APPROVED
TOWN OF PEL= HAM
BUDGET COMM= ITTEE - MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, N= ovember 15, 2012
APPROVED – = January 10, 2013
CALL TO ORDER – approximately 7:30pm
|
PRESENT: |
Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Dan= iel Guimond, Mr. Bob Sherman, Mr. David Cate, Mr. Greg Smith, Ms. Daryle Hillsgrove, Mr. Dave Cronin, Mr. Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Doug Viger, School Board Representative Brian Carton |
|
ABSENT: |
Mr. Greg Farris |
Also Present: School Business Administrator Adam Steel, Pelham Superintendent-Elect Amanda Lecaroz, Father Anthony Kuzia of St. Patrick Ch= urch
=
Boy Scout Troop 610 led the Pledge of Allegiance. The Boy Scouts were in attendance of the meeting to complete some of= the requirements for the Citizen in the Community Merit Badge. Three representatives of the Troop came forward to ask questions and discuss the Budget Committee’s role within the Town.
2013 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE REVIEW=
The warrant article language contained within is for review purposes only.
Article D – St. Patrick’s Child Benef= it Services – to raise and appropriate $32,093 for services defined by RSA 189:49 for approximately 108 Pelham children attending St. Patrick School. =
Mr.
Steel explained that New Hampshire Law allowed for the proposed appropriati=
on
to benefit the children that live in Town and attend St. Patrick School.
Fr. Anthony told the Board he was grateful for the opportunity to come forward. He noted that the money w= ould be used for services directly benefitting students who were residents of Pelham; the primary service was the nurse. He commented there was a good relationship between the School and St. Patrick. A portion of the money would be used toward testing for grades 2-8= to ensure students were keeping in line with students in the community and throughout the State.
Mr. Sherman asked what percentage of the student population were Pelham residents. Fr. Anthony stated their student body was 171 pupils grades kindergarten – 8th; of which = 108 were Pelham residents. Mr. Sherman= asked if the school was requesting funds from the communities in which the other students resided. Fr. Anthony answ= ered no.
Mr. Dunne asked how the requested amount compared to other years. Fr. Anthony said it was slightly higher= than last year to take into account the cost of living. Last year the amount was $31,262.
Mr. Guimond questioned if the nurse’s salary listed ($24,033) was the total fig= ure or a portion. Fr. Anthony said it = was a portion of the salary.
Mr.
Viger wanted to know if it would cost more than the requested amount to have
the 108 St. Patrick School students incorporated into the Pelham School
system. Mr. Steel answered yes.
Mr. Carton believed funding for St. Patrick School had to stay within the school district; they couldn’t request contributions from surrounding communities.
Article A – Kindergarten Addition to = Pelham Elementary School – to raise and appropriate $1,750,000 for the construction and equipping of a new kindergarten addition to Pelham Element= ary School. Of the appropriation up to $1,000,000 is to come from State of New Hampshire Kindergarten building aid= per RSA 198:15R, and up to $500,000 is to come from the June 30 unassigned fund balance available for transfer July 1 of this year with the balance to come from general taxation. This shall = be a non-lapsing appropriation per RSA 32:7, VI and shall not lapse until the construction project is completed or by June 30, 2015, whichever is earlier.
Mr. Steel stated the School Board would be placing a warrant on the ballot for a four-room addition for the back of the east wing of the Pelham Elementary School. This addition will solve a= number of needs for the District and the timely matter of reimbursement available = from the State to the School District for such. This is the District’s last chance to capture the State funding. The Board was given a breakdown of information including an aerial photograph depicting the location of the proposed addition and a plan drawing showing the classroom floor plan and building schematic elevation.
Mr. Steel informed that the School District hired Bonnette, Page & Stone to provide cost estimate services. Th= e hard cost estimate for the project was $1,274,768 (a breakdown was provided to t= he Board). With the District carrying= a 10% owner’s contingency and 25% for soft costs, the estimated total cost of the project is $1,752,115 which was reduced to $1,750,000. He was comfortable with the construction number and expected they would be able to return any savings they may have = to the tax payers the following year. He noted because it was a special warrant article the funds couldn’t be used f= or any other purpose.
