NOT APPROVED
TOWN OF PEL= HAM
BUDGET COMM= ITTEE - MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, J= anuary 10, 2013
CALL TO ORDER – approximately 7:30pm
|
PRESENT: |
Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Dan= iel Guimond, Mr. Greg Farris, Mr. David Cate, Mr. Greg Smith, Ms. Daryle Hillsgrove, Mr. Dave Cronin, Mr. Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Edmu= nd Gleason, School Board Representative Megan Larson |
|
ABSENT: |
Mr. Bob Sherman |
Also Present: School Business Administrator Adam Steel, Assist= ant Superintendent Amanda Lecaroz, Town Administrator Tom Gaydos
=
The
Budget Committee observed a moment of silence for the passing of Mr. Dennis
Viger.
MINUTES REVIEW
November 5, 2012, November 8, 2012,
November 15, 2012, November 19, 2012
|
MOTION: |
(Guimond/Cate)=
To
approve the meeting minutes of November 5, 2012, November 8, 2012, Novemb=
er
15, 2012 and November 19, 2012 as written. |
|
VOTE: |
(8-0-1)
The motion carried. Mr. Gleason =
and
Ms. Larson abstained. |
2013
BUDGET RECONSIDERATION
TOWN BUDGET:
|
MOTION: |
(Guimond/Cate)=
To open public
hearing for the Town Budget. =
|
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Gaydos came forward to discuss the Town budget. He provided the Board with information regarding the budgets for Leg= al, Insurance and Town Buildings. Begi= nning with Insurance, he explained they previously didn’t have the rates for pers= onal health insurance, but they were now received. In using the current enrollment numbers, the increase will be $271,166. He explained that the Lo= cal Government Center was found on the losing end of a law suit in December, 20= 12; it was determined they would return excess contributions from health insura= nce to the users. Any monies received will be applied against the insurance bud= get.
Mr. Gaydos discussed the Legal budget that had a requested increase of $25,000. He said the Town had a nu= mber of law suits they felt were unfounded, however they still had to be defended and were not covered by the insurance company. He summarized some of the legal issues that were in the process. Mr. Gaydos said recently the Legal budg= et was at $80,000 plus $5000 for the Pennichuck issue to support Nashua as part of= the Merrimack Valley Water District. W= hen that district stopped operating the $5000 was removed. The Town has operated under the $85,000= for a number of years, it was only this year with the law suits that the budget h= ad gone over. He expected the budget = to go back to a lower amount in future years when issues were resolved.
The requested increase for Town Buildings was due to the heat line item. Mr. Gaydos said the heat and electricity lines were fixed with the Nashua Regional Planning Commission ‘NRPC’), howe= ver, the propane contract ends in the spring. He was requesting an additional $1680 in anticipation of the fall propane usage. He said if they wer= e able to team up with the school they may be able to keep the current pricing or below. The requested amount was a contingency; if it isn’t spent it will be returned to the taxpayer.
Mr. Guimond questioned if the oil and gas amounts were adequate. Mr. Gaydos believes they have confidenc= e from the oil and gas distributors that the budget amounts will be fine.
Mr. Farris asked for the percentage increase in insurance from last year. Mr. Guimond said health had= a 17% increase. Based on the new contrac= tual agreements in the past couple years and the employee concessions, Mr. Farris asked if the Town was heading in the right direction for savings. Mr. Gaydos answered yes; there were incentives for employees for what they pay toward insurance. He said the employees went with the inc= entive to the less expensive coverage.
|
MOTION: |
(Farris/Cate) =
To
reconsider the Insurance line item. |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
|
ROLL CALL: |
To change the =
Insurance
line to $2,108,261 (an increase of $271,166). |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
|
MOTION: |
(Cronin/Cate) =
To
reconsider the Legal line item. =
|
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Smith asked for further clarification of how funds were used in the Legal budget. Mr. Gaydos discussed the issues currently be handl= ed with the Legal budget. Mr. Dunne a= sked if the requested increase was mostly due to the fire station issue with the builders. Mr. Gaydos said it was a combination of three issues. Mr. D= unne asked if next year’s budget would be less.= Mr. Gaydos hoped it would be, but had no guarantee.
|
ROLL CALL: |
To change the =
Legal
line to $110,000 (an increase of $25,000). |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
|
MOTION: |
(Dunne/Cate) To
reconsider the Town Buildings line item. |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Farris asked if there was any projected savings in gasoline to offset the increase. Mr. Gaydos said he look= ed at the lines separately because the amount of fuel used was dependent on many unforeseen things. He preferred no= t to rely on one area to do another. He= said he already absorbed the extra amounts in the propane budget because of the larger fire station. He said the = only request was for the potential extra cost for the fall season.
