Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20150406 - Appropriations Committee - Meeting MinutesTown of Hopkinton Appropriation Committee Minutes of Meeting on Wednesday, April 6, 2015 Room 215, Town Hall, Hopkinton, Massachusetts In attendance: Mike Manning Pat Mahon Wayne Pacheco Pam Waxlax Shahidul Mannan Chris Howell Cathy McLeod Ralph Dumas Jon Graziano Ashoke Ghosh Bob Berlo Al Rogers The meeting was called to order by Mike at 6:33 PM. There was no public comment at the meeting. The School Department was present to discuss their capital articles (see Attachemnt 1) as well as answer operating budget questions we sent to them prior to the meeting (see Attachment la.) The Capital Improvements Request spreadsheet has been updated for the new numbers for the roofs, due to more extensive repairs needed at Hopkins and HHS than originally anticipated. The Joint Security Upgrade - $300,000, borrow from General Fund (see Attachment 2.) This is a joint project with the town to be completed for all town and school facilities. There may be some grant money available to offset the cost. Ashoke worked with Chris McClure this year on the details of this phase of the plan, which is based on a multiyear plan from BCM Controls Corporation. Phase 1 occurred in FY15 and was school specific. The phases are independent and not sequential so parts may be implemented as deemed essential. The state negotiates the deal with the vendor and the schools can take advantage of contract without going out for bid. The schools plan to re-evaluate each year to determine the next steps, leaving it open to implement some portions of the plan and eliminate others in future years. The plan was developed with school administration, fire and police chiefs. The vision is to have a system that can talk between town and schools. They feel confident of FY16 phase as a stand- alone and this article could be prioritized if funds are an issue. (There was discussion by our committee that the capital plan shows this as the first of 4 years of $300k borrowing expenditures without a plan in place for the following 3 years as well as the fact that each year is intended to be borrowed within the levy limit and paid back over 5 years.) School Safety & Security - $200,000, borrow from General Fund (see Attachment 3.) This relates solely to the school department. During a safety audit it was noted that there was much traffic into the schools to drop off items for students. This article would fund improvements to entryways at all 5 schools by implementing a dual entry system. If only dropping off something, go through one set of security doors. If entering the school for other purposes, go through both sets of security doors. Joint Information Technology - $200,000, borrow from the General Fund (see Attachment 4.) Of the $200k, $60k is for the town and $140k is for the schools. The school portion would complete the multiyear VOIP installation, bringing Hopkins and HHS in line with the other school buildings. It was determined last year that the town would need to fund approximately $200k annually in order to keep technology current. As such, the town needs to look at how this should be paid for since it's multiyear and the current year is a borrowing. The committee felt this should paid for as Pay-as-you-go capital like other annual expenses of a capital nature. Roof Repairs at Hopkins & HHS - $1,114,000, debt excluded (see Attachment 5.) The MSBA will not pay funding until the roof is 20 years old. As part of the Capital Asset Management Plan (CAMP), they looked at repairs needed over the coming years. Gale Associates determined there was a greater need than originally thought. Construction would not begin until summer 2016 due to timing with the bid process and not being able to start work until July 1, 2015 rather than the end of the school year. With the Hopkins roof we asked the schools to determine when the roof went on (think it's around 1998), and therefore the 20 year threshold is met. The town can't apply for MSBA funds after the town approves the article and to wait until the 20 years have been met, then means submitting a Statement of Interest to the MSBA to request consideration of the project, which is not a guarantee that they will help fund it. The HHS roof repair is mostly the replacement of the gym roof. The schools agreed