Mr. Guimond recalled in the past when the School Board asked the Board to review a new kindergarten building the question was raised why an addition couldn’t be d= one to the elementary school; the Board was told it was not feasible. He asked what had changed. Mr. Steel said the building hadn’t changed. He said at that time they= were proposing a kindergarten / pre-school free-standing building. He said it was not only feasible, but t= he elementary building was designed for that purpose. Mr. Guimond said the article refers to capturing $500,000 of any surplus. He felt having that wording may be misleading to the tax payer if that amount = wasn’t available. Mr. Steel said he would address the wording when the Board discussed the design of the warrant article.
Mr. Cate asked if the modular would immediately be sent back if the building was done. Mr. Steel answered yes. By virtue of adding the addition, and assuming there would be a place for the SAU, the rental fee of approximately $120,000 + (a $500,000 liability)= could be eliminated. Mr. Cate said the p= ayback for the addition would be approximately 5-6 years.
Mr. Smith understood the previous proposal was for a six-room free standing building and the present proposal was a four-room addition. He asked if requirements had changed an= d if the addition would be adequate. Mr. Steel said they felt comfortable that a four-room addition would meet their needs into the foreseeable future. He noted they had a drop in enrollment and didn’t anticipate a big spike anyti= me soon. There school still had the a= bility to have another addition in 5-10 years if needed.
Mr. Dunne wanted to know the classroom sizes within the proposed addition and h= ow many students it would accommodate. Mr. Steel responded that the classrooms would each be 1000SF. They look to have a student-teacher ratio of 15:1 for Kindergarten classroo= ms and a student-teacher ratio of 18:1 / 23:1. Ms. Lecaroz said the kinderg= arten classes run between 15-18 students because they have an instructional assis= tant within the classroom. Mr. Dunne questioned if the projections accounted for the possibility of extra studen= ts coming in from private kindergartens. Mr. Steel said they felt comfortable having three kindergarten classrooms would meet their needs for the foreseeable future. Ms. Lecaroz said the addition would pro= vide four kindergarten classrooms; there were some students that stayed beyond t= he half day program for an extended day service. She said it may also open the opportunity for them to open a full-day component for other students; this would need to go to the School Board for discussion.
Mr. Hall saw that the proposed classroom space within the addition would be 900= SF and questioned if kindergarten would be in other parts of the existing building. Ms. Lecaroz told the Boa= rd that she met with the elementary school Principal and did a map of the classrooms. She said Kindergarten = would primarily stay in the classrooms they were in now; they couldn’t put kindergarten students on the second floor. She said pre-k would probably be located in the two new classrooms on the first floor and have an easily accessible exit door given that their pi= ck up and dismissal is at varied times during the day. Mr. Hall questioned if it would make se= nse to build the classrooms at 1000SF so there was a potential for growth. Ms. Lecaroz said they had four 1000SF classrooms near the front of the building which kept students close to administration and nursing staff. =
Mr. Cate said the Board was sent an e-mail with enrollment projection, which wa= s in turn forwarded to Mr. Steel. He sa= id it appeared the Town would have a declining enrollment population over the next ten years. He questioned if the sc= hool was seeing the decline and wanted to make sure the need for space was justified. Ms. Lecaroz said she had reviewed enrollment over the past four years and found that they were at a = 9% decline. She noted they were trend= ing down, but not at the rate contained in the information sent to the Board bu= t at the same time were trending up in needs. The space will also ensure that the District has space for special n= eeds students (and the PALS Program) thereby reducing costs for sending those students out of District. She said= it was also more appropriate for those students to remain in Pelham with their peers. Mr. Cate confirmed the addi= tion would meet the requirements for accessibility. Ms. Lecaroz answered yes. M= r. Steel discussed how the school conducted their enrollment projections.
Mr. Sherman asked if there would be a fenced in outside play area. Mr. Steel said it wasn’t on the site plan, but they do plan to have a fenced ar= ea adjacent to the doorway.
Mr. Guimond discussed the proposal and said from the outset it was known that 5= 0% of the addition wouldn’t be used for kindergarten. He asked if the State would still reimb= urse the school for the whole cost. Mr.= Steel answered yes. He said they didn’t project having kindergarten in any of the four new classrooms. He said the State was clear that they w= ere okay with space being built that allowed for kindergarten space within the building. Ms. Lecaroz said if they didn’t get the = four rooms, they would probably keep the portables and discuss what would need to move out into that space. Mr. Guim= ond asked if parents would pay for the additional half day of kindergarten if f= ull day was offered. Ms. Lecaroz said = they hadn’t made any proposals to do full day kindergarten. She said if they were to bring a propos= al forward she would look for a cost for the other half of the day. Currently there were some students that= were full day as a result from their IEP’s.