Mr. Guimond felt they should be able to find the additional $1700 in the budget= as it was. He wouldn’t be voting in f= avor of the increase because he didn’t feel it made sense.
Mr. Dunne questioned if the increase was due to the new fire station. Mr. Gaydos answered no; he had already absorbed the difference. He said t= he increase was due to the unknown propane cost for the fall season.
|
VOICE VOTE: |
To change the =
Town
Buildings line to $94,680 (an increase of $1680). |
|
VOTE: |
(7-3-0)
The motion carried. Mr. Farris, =
Mr.
Guimond and Mr. Dunne voted no.<=
u> |
The Board then reviewed the proposed warrant article for the School Administrat= ive Unit (‘SAU’) as follows:
Shall the Town of Pelham rais=
e and
appropriate the sun of $895,000 (gross budget) for the renovation of six
classrooms located at the Municipal Complex into office space suitable for =
use
by the Pelham School Administrative Unit (SAU) and to authorize the issuanc=
e of
not more than $895,000 in bonds or notes in accordance with the provisions =
of
the Municipal Finance Act (RSA 33) and to authorize the Selectmen to issue =
and
negotiate the terms of such bonds or notes and determine the interest rate
thereon and furthermore to raise and appropriate the sum of $99,700 for the
first year’s payment? Costs of thi=
s bond
will be completely offset by rent received from the School Administrative U=
nit
(SAU).
Mr. Gaydos said the discussion had started a few months ago; initially he was skeptical. In viewing the Town and School working together he saw certain advantages of having them next door = to each other. He discussed the other alternatives that were reviewed. He introduced Mr. Gino Baroni of Trident Corp. who worked with the Town on the fire station and who had worked with the Windham schools. He said Trident was asked to get involv= ed with the SAU project to make sure that the numbers were real.
Mr. Baroni explained that the SAU had conducted a study on several options for facilities; a detailed report was done. He said the option of repurposing the unused portion of the Town Hall was discussed and reviewed; Trident was brought in to analyze the options to ensure everything reviewed. Mr. Ba= roni said they strongly recommended if the Town was going to spend money, they should spend it in their own facility and increase the asset base. This would provide the Town with a long-term benefit.
Mr. Cate questioned the type of lease arrangement that would be set up. Mr. Gaydos said the concept was to focu= s on getting the research done. He note= d that the lease could run twenty years but the (bond) cost to repurpose the space would be paid for in five years. A= fter the five years there would be common area charges for cleaning, heating, electricity etc. that would be determined (possibly $1500/mo.). It wasn’t the Town’s intention to make = money; the cost was coming from the tax payers.
Mr. Farris understood it would possibly be a five year bond and questioned why = they wouldn’t just have a one-time increase to pay for it. Mr. Gaydos said the Town used a lot of = its surplus to make the fire station a one-year increase. He said the Selectmen discussed at leng= th that promises were made to people. Mr. Gleason said a five year bond would add $.15 on the tax rate the first year= and going down to $.13 in the fifth year. A one-year warrant article would put approximately $.61 on the tax rate. He reiterated that promises were made t= o the people that the Town wouldn’t use the money (from the fire station increase) and it would be given back. He fel= t the prudent thing to do was to go with the five year bond ($.15 impact) and have the long-term improvement.
Mr.
Dunne asked if the three school belonged to the Town or School District.
Mr. Guimond saw that the potential lease listed proposed space at 5500SF, howev= er the layout provided to the Board of the classroom space totaled approximate= ly 3600SF. He asked if that would be = enough room to cover the potential expansion of the SAU. Mr. Baroni said the classroom space tot= aled approximately 5000SF. Mr. Guimond wanted to know if the propo= sed classroom space would be adequate for the SAU for the next +/- 20 years. Ms. Lecaroz answered yes. M= r. Guimond questioned if it would be less expensive to build a facility on the land across from the high school. = Mr. Baroni said that was included in the first four-five options reviewed with prices running between two and three million dollars.
Mr. Smith asked if the $895,000 number included furnishings. Mr. Baroni said the number included furniture, fixtures and equipment (‘FFE costs’).
