their athletic program to move forward. She reiterated that they weren’t asking= for any more position; they were requesting one less from last year.

Ms. Hillsgrove said she wrestled with this item a lot and agreed more with Mr. Guimond. She said the school was l= ooking to allocate a teaching position to a professional position. She supported teaching positions being reallocated because it was necessary to be able to move them around; however, the pro= posal was to change the function of the position. She said the voters put in a teaching position and the school was ta= king that portion of the position away, making the transition blurry. Ms. Hillsgrove said it was invisible to= the voters to know that they may have picked up another professional position versus what they thought they had. She felt the voters should know that they were adding another professional person.

Mr. Cate was in favor of the position primarily because Athletic Director was d= oing that role almost full time and was only teaching one block. Mr. Viger said as a member of the Budget Committee he didn’t want to get into the position of micromanaging the expe= rts that handle the curriculum. He had= no problem with the school changing positions as long as the head count wasn’t changing.

Mr. Steel understood the points being made, but cautioned that removal of the position would equate to two less teachers in the District than they curren= tly had. It would total three less pos= itions with the removal of the Reading Specialist in the Elementary School.

Mr. Sherman objected to taking what was a teaching position and now making it an administrative position. He said t= he school needed a full time math teacher and the question was how they could = get one. He also understood the need f= or an athletic person.

Mr. Farris was torn on this item. He u= nderstood what the Athletic Director did. He= was concerned on the one position that was given up that was almost being used = as a place holder, that if in 2-3 years they needed a position, it would be put = into the budget because it was previously there. Mr. Carton said prior to sitting down the Budget Committee the school had already reduced their head count by one. He said they lost another head count for a Reading Specialist. He said now they were discussing removi= ng another head count. He told the Bo= ard that the school came in good faith prior to the reductions starting. Mr. Farris appreciated the good faith.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the statement was made that in = 2-3 years if a position was necessary it =3Dwould be put into the budget becaus= e it had been in the budget in the past. Mr. Carton asked if it was everyone’s view if they gave up a position one year = and needed it a year later they would have to go back to the voters for approval. He said that would tell = the School Board they should never come forward with a reduction in head count.

Mr. Hall said he agreed with the Athletic Director position, but felt it was the School Board’s role to make the case to the public. He said the school was reducing head count because they had fewer students.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $56,460 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $56,= 460 Salary-Athletic Director from the High School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(3-7-0) The motion failed. Ms. Hillsgrove, Mr. Sherman and Mr. Guimond voted in t= he affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Mr. Cate withdrew his proposed reduction for the track change ($2,000). Mr. Guimond withdrew his proposed reduction for supplies ($1,963).

Reduction of $4,050 for new courses. Mr. Guimond didn’t feel new courses should be offered given the pres= ent economic situation. He proposed eliminating the new courses Entrepreneurship and Interior Design Software.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Sherman said the proposed courses w= ould help keep children enrolled in high school.

Voice vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $4,050 for new courses would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $4,0= 50 new courses (Entrepreneurship and Interior Design Software) from the High Sch= ool budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond v= oted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $7,948 Salaries-Special Education Aide. Mr. Guimond said there was an open position for a half time after sc= hool person. He didn’t believe they nee= ded that person. Mr. Cronin said at a previous meeting he asked the principal about the position and recalled bei= ng told that there was a student coming up that would require that person. Ms. Lecaroz explained that it was not actually one position, but rather approximately twenty different positions = that equal the approximate budget amount. She said students stayed after school and participated in a variety of different activities; often it was tutoring and at other times it could be clubs. Mr. Guimond withdrew his proposed adjustment.

Reduction of $14,000 Vocational Tuition. Mr. Guimond said they had only spent $38,000 in the past and were now requesting $52,000. He didn’t feel they neede= d the entire amount being requested. Mr.= Hall said there was a note indicating that the State was no longer reimbursing f= or vocational tuition at the same rate which increases Pelham’s share. Mr. Steel noted that the tuition bill w= as reduced before it got to the school; the vocational center had been paid di= rectly by the State. He said it’s still g= ross budgeting, but in this case they never saw some of the bill coming to them. Mr. Guimond withdrew his pro= posed adjustment.

Reduction of $14,794 CBA stipend. Mr. Guimon= d said he reviewed the CBA and totaled all the stipends and reduced the Athletic Director. Mr. Hall asked if it was possible that the current CBA didn’t have all of the stipends listed in it. Mr. Steel indicated in his las= t memo to the Board that they wanted to correct the number to the CBA. He believed they did so with the number= in the proposed budget. Mr. Guimond disagreed that the number in the budget was correct; he added it several ti= mes.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $14,794 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $14,= 794 CBA stipends from the High School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(8-2-0) The motion carried. The Board voted in the affirmative with the exception= of

Mr. Viger and Mr. Carton.