Ms.
Hillsgrove said there had been a lot of discussion regarding State aid and =
asked
that clarification be provided regarding that aid. Mr. Steel discussed the structure of the
warrant article, which is one of the more complicated ones the voter will
see. He broke down the wording of =
the
article and how the State funding and reimbursement would be distributed.
Mr.
Steel said the next source of funding for the project was the unassigned fu=
nd
balance. They’ve assigned $500,000=
as
the potential unassigned fund balance figure; they didn’t expect a $500,000
surplus in the current operational budget.
He said it could be that they get a windfall from Federal funds or t=
here
was some other unknown revenue source that provided unanticipated revenue t=
his
year that would then go directly to the unassigned fund balance. He summarized the unassigned fund balan=
ces
the school had during the last few years.
Mr. Steel said whatever was left over would come from general
taxation. He said the minimum that=
could
be raised through taxation was $250,000; however, a more likely projection =
was
they would raise approximately $700,000 in taxes to pay for the project.
Mr.
Hall asked how many school districts would be seeking kindergarten money.
Mr. Guimond asked if the proposed figure was a guaranteed not to exceed number. Mr. Steel replied not at t= his time, it was a budgetary estimate. Mr. Guimond suggested that the voter’s guide have a detailed explanation. Mr. Steel intended to be detailed.
Mr.
Smith suggested striking the language that references ‘ up to $500,000 comi=
ng
from the June 30 unassigned fund balance available for transfer’ and instead
have the article read up to $1,000,000 would be from State funding and the
balance would be from taxation and have the surplus returned as expected. Mr.
Hall said at some point the school would need to show the removal of the
modular rental to offset the amount. He
asked how the agreement was structured.
Mr. Steel said at this point they were renting a year at a time. He said if the article passed in March,=
they
would attempt to go on a monthly basis for the following year. The company ‘held the cards’ at this po=
int in
time because they could stipulate that the school take the modular beginnin=
g July
1st or have them extend the rental for an entire year. He said there was no way to compel the
company to change their mind; it was their building on the school’s property
making it a difficult negotiation stance for the school. Mr.
Steel reviewed the proposed timeline for the project should it be approved =
by
the voters in March, 2013. He said=
it
was possible, if construction went per this timeline, to have the modular
returned by November, but there was no guarantee. Mr. Guimond questioned how construction=
would
impact students. Mr. Steel replied=
the
safety of the children would be the primary concern throughout the construc=
tion
process. He said additions were pu=
t onto
schools while school was in session all the time. Mr.
Smith was uneasy with the article wording that pertained to the unassigned =
fund
balance amount of $500,000. Mr. St=
eel
said the School Board could discuss the language at their next meeting. Article B – Architecture & Engine=
ering
Fees for Pelham High School Renovation – to raise and appropriate $700,=
000
for architecture and engineering fees to prepare drawings and to develop an
initial guaranteed maximum price contract for a long term facilities soluti=
on
involving Pelham Memorial School and Pelham High School. Mr.
Steel said the School Board was working on the long-range facilities issues=
in
the School District, namely the permanent location for the Pelham High Scho=
ol
students. He said there had been
different initiatives over the past few years, some of which had been voted=
on
by the voters. They were attemptin=
g to
find a more economical solution that involved the current school
infrastructure. Mr. Steel said the
School Board and administration had a meeting with a number of professional=
s in
the design and construction business to talk about the options. He said they didn’t want to have any mo=
re
studies, engineering or major funds being spent to develop a new plan. They wanted to come up with a solution.=
The ground rules were set to determine =
if it
was possible to switch the Memorial School and High School student bodies; =
do
work to Memorial School to make it a high school and do minimum work to the
middle school to make it a high school. <=
/span>It
was determined by everyone present that it wouldn’t be an appropriate solut=
ion because
of cost, feasibility and construct=
ion
process. Present at the meeting wa=
s Mr.
Steel, Ms. Lecaroz, Mr. Carton, an architect, a site and civil engineer, st=
ructural
engineer and Trident (owner’s project manager).