Ms. Larson commented that the land across from the high school could potentiall= y be used in an addition/renovation project. The School Board wasn’t prepared at this point to take that land ‘off the table’ for such use.
Mr. Smith asked what would happen if the elementary school expansion took place= and the portables became available. He wanted to know if the portables could be used for offices. Ms. Lecaroz said that option was considered. She said there would n= eed to be significant renovation with that option as well due to the need for confidential office space. Ms. Lar= son noted the cost to purchase the portables was approximately $500,000. She said they were already four years o= ld and would be a permanent solution.
|
ROLL CALL: |
To recommend t=
he
warrant article for the School Administrative Unit (raise $895,000 to
renovate six classrooms located at the Municipal Complex for use as office
space)(see discussion above for warrant article wording) |
|
VOTE: |
(9-1-0)
The motion carried. Mr. Hall vot=
ed no.
|
The new 2013 Town Budget number would be $13,093,476.
|
MOTION: |
(Cronin/Cate) =
To close
the public hearing for the Town budget. |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL BUDGET:
|
MOTION: |
(Dunne/Cate) T=
o open
the public hearing for the School budget. |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Steel began by discussing the deficiency of the Pelham Elementary School sprinkler system. He outlined the problems that had been occurring and the plans to address them. He commented that the system was instal= led properly per NFPA 13 Sprinkler Code at the time of construction; however, it was not a good design. The system = needed replacement because it was starting to fail; there were over a dozen instan= ces of leaking and water damage. They = were hoping to get in front of a possible catastrophic failure.
|
MOTION: |
(Dunne/Cate) To
reconsider the Pelham Elementary sprinkler system renovations. |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Cronin asked if all recourse abilities had been exercised from the people w= ho installed the system. Mr. Steel sa= id they had. He said his first conver= sation was with an attorney to find out if something could be done. The answer he received was yes there ma= y be some cause of action if a fire protection engineer could show that the syst= em was not installed according to code or wasn’t installed according to the pl= ans; however, that was not the case. Mr. Steel told the Board that a fire protection engineer had conducted a review= and indicated that it was a crazy design, but it met the code.
Mr. Dunne asked if the proposed number was an estimate. Mr. Steel replied they had hired an engineering firm to go through a design specification for replacing the sys= tem that could now be put out for hard bids. The engineering company came with a cost of $316,880; the School recommended that amount be added to the budget. A copy of the work done by the engineering company was provided to t= he Board; once the bids were put out they would have an actual number to prese= nt during the Deliberative Session. M= r. Steel didn’t expect the number to increase. He noted if the elementary school addition passed, the construction = firm would coordinate to ensure the construction was done properly. Mr. Dunne questioned who would be respo= nsible to sign off on the proposed project so the same issue didn’t arise in the future. Mr. Steel stated the Fire= Department was the authority with jurisdiction. He said the State Fire Marshall also reviewed all school construction. He noted their job was to ensure the sy= stem conformed to code. He said the des= ign they were bringing forward had a different type of pipe and would be instal= led in a different manner to ensure a similar situation didn’t occur again.
Mr. Guimond questioned why something of this magnitude wouldn’t be put into a warrant article, which would force the school to spend the money on the specific project, versus having the money in the operating budget. Mr. Steel said it was a life safety iss= ue that needed to be done and if the voters voted it down it would fall under = the no means no law. He said this was= much like the money for sprinklers placed in the Memorial School budget (a couple years ago) due to bein= g a life safety issue.
Mr. Cate asked if Mr. Baroni (of Trident Corporation) would be included in the decision with the sprinklers. Mr. = Steel said Mr. Baroni was working on behalf of the School to put the bids out so = they would be received in time for Deliberative Session.
Mr.
Smith understood why the School wanted the money in the budget. But it was also his understanding if mo=
ney
was placed into the budget it would permanently remain as the new baseline =
for
the following year. Mr. Steel said=
they
clearly saw the money as a one-time expense; next year’s default budget
wouldn’t include the money. He
reiterated it was a one-time expense. He
noted everything in the School District budget, with very few exceptions, c=
ould
be reassigned by the School Board and spent for other purposes using their =
line
item transfer authority by law. He=
didn’t
feel anyone had the intention to do so in this scenario. The School would have the project done =
and if
it came in under budget, those funds would be returned to the tax payers.
Mr. Cronin asked the timeframe for the project and where the students would be during that time. Mr. Steel replie= d they planned on doing the project during the summer. Their intention was to coordinate the work with the four-room additi= on off the back of the school.