they need to look at the warranty for partial roof replacement to make sure they get something that covers up to MSBA participation. Ralph said he would look at what happens if we don't get funding this time, that is, does the 20 year clock reset for the entire roof? Fire Alarm Upgrades HMS - $170,000, borrow from the General Fund (see Attachment 6.) $25k was authorized at last year's ATM to hire a fire department engineer to assess and design a new system. This will go out for bid prior to June 30th once the school knows the article has passed at this year's ATM so that the work can be started July 1 and completed by August 1. This upgrades to a Class A system so that each device talks directly to the panel as well as upgrading to an adequate gauge wire not currently in the system. Resurfacing Basketball & Tennis Courts - $70,000, Pay-as-you-go Capital (see Attachment 7.) These courts get heavy use by the schools and the town residents. This would be a resurface, not a rebuild. This was requested by the schools but not brought forward by the Town Manager or the BOS in their recommended budgets. The schools are asking us to reconsider this article funding. We then discussed changes to the operating budget of the schools (see Attachment 8) in addition to our remaining questions. Ralph explained the contractual increases that are part of the operating budget, noting that the amount noted at the SC public hearing did not include additional personnel leaving that became known after the meeting. The amount reported by the town manager to the BOS reflects the correct information as is made up of the following: Steps, Lane Changes, Rate Increases, etc 1,139,995 Positive Attrition (personnel leaving the district) (309,397) Base FY15 Salary Reserve 146,088 Total Contractual Obligations 976,686 The revenue offsets in the SC public hearing presentation are included within the expense side of the fixed cost changes with the exception of Elimination of FDK, Elimination of Foundation Reserve Fund and Preschool Tuition, which are paired in the payroll portion of the fixed cost changes. Cost of all the Strategic Initiatives for FY16 are $419,059. The costs associated with the Effective Instruction initiative this year total $448,997, which is made up of $354,904 in personnel changes, $74,649 in Technology and $19,424 in Professional Development. The schools are looking at where support is helping teachers and redirecting that support to helping students. They want to maintain programs for high learners and reduce the need for special instruction by intervening earlier. Goal is to identify earlier what the needs are and then address them. This is true across all grade levels. The Student Assessment Initiative revolves around the teacher evaluation process and costs $59,270. The other initiatives combined result in a reduction of $89,188 to the FY16 budget, of which $62,750 relate to decreases in extraordinary maintenance. Cathy presented a preliminary look at information she will be sharing with the SC at their next meeting (see Attachment 9.) Some highlights from the presentation include: • FDK Tuition Based had 69% proficiency at the end of the school year while FDK for all is already showing an 87% proficiency right now. • Co -teaching in the grade 1 classroom proved effective. There were 9 students at a very early reading level at the beginning of the year and now only 2 students are at risk of not ending the year at grade level. • The schools will see a need in higher grades for co -teaching than they will for children who came through FDK program. • Initial increase in co -teaching but with reduced needs for IEPs, they will be able to reduce co - teaching in the future. They are already starting to reach this plateau in the elementary level. • The short term "mini -plans" of 10 week duration are beneficial for getting kids back on track without the need for an IEP. Cathy went on to state that high needs of learners need to be the focus. High achievers are 100% advanced and proficient in ELA and 99% advanced and proficient in Math for testing. The principals now are looking at how to advance the proficient learners and have them continue to grow. The Strategic Plan is dynamic and allows them to identify needs as they change and address them. She finally added that we need to be aware and mindful of changing