Mr. Guimond withdrew his proposal reduction of $2,205 for athletic supplies.

Reduction of $1,000 for Equipment –educational discount iPads. Mr. Dunne, who was absent for the meeti= ng, had forwarded information for the Board’s review.

Voice vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $1,000 would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $1,0= 00 Equipment (iPads) from the High School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond v= oted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $400 for Assemblies. Mr. Guimon= d suggested a reduction to the amount that was spent last year. He said although the Principal wanted t= o have more assemblies, the Board had to make tough decisions.

Voice vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $400 would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $400= – Assemblies from the High School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(2-8-0) The motion failed. Mr. Smith and Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Mr. Cate withdrew his proposed reduction of $2,000 for Academic Team. Mr. Guimond proposed a reduction of $10= ,000 for Academic Team stating it was not in the CBA. He felt it was a way to pay teachers ex= tra money for what they should already be doing. Ms. Lecaroz said they met regularly after hours and conducted resear= ch that was implemented in the classroom. In summary it’s a professional learning community outside of hours. Mr. Sherman noted that the State would = be requiring (but leaving it up to local districts) in teacher’s evaluations a section will be for how well their students are doing. The described type of group will be imp= ortant in that. Mr. Guimond asked if it = could be put into the new CBA. Mr. Steel said they would take it under advisement. Mr. Guimond said the l= ine had $12,000 and changed his proposed reduction to that amount. Mr. Cronin saw with the proposed $12,000 reduction there would be $2,000 remaining. Mr. Guimond increased his proposed reduction for Academic Team to $14,000.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $14,000 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $14,= 000 Academic Team from the High School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(2-8-0) The motion failed. Mr. Smith and Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $4,761for Professional Publications. Mr. Cate reviewed the previous years during which nothing had been s= pent from the budget line. His proposal reduced the line from $7,261 to $2,500. <= /span>

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $4,761 would vote in t= he affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $4,7= 61 for Professional Publications from the High School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(7-3-0) The motion carried. The Board voted in the affirmative with the exception= of Mr. Viger, Mr. Carton and Mr. Sherman who voted no.

Mr. Guimond withdrew his proposed reductions of $2,519 for postage supplies and $2,850 for mileage and travel.

Reduction of $70,000 Repairs (three proposal= s: $14,000/20% reduction, $35,000/reduction, $35,000/remove AC modular to warrant article). Mr. Guimond said a warrant article had = passes last year to put A/C in the high school. He believed that number should have included the complete high schoo= l, including modular. He said the wor= k was not done and believed the requested amount was the figure they were short by.

Mr. Cate withdrew his proposed $35,000 reduction.

Mr. Carton commented that there was never a plan in last year’s budget to upgra= de the air conditioning in the portables. He said without air conditioning, the portables weren’t somewhere to= be on a hot week.

Mr. Guimond asked why it wasn’t included in the whole warrant article that was passed by the voters last year. Mr. Carton said the design was for the high school’s main facility.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $70,000 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $70,= 000 Repairs from the High School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond v= oted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $14,000 (25% reduction= in Repairs) would vote in the affirmative. <= /span>

MOTION:

To remove $14,= 000 Repairs from the High School budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(6-4-0) The motion carried. The Board voted in the affirmative with the exception= of

Mr. Viger, Mr. Carton, Ms. Hillsgrove and Mr. Hall who voted no.

Mr. Guimond withdrew the proposed reductions of $7,994 for electricity and $6,5= 13 for heat.

Voice vote – those in favor of the new proposed budget of $4,863,878 for the High School would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To approve $4,= 864,878 as the revised High School budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(8-2-0) The motion carried. The Board vo= ted in the affirmative, with the exception of

Mr. Viger and Mr. Guimond who voted no.

School Administrative Unit - $1,24= 3,094 proposed

Mr. Guimond proposed $866,095. Mr. She= rman seconded for discussion.

Reduction of $10,000 – Superintendent-mentor. The Superintendent salary includes a $10,000 mentor program for transitioning i= nto the position.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $10,000 Superintendent salary (for mentor) would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $10,= 000 from the SAU budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(5-5-0) The motion failed. The Board was split. Mr. Cate, Mr. Farris, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Guimond and Mr. Hall voted = in the affirmative. The remainder = of the Board Mr. Viger, Mr. Carton, Mr. Cronin, Ms. Hillsgrove and Mr. Smith vot= ed no.