Mr. Farris noted that the money could become part of the default budget. Mr. Steel agreed that the School Board = had the authority to determine the default budget.
|
ROLL CALL: |
To add $316,88=
0 to the
account 100.4600.00.450.199.000000.5 for Pelham Elementary School Sprinkl=
er
System renovations. |
|
VOTE: |
(8-2-0)
The motion carried. Mr. Farris a=
nd Mr.
Guimond voted no. |
Mr. Steel discussed the Pelham High School stipend amounts; they are bringing forward an amended amount (less the Athletic Director stipend) per the teacher’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. The total of $148,707 will be increased by $14,794 making the line n= ow total $163,501.
|
MOTION: |
(Cronin/Larson=
) To
reconsider the Pelham High School stipends.
|
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
There was a brief discussion regarding why the line was reduced; Ms. Larson belie= ved there had been a question regarding a contract that Mr. Steel was going to = go back and review. The Budget Commit= tee had reduced the budget pending the question why the amount was needed. Mr. Steel had now provided a breakdown = of the line including the correct total. =
|
VOICE VOTE: |
To add $14,794=
to
account 100.1410.00.112.133.0000005 (Pelham High School stipend) |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Steel reviewed the information regarding the School Administrative Unit (‘S= AU’) rent. He believed Mr. Gaydos expla= ined the process involved; the School District would need to pay rent to the Town (including the common area charges) in the amount of $217,400 each year for five years, after which the cost to the School District will drop to $18,000 per year for common area maintenance. The School Board has proposed a backup plan should the warrant artic= le on the Town side not pass. In that= case the SAU will rent commercial office space for $88,000 per year.
|
MOTION: |
(Cate/Larson )=
To
reconsider the School Administrative Unit rent line. |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Guimond said the Budget Committee had already approved the Town warrant article, and if they approved this request, the School Board would have an additional $217,000 they could spend in their budget. Mr. Steel explained on the Town side, t= hey would raise half the amount (in the first year) $95,000 and have revenue of $95,000. The School district has t= o pay that rent from the School District to the Town and would need to appropriate the money to do so. He said while the voters would be approving the appropr= iation and the bond, technically there would be no effect on the tax payers from t= he Town side because the funds would come from the School side. The proposed request is the appropriati= on that would make that happen.
Mr. Dunne questioned how the maintenance cost of $18,000 was configured. Mr. Steel said the cost would include t= he cleaning and all the utilities for the area. Mr. Dunne wanted to know what would happen if the Board voted against the proposed rent line increase. M= r. Steel guessed that the Selectmen would take the warrant article off of the ballot. Mr. Gleason said if the wa= rrant passed for the renovation, the Town was expecting the School to pay the mon= ey for the bond in the operation budget. If the warrant failed, having funds in the budget will give the School the abi= lity to rent commercial space for the SAU.
It was explained that the Board was being asked to approve $217,400 added to t= he line item. If the warrant article = fails, the School will pay $88,000 (in rent for alternate space) and have money le= ft over. It will then be their respon= sibility to return the remaining amount.
|
ROLL CALL: |
To add $217,40=
0 to the
School Administrative Unit operating budget for rent. |
|
VOTE: |
(9-1-0)
The motion carried. Mr. Guimond voted no. |
Mr. Steel then addressed the SAU budget which had been reduced by the Budget Committee (during budget review) in the amount of $100,000. Initially the School was seeking to res= tore $68,030, but that number was reduced to $55,030 because they wouldn’t need = to pay for heating oil or electricity given their new SAU primary plan (in the Town Hall) and backup plan to rent an outside commercial facility.
Mr. Farris asked what new information was determined. Ms. Lecaroz said they were able to be m= ore specific regarding personnel and adjust a number of the salaries and health care contributions to save money. = She said they were asking the Budget Committee to reconsider $55,030 to keep the part time receptionist and full time payroll clerk. She said there had been a lot of discus= sion about the importance of the receptionist position as well as the importance= of having a full time, versus part time payroll clerk.
|
MOTION: |
(Gleason/Larso=
n) To
reconsider the School Administrative Unit budget. |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Smith asked how many employees the payroll clerk supported. Mr. Steel replied roughly two hundred. =
|
ROLL CALL: |
To restore $55=
,030 to
the School Administrative Unit budget.