demographics in the town and how it will impact the schools. At 9:10 PM Pat moved and Wayne seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0. A-I-►cci)ML k 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUEST: Updated by School Committ ee on March 19, 2015 ($000s) FY15 10 -Year # FY16 PR3 IO RITY DESCRIPTION Submitted Funded FY 8 FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 FY 22 FY 23 FY 24 FY 26 1 SCHOOL/TOWN ARTICLES NTECHNOR OGYI Total J 1 JOIE SYSTEMWIDE 5100 $100 $200 $200, $200 $200 2 3 $200 $200 $200 5200 $2,000 INSTALL SIDEWALK & WALKWAY CENTER S35 535 -- $0 JOINT SECURITY UPGRADES 5300 5300 $300 $300 51,200 TO TAL FUNDED THRU J OINT ARTICLES 5135 $135 5500 5500 $500 $500 $200 $200 5200 5200 5200 $200 $3,200 jFY-16 PRIO RITY FUND ED THRU SCHOOL ARTICLES 4 2 SCHOOL SAFETY & SECURITY $152 $152 $200 -- 5 BUILDING AND GROUNDS EQUIPMENT - SYSTEMWIDE $90 $90 — $51 $45 $45 $80 $51 $60 $60 — 5200 $392 6 7A 7B e 4A&46 5 iCEILING 8 COMPLETE AUDITORIUM UPGRADE PR OJECT . MIDDLE SCHOOL 532 532 567 --_— 567 ROOF REPAIRS@HIGHINS $30 $30 $1,114--=—=�—_ $1,114 ROOF REPAIRS @HIGH SCHOOL _ UPGRADE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM / HORNS & STROBES .' MIDDLE SCHOOL $25 $25 $170 CC— $170 TILE REPLACEMENT, INCLUDES GRIDS @HOPKINS 5203 $203 ---_ $70 ---— $42,000 10 RESURFACE LL NCORATS @HIGH SCHO OL $$0 11 SCHOOL ELEMENTARY SCHO OL BUILDING PROGRAM (Center) $42,000 12 ADMINISTRATION OFFICE SO LUTION - SYSTEMWIDE $270 $2,159 $2,359 13 REPLACE OPERABLE PARTITION IN BROWN GYM @MIDDLE SCHOOL $270 $270 14 ELMWOOD MAJO R BUILDING RENOVATIO N $300 $10,000 --- $10,300 15 WINDOW REPLACEMENT @ CENTER $250 $525 16 BUILDING AND GROUNDS STORAGE FACILITY - SYSTEMWIDE $250 5150 $175 =-- $250 17 ROAD REPAIR =_ $175 18 STUDENT INFORMATION SOFTWARE -SYSTEMWIDE $150 $240 19 HVAC SY STEM UPGRADE @ CENTER $25 $2,000 —� $2,025 20 UPGRADE WHITE HOUSE & CONVERT TO LIFE SKILLS $365 $365 21 NEW TURF FIELD WITH LIGHTS $1,750 — _ 51,750 TOTAL FUNDED THRU ARTICLES $532 $532 $1,554 542,978 $3,294 $14,320 5255 $51 880 $235 $0 $150 $62,897 GRAND TO TAL $667 5667 $2,054 $43,478 $3,794 $14,820 $455 $251 $260 $435 $200 $350 $66,097 Notes: (1) Total cost of a joint the Town ' — placeholders project with for VOIP in the Elmwood & Center In FY15 (plus switches), Hopkins & High School in FY16, plus Town -side im?rovements; post-FY16 figures are . 121 Estimated cost to install concrete sidewalk and walkway at student drop-off point; matches concrete at Center School entrance, safety issue. (3) Total cost of a joint project with the Town for upgrading security in all school and town facilities. (4) Estimated cost for school safety upgrades throughout the system. (5) FY15 add truck for Director $40k and replace 1999 truck 550k; FY17 replace 1999 tractor; FY18 replace 2011 truck; FY19 replace 2012 truck; FY20 replace 2005 mower, try to maintain a 7 year replacement cycle (6) MS auditorium - FY15 re carpeting, wall & ceiling painting, stage floor repaint; replace curtains, stage rigg ng, and light board in FY17. 1 (7A) Preventive maintenance work to extend life of existing roof system. FYI 5 cost Is for review, FY16 is for design and construction based on Gale Associates price estimate (7B) Preventive maintenance work to extend life of existing roof system. FY15 cost is for review, FY16 is for design and construction based on Gale Associates price estimate (8) The existing system is not a Class A system (each device has a separate wire to the panel) which makes troubleshooting very difficult. Existing wiring Is not appropriate gauge . Design in FY15. Work in FY16 . (9) Replace original ceiling tiles which are bowing throughout the Hopkins School (10) Resurface basketball & tennis courts at the High School (11) FY17 c ost estimate increased to reflect higher costs; Previous Feasibility Study reimbursed at 44. 