Reduction of $20,000 Salary-Receptionist. Mr= . Cate felt there already two assistants and they would be the greeter for people entering the offices. Mr. Sherman discussed the importance of having a receptionist in an office. He said if there was one position not to eliminate, it was the receptionist. Mr. Cronin agreed with Mr. Sherman.

Mr. Guimond discussed the salaries of the SAU staff, which he felt had been budgeted too high. He drew compari= sons to similar positions within the State. He would like to reduce the SAU figure to something that was reasonable and ha= ve the school decide how they would spend that money.

Mr. Cate withdrew his proposal to reduce $20,000 from the budget.

Reduction of $179,999 Rent – land & buildings, leaving $1 placeholder. Mr. Hall reduced the line to a $1 place= holder until the school came back with a plan. Mr. Steel had no objection.

Voice vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $179,999 would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $179= ,999 from the SAU budget.

VOICE VOTE:

(9-1-0) The motion carried. The Board voted in the affirmative with the exception= of

Mr. Carton who voted no.

Reduction of $100,000 adjustment to overall SAU budget. Mr. Hall believed the proposed budget request number was a bit high.

Reduction of $167,000 adjustment to overall SAU budget. Mr. Guimond proposed the reduction based on calculations of what they were paying now.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $167,000 would vote in= the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $167= ,000 from the SAU budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(2-8-0) The motion failed. Mr. Cronin an= d Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $100,000 would vote in= the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $100= ,000 from the SAU budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(8-2-0) The motion carried. The Board voted in the affirmative with the exception= of

Mr. Viger and Mr. Carton who voted no.

Roll call vote – those in favor of the new proposed budget of $963,095 for the School Administrative Unit would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To approve $96= 3,095 as the revised School Administrative Unit budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(7-3-0) The motion carried. The Board voted in the affirmative with the exception= of

Mr. Viger, Mr. Carton and Mr. Guimond who voted no.

District Wide - $11,578,957 propos= ed

Mr. Guimond proposed $10,881,769. Mr. = Cronin seconded for discussion.

Mr. Guimond withdrew the proposed $100 reduction for mileage.

Reduction of $160,000 Special Education contingency. Mr. Cate said he proposed the reduction because he felt it would be better as a warrant article. He di= dn’t feel a contingency should be in the operational budget; money can be moved = in other areas. He said a reserve fund should be in a warrant article, which he would fully support. Mr. Sherman suggested leaving a $1 placeholder. Mr. Cate would amend = his proposal to $159,999. Mr. Carton reminded the Board of the presentation Mr. Steel provided that indicated ea= ch year the school was $200,000+ over budget on the line. He said last year they requested approv= al for a (reserve account) warrant article that was turned down. Mr. Carton said the school always had t= o reliable hits; one being Special Education and the other was the State coming up with something they would no longer pay for. <= /span>He said Special Education was an area they needed to protect their finances; t= hey needed something either in the budget, or an approval for a warrant article.

There was a brief discussion how the Board wanted to proceed. Such as to establis= h an account to capture an unassigned fund balance for placement into a Special Education contingency fund; there were certain legalities that would still = have to be followed.

Mr. Guimond didn’t like leaving the $160,000 in the budget given that it could = be used in other parts of the budget.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $160,000 would vote in= the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $160= ,000 from the District Wide budget. <= u>

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond v= oted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $50,232 Salary-ESOL teacher. Ms. Lecaroz explained they previously had a coordinator and two assistants. They eliminated the coordinator and one= of the assistants to create the teacher position. Mr. Guimond removed his proposed reduction.

Reduction of $4,000 for courses and workshops. Mr. Cronin saw that the line item had increase 200% in two years and felt if it were reduced by one third it would still be more than budgeted in the prese= nt year. This was not a contractual i= tem, but required training by the nature of the position.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $4,000 for courses and workshops would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $4,0= 00 from the District Wide budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(5-5-0) The motion failed. The Board was split. Mr. Cronin, Ms. Hillsgrove, Mr. Smith, Mr. Farris and Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative. The remainder of the Board voted no.

Mr. Cate withdrew his proposed reduction of $106,000 for Equipment. Mr. Guimond withdrew his proposed redu= ction of $111,750 (all equipment) given the Board’s decision not to have a techno= logy warrant article. He also withdrew = his proposed reduction of $25,000 for maintenance contracts (fiber).