. |
|
VOTE: |
(2-8-0)
The motion failed. Mr. Gleason =
and
Ms. Larson voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board voted
no. |
Mr. Steel stated that the Budget Committee had made a reduction to the Reading Specialist position during budget review. The School is asking for that position to be reinstated based on the clear and present need for such. M= s. Lecaroz discussed the position noting it was key especially at the elementa= ry school to provide reading intervention for students not meeting grade level expectations. They felt without the position they couldn’t provide the kind of educational programming needed f= or the students.
|
MOTION: |
(Dunne/Larson)=
To
reconsider $76,860 for a Reading Specialist.
|
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Guimond said at the time the position was brought up a lot of discussion incurred. He said a couple years a= go the Board was lead to believe that the second Assistant Principal (at the Elementary School) could double-duty in that position given they were previously a reading specialist. He didn’t feel circumstance had changed since that discussion.
Mr. Cronin believed the figure the Board reduced was $41,860 for the position, = not the $76,860 being requested. Mr. S= teel said there had been a subsequent reduction of $35,000 for benefits.
Mr.
Dunne asked how many reading specialists the school had and wanted to know =
the
significance of the requested position.
Ms. Lecaroz said currently one of the Assistant Principals also serv=
ed
as the reading specialist and provided oversight to the reading program.
Mr. Farris believed the arguments being heard were the same as during the initi= al discussion; there was no new information being presented.
Ms. Larson made a point of discussing the importance of the RTI program, and how the current reading specialist was heading the initiative. The program was extremely important to children who needed extra help in order to prevent them from entering into = the special education program.
|
ROLL CALL: |
To restore $76=
,860
into the operating budget for a Reading Specialist. |
|
VOTE: |
(3-7-0)
The motion failed. Mr. Gleason,=
Ms.
Larson and Mr. Dunne voted in the affirmative; the remainder of the Board
voted no. |
Mr. Steel turned the Board’s attention to warrant articles that were new or different since they had met with the Board last. He said the School Board was proud to announce they had reached a tentative agreement with both the Teacher’s Uni= on and the Instructional Assistant Collective Bargaining Unit. Both will be represented in contracts t= his year. He provided the highlights o= f the teacher’s contract; redlined version was provided to the Board for review.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
Mr. Farris asked for the percentage increase in the steps. Mr. Steel believed they were all approximately $1000; it wasn’t a percentage. Mr. Farris asked if everyone was on a health plan. Mr. Steel answered no. He said it was based on the Blue Choice= Plan (the middle plan); the percentage of the School contribution was based on t= hat rate. Mr. Farris questioned what percentage of people were on the lowest plan and at what percent they contributed. Mr. Steel believed it= was less than 15%. Mr. Farris was tryi= ng to determine the savings on the health side versus the increases on the salary side. Mr. Steel said the savings in health insurance was approximately $50,000 a year.
Mr. Cronin asked if COLA was taken out of the contract. Mr. Steel said there was no COLA. Mr. Cronin understood there were teache= rs ‘off track’ and questioned how that was accounted for in the new contract.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Steel said if a teacher was off tra= ck the step raise didn’t apply to them, they would receive a percent increase.
Ms. Hillsgrove discussed the increases provided in the contact, which she felt = were significant in comparison to what the market was bearing. She said people this year would receive= a raise of approximately 2.9%-3%, which were considered good. She felt the guaranteed increases in the teacher contract would put a lot of burden out to the taxpayers who weren’t receiving that money in their own income. Mr. Steel said teacher pay was a very competitive market. He said Pelham had to see how it compar= ed to surrounding Towns and how it affected the type of teachers being attracted = and how they could be kept. Ms. Hillsg= rove understood the competitive job market, but felt the percentages the Town residents would be asked to pay (and absorb into their budgets) was too hig= h of a request.
Mr. Smith questioned what would happen if the contract was turned down. Mr. Steel said the teacher contract wou= ld go into a status quo period; the old contract would remain in full force and effect but there would be no salary adjustments beyond those considered to = be a contractual agreement.