The outcome of the meeting was the belief that an addition could be =
put
onto the high school that would solve the space needs in the facility for w=
ell
into the foreseeable future (20yr minimum target). Mr. Steel said the School Board wasn’t
anticipating a major bond item on this year’s ballot. Instead they would like a two phased ap=
proval
process for the voters; phase I would be to authorize engineering and
architecture fees to start the design and engineering so in the following y=
ear
(March, 2014) phase II would be to have the voters vote on a fully designed
project that had a guaranteed maximum price associated with it. Mr. Steel said the State’s building pro=
gram
had been significantly revamped and they didn’t have great hope of receiving
any funding from the State. Howeve=
r, if
they were to have any chance of receiving funding from the State, they would
need to go through the two-pronged approach to the approval process. Mr.
Steel described the proposal, which would be to put an addition onto the fr=
ont
of the high school and have the main entrance moved to the left of the exis=
ting
building. The field on the right s=
ide of
the building would become additional parking and the land across the street
from the high school would be converted into field space. He reviewed the possible time line for=
the
proposed project which would be completed for students to occupy the new
portion of the building by fall, 2015. The
addition would be for 24,000-32,000 gross square feet of education space. Mr.
Guimond questioned what the plan was for students during the construction
phase. Mr. Steel said the advantag=
e of
having the new section at the front of the building was it technically bein=
g a
separate building from the high school and constructed without disrupting t=
he
rest of the building. Mr.
Cate asked if the modular would be gone.
Mr. Steel answered yes; their plan was to get rid of the classrooms =
out
back. Mr. Cate questioned if the
proposed renovation would fix the accreditation problems. Mr. Carton said the first criteria (of =
the
project) was for it to fix 100% of the problems. He emphasized that the principal organi=
zation
at the recent meeting was Trident Advisory Group who functioned as the owne=
r’s
project manager. They are the same
people working the fire station project for the Town and advise pulling des=
ign
cost out up front and by doing so a plan can get more specificity on what w=
ould
have to happen to bring a project to reality.
The advantage was to have a clear number for a project, but the
challenge was spending more on the design up front. Mr.
Sherman commented that the removal of the portables would gain space in the
rear of the building. He wanted to=
know
if the proposal took into account the cost of moving the field across the
street. Mr. Steel answered yes. Mr. Dunne
asked what the backup plan was should the warrant article fail. Mr.
Steel said it would effectively stop the project in its tracks because the =
no
means no law would be in effect. T=
he
School Board would not be allowed to spend architectural fees to develop a =
high
school plan. Mr. Cate asked if the=
re was
a comparison number that could be used to show voters the cost of the propo=
sal
versus the cost for improvements to fix the accreditation issues. Mr. Steel understood with all the issues
surrounding accreditation that there was no incremental step to solve all of
their accreditation needs short of a major facilities project. It was believed that the proposed proje=
ct or
a brand new facility was the corrective actions needed in connection with
accreditation. Mr. Cate asked what
impact the students would have if accreditation was lost. Ms. Lecaroz
said there were a variety of impacts, but primarily it would be when
students applied to colleges because colleges looked to see if schools were
accredited. There
was a brief discussion regarding the building and how it related to the
building code. Mr. Steel said the
existing building was structurally built inexpensively. He said they had to be very carefully w=
hat
they did structurally within the building and were very limited with what t=
hey
could do. Once they made any signi=
ficant
change to the structure of the building they would have to bring it up to t=
otal
compliance with existing structural requirements including seismic bracing =
and
snow loading. The structural engi=
neer
was emphatic that couldn’t do anything to the four exterior walls and many =
of
the interior designs of the building without having to do significant and c=
ost
prohibitive renovations to the structure of the building. They could make minor changes, but coul=
d not
do major changes. Mr.
Smith said now that he understood what the school was seeking to do it made
sense to spend the $700,000 up front for the design. He said in some ways it might make the
article harder to pass, but it also would overcome one of the objections for
how much the project would actually cost.
He questioned if they had any idea of what the total project would
cost. Mr. Steel replied they were =
in the
process of working it out now. The
School Board has authorized the expense of some funds for an architect to m=
ake
a basic conceptual so the construction management firm can make a first pas=
s at
a budget number for the project. H=
e said
the timeline was to have the number for reconsideration. Mr.
Sherman felt the Town and School should look at the impact of what they were
asking the Board to present to the voters.