7%; new Study not edible for reimbursement. (12) Estimated cost to provide office space far Central Administration at a location to be determined; used FY 05 dollars from TDPC; Delayed from FY16 to FY17. (13) Existing wooden partition (1954) does not open and close without manual labor as the original trolley is inoperable, Door is moved daily by hand. Delayed from FY16 to FY17 (14) Submission to MSBA for a full renov ation of the Elmwood School; estimated cost is higher than past estimates which were done several years ago. Delayed from FY16 to FY17 (15) Delaye d. FY18 is cost to design/restore all wood windows in the 1928 section; FY19 is cost to design/replace all other windows at Center School; figures from 2012 Gale Reaort. May be av oided if Item 11 goes forward . (16) Purchase & installation of modular building to store Buildings & Grounds equipment. Delayed from FY17 to FY18 1 (17) Future years are placeholders for anticipated repair needs (18) Student data package purchased in FY 03; placeholders included for planning purposes. (19) Placeholder cost to upgrade HVAC system at Center School; FY18 figure is estimated cost of Study - major ADA upgra des will be extra. Likely avoided if Item 11 goes forward. (20) Replace roof & windows. modify restrooms for accessibility, renov ate entire building to facilitate conversion to Special Ed Life Skil s Program and document storage area. (21) Install turf field (with lights) to replace fields 4 and 5. 1 l April 2, 2015 Dear Superintendent MacLeod, The Appropriations Committee respectfully submits the following list of questions to be discussed at the scheduled April 6thAC meeting with the School Department. We appreciate you accommodating our request for additional information. 1) With regards to the School Department Strategic Plan approved last Fall - layout year by year plan of what will be implemented (including specific action items), the costs per year by item, and looking at the outlying years to provide ongoing costs with previously implemented initiatives. - This is not something we will have available tonight especially given the notice of this question. Mostly due to the timing of the SP approval and the FY16 budget we have not documented this level of detail and this has only been discussed throughout or planning and budget process. I would suggest, and we can discuss more of the details tonight, that we collaborate following the FY16 budget process on what you are looking for here. 2) Analysis of each Capital Request with support for amounts and why it is needed this year. - Will be provided tonight 3) School Safety Issues - Need to have oversight, Mission Statement/Program Statement. Provide explanation of the two capital requests - who will administer, financial cost analysis, future requests, long term plan, life of equipment, maintenance We will provide as much data as we can on the two capital requests, costs, and future spend as this is a multi -year initiative. I do hope you will understand that due specifically to the nature of these articles, there are details we cannot discuss in a public meeting. Mr. Ghosh will reprise his presentation from the BoS meeting which should provide enough detail. 4) A description of the School Department initiatives included in the 2016 budget basically states "initiatives to align with the SC strategic plan". We would like to see a summary of each initiative, how much of the overall initiative is funded in 2016 (what is the total expected cost), and how will performance of each initiative be measured on an annual basis. - We will provide tonight. The BOS specifically asked the Appropriations Committee to investigate outcomes from previous School Department initiatives. They would like to see results, with data, that indicate success. 5) For the FY2015 Full Day Kindergarten initiative, update the original initiative with the projected FY15 costs vs the actual FY15 costs. Also, provide original FY 16 projected with the new FY 16 projected. The goal is to see that costs are in line with original initiative estimates. - The School Committee has already requested an update on the FDK and Co -Teaching initiatives as these were two of the largest cost items in the FY15 budget. Given the timing of the request we can't accelerate this to be ready tonight. The Superintendent has offered to have some preliminary information ready tonight. Below are questions specifically relating to the 2016 operating budget. The information was gathered from various handouts at the Town Manager's presentation to the BOS and the analysis of the March 23rd budget increase that was presented to the AC by the Finance Director. 