Mr. .Hall asked for the difference in rates between the health insurance family plans. Mr. Steel reviewed the heal= thcare costs. School Board member Rob Har= dy came forward. He was part of the contract negotiations and discussed how the salaries and percentages were structured to not compound the impact in the first year. He noted that they were consciously try= ing to boost the base salary of the midyear teachers to keep them in Town. He said there was a savings to the taxp= ayer by having a zero percent raise in the first year because it would have compacted and carried through to later years. Ms. Hillsgrove reiterated her concerns for the percentage increase, because even with no increase in year one, the mid-years still showed an av= erage increase of 3.7% which was higher than taxpayers may be able to absorb. Mr. Hardy said keeping teachers that ga= ined experience was beneficial to the students and the primary goal. There was a brief discussion regarding = the proposed article.
|
MOTION: |
To recommend t=
he
warrant article for the Teacher Contract.
|
|
VOTE: |
(6-4-0)
The motion carried. Mr. Gleason,=
Ms.
Larson, Mr. Dunne, Mr. Cate, Mr. Guimond, Mr. Hall voted yes. Mr., Cronin, Ms. Hillsgrove, Mr. Smit=
h and
Mr. Farris voted no. |
Mr. Steel addressed the article for the Instructional Teacher Contract (PESPA). He reviewed the cost items. There was a discussion rega= rding who was covered by the agreement and how those people were classified. Mr. Steel provided a summary of the ste= p increases during the three years, which he noted was affected by where employees fell within those steps.
Mr. Cronin reviewed the memorandum for health insurance (last page of the agreement) and questioned why there were people named. Mr. Steel said the people named were grandfathered with health insurance.
Mr. Cate and Mr. Guimond abstained from voting because their spouses were instructional assistants.
|
ROLL CALL: |
To recommend t=
he
warrant article for the Instructional Assistant Contract. |
|
VOTE: |
(8-0-2)
The motion carried. Mr. Guimond =
and
Mr. Cate abstained; the remainder of the Board voted in the affirmative.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> |
Mr. Steel informed the Board that the School Board decided to remove the warrant article seeking funds for architectural engineering fees for the renovation= of the high school. He said they plan= ned to bring a full project to the voters in 2014.
Mr. Guimond understood that one of the reasons the article was being requested = was because the school had to provide a full (encapsulated) plan to the state in order to get any potential reimbursement. He questioned how it would change if they didn’t have that plan. Mr. Steel said that would be a topic for discussion during the next twelve months. He said there was a new process for school building aid. At present there was hardly any money available for building aid projects, and there wouldn’t be for some time; m= ost of the money budgeted was going toward projects already approved in the pas= t.
Mr. Steel then addressed the Kindergarten Warrant Article Revision. He said the article had been adjusted b= ased on recommendations received to remove the appropriation that came partly fr= om the unreserved fund balance.
Mr. Hall read aloud the proposed warrant article as revised. Mr. Gleason saw the words indicated sta= te aid ‘up to’ one million dollars. He questioned if there was any indication what amount would be available. Mr. Steel said they wouldn’t know what = the state’s budget would be until July 1st (after the current buildi= ng aid lapses and isn’t available). H= e said they also wouldn’t know how much the project would cost because it wasn’t built; they would be reimbursed for invoices that were paid. Mr. Gleason said the potential with zero state aid was the taxpayers having to burden the cost for the entire project. Mr. Steel said the School= Board would have to make the determination at that time if they still wanted to proceed with the project.
Mr. Cate questioned if the cost would be a bond issue over time. Mr. Steel answered no; it would be a on= e- time cost of $750,000 if the state aid of one million is available. Mr. Farris asked if they knew the proje= ct cost. Mr. Steel said the project h= adn’t been bid out yet. Based on the uncertai= nty of state aid, Mr. Farris noted that the project could potentially cost (a one-= time payment of) $1.75 million. Mr. Ste= el said that was correct. Mr. Cate po= inted out if the addition was built the school would get rid of one of the modula= r, for a savings of $125,000 in rent. A buy out of the modular was approximately $500,000.
Mr.
Dunne asked for the tax impact on $1.75 million dollars versus $750,000.
|
ROLL CALL: |
To recommend t=
he
warrant article for the Pelham Elementary School addition (called
Kindergarten Warrant Article)=
|
|
VOTE: |
(9-1-0)
The motion carried. Mr. Farris v=
oted
no. |
The new School budget is $27,631,483, exclusive of warrant articles.
|
MOTION: |
(Guimond/Cate)=
To
close the public hearing of the School budget. |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
ADJOURNMENT
|
MOTION: |
(Gleason/Cate =
) To
adjourn the meeting. |
|
VOTE: |
(10-0-0)
The motion carried. |
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:25 pm.
= Respectfully submitted,
= Charity A. Landry
= Recording Secretary
BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING/Thursday, January 10, 2013