He noted the SAU office renovation was still to be brought forward.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He questioned if it would be better to =
have a
short term bond issue where the tax impact may not be as great. Mr. Viger said the Town and the school =
work
together, but come up with their own plan on how their infrastructure would=
be
laid out. He stated the first port=
ion of
the tax bill that represented the $1 on the tax rate for the fire station w=
ould
be coming off next year. Ms.
Hillsgrove understood the need of the proposal, but was concerned with how =
the
school got to the $700,000 number. She
suggested having back up showing how they arrived at the figure when the
article went in front of the voters. Mr.
Steel replied typical architecture and engineering fees were approximately =
7%
of a project. The project would be=
well
north of $10,000,000. He said usin=
g 7%
as a reference they were well below the total of what architectural and
engineering fees would be for the project they were looking at. Mr. Steel noted that the only caveat ab=
out a
guaranteed maximum price contract was that it was not guaranteed. He said it locked the contractor into a=
price
given all the conditions they should have foreseeably discovered during the
discovery /design phase. If someth=
ing
was found that no one could have reasonably foreseen during the constructio=
n of
the project, the District would still be responsible for those unknown
costs. He said they chose a number=
they
felt was less than the full amount for whatever the architecture and
engineering costs for the project would be, but would get them far enough a=
long
that they could be reasonably confident in the number they would bring forw=
ard
in the following year. Mr.
Steel discussed the purpose of using the approach they brought forward and =
how
it matched what the State was requiring.
He reiterated that they would have a number by reconsideration. Mr.
Cate questioned if the proposal would have an effect on the HVAC and sprink=
ler
system that passed at the last Town Meeting.
He also wanted to know how the operational budget would be affected
regarding the air conditioning for the modular.
Mr. Steel replied if the article moved forward the air conditioner f=
or
the modular wouldn’t happen. In te=
rms of
the high school projects already passed for the HVAC and sprinkler system, =
they
will be wrapped into the proposed project in terms of the design phase. It was noted that those articles were
two-year articles which provided some flexibility. Also, if the proposal passed, the Capit=
al
Improvement Plan (‘CIP’) included =
many
projects that would no longer need to be completed because they would be
wrapped into the larger project. <=
/p>
Mr.
Cronin asked what problem there would be by deferring the article for a
year. Mr. Steel said the only issu=
e with
a delay would be delaying the project a year.
He said they characterized their needs as significant and effecting =
the
education of their students in a negative manner; every year they delay is =
another
year they exist in a less than optimal fashion.
Mr. Cronin asked for a ball park percentage increase if they waited a
year. Mr. Steel sure about an incr=
ease
in architectural fees, but noted construction costs increased approximately
2.5% . Mr.
Carton totaled the items contained in the CIP for the high school (which we=
re
rough estimates) which came to approximately $2.3-$2.5 million dollars for
repairs within the next three years. He
had a concern with delaying the project because they received their initial
NEASC warning letter in November, 2008 that placed the school on a five year
time line with a warning; if the issues aren’t addressed they risk being pu=
t on
probation. The most recent letter
received from NEASC in August contained many bullet items still needing
resolve. The urgency was driving t=
he
warrant articles. Article C – Maintenance Capital Reser=
ve
Fund – to raise and appropriate up to $50,000 to be added to the previo=
usly
established (1999-2000) School District Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund, w=
hich
would be funded from the June 30, 2013 unassigned fund balance available for
transfer July 1, 2013. Mr.
Steel told the Board that it was the same article that had been on the ball=
ot
for at least the past five years. =
He
said he did a survey of districts in New Hampshire asking how much money th=
ey
had in capital reserve funds or expendable trust funds for facilities and
grounds maintenance. He said the a=
verage
for those districts who responded was $1.21% of their operating budgets, wh=
ich
for Pelham translates to approximately $325,000. He suggested they continue contributing
toward the article until they hit the goal.
Mr.
Guimond questioned if the $50,000 would be taken out after the amount was t=
aken
out for the kindergarten plan. Mr.=
Steel
said how the funds were allocated depended on the order of the articles on =
the
ballot. There was a chance if this
article is place after the kindergarten article that there would be no fund=
ing
for it. The order of the articles =
has
not yet been set by the School Board.
ADJOURNMENT
|
MOTION: |
(Guimond/Sherm=
an)To
adjourn the meeting. |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:05 pm.
= Respectfully submitted,
= Charity A. Landry
= Recording Secretary
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING/Thursday, November 15, 2012