6) What is the true fixed payroll increases? We have seen various numbers from different handouts: a. Public Hearing - 944,310 b. Town Manager to BOS 2/24 — 976,686 (may have some other contractual obligations in here) c. Analysis of 4.85% - 892,870 d. Analysis of 4.85% (using first two lines only) - 830,598 (the other three lines in my opinion are not contractual but rather two are revenue offsets used last year that are no longer available and the other is a revenue offset being used this year. However there are $81,242 of additional revenue offset differences that do not appear to be included in the analysis. We will have this tonight. Sincerely, Michael Manning Appropriations Committee Chairman 1/2. A ItaL nu AA- 2 — Joint Security Upgrades — Priority #1 • As part of an initiative to upgrade security in all town and school facilities, the Safety Committee has worked with a consulting firm to develop a comprehensive multi- year plan. • There is a possibility that grant funding will be available to defray some of these costs. • The total of this request is $300,000, to be spent jointly with the Town. COMFORT SYSTEMS BCM Controls Corporation 30 Commerce Way. Woburn, Massachusetts 01801 781-933-8878 Phone 781-932-3856 Fax www.bcmcontrols.com December 9, 2014 Mr. Christopher McClure IT Director Town of Hopkinton 18 Main St. Hopkinton, MA 01748 RE: Security Master Plan & Planned FY16 Projects Dear Chris, As a follow up to your earlier request, provided as follows is a brief summary of the security provisions that the Hopkinton Public Schools have elected to implement, using funds appropriated in their FY15 budget. Per the coordinated security master plan that has been in development under your guidance since August, the Security & Video Management platforms that will be deployed by the School Department are scalable software solutions that will be expanded for use in other town facilities under subsequent project & funding phases. The initial rollout (i.e. Phase I) will involve work at five (5) school facilities and will result in the: 1. Deployment of an enterprise -class security management platform (initially licensed for 32 controlled doors), on a virtualized server provided by the Town of Hopkinton, 2. Deployment of an enterprise -class video management platform (initially licensed for 10 camera connections), on server/storage hardware provided by the Town of Hopkinton, 3. Integration of the security & video management platforms to allow security events to elicit video camera call-up/verified response, 4. Deployment of a token -based, keyless entry system at two (2) doors within each school facility (10 total doors, 600 keyfobs), 5. Deployment of one (1) high -definition video camera at each of the system connected doors within each school facility (10 total cameras), 6. Introduction of automated, schedule -based locking & unlocking of the system connected doors at each school facility, and 7. Introduction of centralized management/monitoring capabilities for the system connected doors at each school facility Using funds included in the Town's FYI 6 budget, Phase 11 of the security master plan implementation will involve: • The segmentation of the proposed security management platform to support departmental & group management/monitoring needs, • The integration of the proposed security management platform to the Town's active directory service to automate the addition & removal of employees building access privileges. Quality People. Security Solutions. z�3 • The retrofit of the Police Department's existing video & access control platforms to make them fully compatible with the new integrated software platforms deployed under Phase 1, • The expansion of the security & video management platforms within the schools (i.e. more system connected/timed doors & expanded video coverage), • The rollout of card access/keyless entry provisions at other town facilities Specific undertakings (with estimated implementation costs), which are planned for FY16 include: Database Segmentation & Active Directory Integration: $39,558 Police Department Access Control & Video System Retrofits: $72,315 Keyless Entry Rollout at the Town Hall, Senior Center & Fire Department: $69,304 Addition of the School Administration Facility to the Security Network: $12,159 Addition of the School Facilities Office to the Security Network: $11,686 Expansion of Video Coverage within the Schools: $31,608 Retrofit/Integration of Intrusion Detection Systems: $56,987 Addition of the Early Learning Center Door to the Security Network: $6,383 