Reduction of $40,000 for new software – Adobe ($25,000) and Inform ($15,000). Mr. Guimond didn’t feel money should be spent this year on two new products. Mr. Carton understood that the Adobe was an upgrade for software currently being used in creative photo classes. He= said it didn’t do any good for students to use out of date media. Ms. Lecaroz commented that Inform manag= ed all of the assessment data for students and allowed teachers to assess the data= and drive their instruction in the classroom.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $40,000 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $40,= 000 from the District Wide budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond v= oted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $45,000 Salary- Special Education liaison. Mr. Steel explained with the SAU realignment, it was a reduction of = an existing position (coordinator) at the district level to be a liaison. It was a reassignment of an existing position, not a new position. Mr. = Cate and Mr. Guimond withdrew their proposed reduction.

Reduction of $8,000 maintenance salary over time. Mr. Guimond commented that each location had $10,000 for overtime and this line was requesting $18,000 in overtime. He was requesting the reduction to be in line with the other locations. Mr. Steel said the budg= et line also covered the Director of Maintenance and any additional staff that= had to do snow removal. He noted that = last winter was not indicative of a typical winter as there was only one major s= now storm.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $8,000 would vote in t= he affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $8,0= 00 from the District Wide budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(2-8-0) The motion failed. Mr. Farris an= d Mr. Guimond voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $27,106 non-union salary pool. = Mr. Guimond commented that the current salary pool showed a 3% raise for non-un= ion employees whereas the Town non-union employees were receiving a 1.5% increa= se at most, some were not receiving an increase. He said they were all the same community and felt they shouldn’t get= a higher percent than Town employees; therefore he proposed a reduction to the line that would provide a 1.5% increase. Mr. Hall asked when the non-union employees received a raise. Mr. Steel said the line was cut last ye= ar from 3% to 1.5%. On average the employees received a 1.5% increase, but were paid based on their performance.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $27,106 for non-union salary would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $27,= 106 from the District Wide budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(5-5-0) The motion failed. The Board was split. Mr. Smith, Mr. Farris, Mr. Sherman,

Mr. Guimond and Mr. Hall voted in the affirmative. The remainder of the Board voted no.=

Reduction of $35,000 Reading Specialist benefits. Position was previously removed. <= /span>

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $35,000 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $35,= 000 from the District Wide budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(8-2-0) The motion carried. The Board voted in the affirmative with the exception= of

Mr. Viger and Mr. Carton who voted no.

Reduction of $75,000 architect and engineering fees. Mr. Guimond stated hundreds of thousands of dollars had been spent in the past to figure out the school situation. He felt it was time that the taxpayers had a say in whether they wan= ted to keep spending money for architectural fees. Mr. Farris asked if the fees were in connection with the expansion of the elementary school. Mr. Carton believed the elementary school expansion plan was fully defined. He said funds had been spent to explore= the SAU and they would start spending for the potential of doing something in p= lace for the high school. He commented = that some of the advice the school had received went well beyond the contract th= ey had in place with the firms. Mr. S= teel requested, if the Board was to reduce the line, that a $1 placeholder remai= n or the District would be unable to transfer funds into the account. Mr. Farris asked how much had been expe= nded out of the current budget. Mr. Ste= el said they had spent approximately $15,000 to date and had a big meeting the= next day to discuss long-range planning. He said he didn’t know if they would spend all of the $75,000, but believed th= ey would spend most of it.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $75,000 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $75,= 000 from the District Wide budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(1-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond v= oted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted no.

Reduction of $10,000 District Money. Mr. Cate reviewed what had been budgeted and spent in the past couple years. He said it appeared in the last three y= ears to be over $35,000 in surplus money.

Roll call vote – those in favor of reducing the budget by $10,000 would vote in = the affirmative.

MOTION:

To remove $10,= 000 from the District Wide budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(8-2-0) The motion carried. The Board voted in the affirmative with the exception= of

Mr. Viger and Mr. Carton who voted no.

Roll call vote – those in favor of the new proposed budget of $11,553,957 for the District Wide budget would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To approve $11= ,553,957 as the revised District Wide budget.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

(9-1-0) The motion carried. The Board voted in the affirmative with the exception= of

Mr. Guimond who voted no.

Federal Funds - $606,566 proposed =

Voice vote – those in favor of the proposed budget $606,566 would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To approve the proposed Federal Funds budget of $606,566.

VOICE VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

Food Service / Lunch Program – 926= ,504 proposed

Voice vote – those in favor of the proposed budget $926,504 would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To approve the proposed Food Service / Lunch Program budget of $926,504.

VOICE VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

Revised School Budget total - $27,082,410. There was a total reduction of $436,645.

Voice vote – those in favor of the proposed budget $27,082,410 would vote in the affirmative.

MOTION:

To approve the= revised School budget of $27,082,410.

VOICE VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Sherman/Cate)= To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 pm.

= Respectfully submitted,

= Charity A. Landry

= Recording Secretary