Total Estimated Price (FY16 Projects): $300,000 Should you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me at (781) 879-9554 (mobile). Sincerely, Bob Fecteau Business Development Manager School Safety & Security — Priority #2 • The School Safety Committee is chaired by the Superintendent of School and is comprised of two dozen Hopkinton individuals including Public Health & Safety, Youth Services, the clergy, a physician, and several School Department staff. The fruits of their work include a 3 -year Safety Plan which was implemented in FY14 and continued in FY15 with the installation of cameras, keyless entry, etc. • We are requesting funds that will allow us to introduce additional security measures throughout the District. • The requested amount to do this work is $200,000. • This request is separate from the Joint Security Upgrades request of $300,000. Joint Information Technology — Priority #3 Schools —Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Telephone System • Over the past two years, funding was provided to install a new telephone system at the Center School, Elmwood School, Middle School and Central Office. This is the same system used at Town offices and operates over the town -owned fiber network, thus providing better connectivity between the School & Town departments. • The request this year is to complete the system upgrade at the Hopkins and High Schools. • The total of this request is $200,000, of which $140,000 is for the School Department. The remaining $60,000 will be dedicated to Town -side technology upgrades. Ai-lad/11th of 5 Roof Repairs a, Hopkins & High School —Priority #4A & 4B • The roofs at the Hopkins and High Schools are now entering the phases of their useful lives in which future replacements need to be planned for. To begin that process, the School Department received funding in May of 2014 for the purpose of conducting engineering evaluation services related to the existing conditions and remaining life -potential of the roofing systems at the Hopkins and High Schools. This evaluation will soon provided options and alternatives for roof replacement, including cost estimates. It has been determined that no MSBA funding is available because the roofs do not meet the 20 -year MSBA minimum. • The original placeholder amount was $747,000. As a result of a preliminary analysis completed by Gale Associates, Inc. in December, the requested amount to undertake repairs was been reduced to $700,000. When Gale Associates submitted their final analysis (including infrared photos) in March, the School Committee voted to increase the requested level of funding to $1,114,000. TABLE A - HOPKINT©N HIGH SCHOOL-PFiELIMIF ARY ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION BUDGET Date: 1/7/2015 Activity: Roof Repair Work Location: Hopkinton, MA Project Title: Roof Repair Work at the Hopkinton High School Budget Pricing t!MMEDIATF FUTURE Gymnasium Roof Repairs and stripping in seams Estimated 25% Roof Replacement Roof Replacement (Option #1) Credit for re -using existing insulation (Pending IR Survey) 15 % OH&P Subtotal AN Rem aimrtg�F at oo Areas Repairs and stripping in seams $63,250.00 $111,380.00 $9,487.50 $184.117.50 Asphalt ShingleRoof Repairs $445,509 -$50,895 $59,192,03 $453,805.53 $61,200.00 15 % OH&P X9,180.00 Subtotal $70,380.00 15 % OH&P Subtotal $4,250.00 $637.50 $4.887.50 Grand Total Arrpvadlii 16,40/417m, fi w51-97 riff Y7( Gale Associates, Inc. $259,385 $453,806 7077/d /A 470/ 7";714 *MS (/?e7K/i9ye.) 4/731ens- So? Roofiiig Cost Estimate 3/12/2015 TABLE A - HOPKINS SCHOOL -PRELIMINARY ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION BUDGET Date: 1/7/2015 Activity: Roof Repair Work Location: Hopkinton, MA Project Title: Roof Replacement/Repair Work at the Hopkins Elementary School Budget Pricing IMMEDIATE EPDM Roofs Stripping In seams Remove and replace partial roof area (PVC) Clean drain bowls and leader pipes Install ladder at gymnasium roof 15 % OH&P Subtotal Asphalt Shingles le oohs Remove and replace asphalt shingle roof area $216,800.00 15 % OH&P $32.520.00 Subtotal $249.320.00 $60,000.00 $180,000.00 $4,940.00 $2,500.00 $37,116.00 $284,556.00 Grand Total Ga!e Assoc t:_ , Inc. $533,876 169Pra 'WC"- S4a/(VofrinAl ole e- Roofir,2 Cost Estimate 3/12/2015 "Tril e a a a aYa i—Y1!1�TaYa a a a e a +l�2� e a a a e----- e HOPKINS SCHOOL • • M4 µ+ WI • ggipm HIGH SCHOOL ,,:.'it, . !M.. . i r.. m ... n m m � i '1 i i i i Cl n177Z-rn-rril- rr71rrrrr r HIGH SCHOOL °Firestone BUILDING PRODUCTS COMPANY December 18, 2009 Applied Roofing (Iic. # 03863) Mill St. Webster, MA. Re: Post Warranty Alterations - Hopkinton High School Firestone Warranty # RD028973 (FBPCO #A53136) To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to confirm Firestone received the Post -Warranty Alteration Form, along with the scope of work, the details and products utilized. After full review of the stated documents, Firestone has determined that the alterations referenced, the warranty shall remain in full effect for the remainder of the warranty period. If you should require further assistance, I may be reached within Firestone's Roofing Solutions Department at 800-428-4511, ext. 53803, or e-mail huntcarl@firestonebp.com. Sincerely, Firestone Building Products, LLC Carl Hunt North Eastern/Western Technical Coordinator 800-428-4511 ext. 53803 huntcarl@firestonebp.com NOBODY COVERS YOU BETTER 250 West 96th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46260 • 317-575-7000 Technical Hotline: 1-800-428-4511 • Technical Facsimile: 800-242-0504 http://www.firestonebpco.com iy, A 11ctcc1mtl- (a Fire Alarm Upgrades - Middle School — Priority #5 • The existing Middle School fire alarm system is not a Class A system in which each device has a separate wire to the electrical panel. This makes system troubleshooting very labor intensive. In addition, the existing fire alarm system wiring is not the appropriate gauge for carrying information without causing ground faults. In May of 2014, we received funds to engineer & design a system upgrade, including construction cost estimate for replacing the system with wire upgrades. • The engineering phase of this project will begin shortly as the School Committee awarded the design contract on April 2nd. The placeholder of $170,000 is from the Habeeb Report as part of the Permanent Building Committee's C.A.M.P project. A Hsu.-i ry471,4 .7 Resurfacing Basketball & Tennis Courts — Priority #6 • The outside tennis and basketball courts were installed as part of the High School building project approximately 15 years ago. The tennis courts are heavily used by our tennis teams, for physical education classes, and are available for community use. The basketball courts are also frequently used by community members. After 15 years of use, these assets are beginning to show signs that lead us to believe that resurfacing is advisable at this time. For example, heavy traffic areas on the courts are showing wear spots and minor cracks. Left unattended, water will seep into the asphalt sub -base and would result in much more costly repairs. According to professionals who install these courts, there is no rule of thumb regarding the useful life due to the number of environmental variables that go into it. • The amount requested to undertake this project $70,000. Mach inr8 HOPKINTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS ZIPS Level Services FY16 Budget 538,724,3821 (includes 5976,686 contract obligations) "Strategic Initiatives S 419,059 • Effective School Leadership $ 19,643 Equal Priority • Effective Instruction $448,977 Equal Priority • Student Assessment $ 59,270 Equal Priority • Leadership, Governance $(44,474) Equal Priority • Others $(64,357) Equal Priority "Total Requested FY16 Budget $39,143,441 "Capital Requests $1,640,00 • Joint Security Upgrades $300,000 Priority #1 • School Safety & Security $200,000 Priority #2 • Joint Technology $200,000 Priority #3 • Roof Repairs $700,000 * Priority #4 • Fire Alarm Upgrade $170,000 Priority #5 • Resurface Basketball & Tennis Courts $ 70,000 Priority #6 44- not . This Ce.f-t-eGj-5 I nc.9 et,wicri,Y►-1" n04 i_Lpaa4-ep Ii Ii4,OOo ANALYSIS OF 4.85% FY16 BUDGET INCREASE f:ed Cos t Changes: Pa yroll Steps, Lan e Changes, Rat e Increase, etc . Savings from Positi ve Attriti on Elimination of FDK Rev enue Elimination of Foundation Reserve Fund Increased use of Preschool Tuition $$$ Fixed Payro ll Cost Incr eas es Expen se s Technology Central Office Curricu 1 urn Professional Development Athletics Buildings & Grounds Occupation Day Tuition SPED Regular Education Fixe d Ex pense Cost Inc re as es GRAND TO TAL FIXED COST CHANGES Dis cretionary Co st Change s: Payroll Cost of Proposed Staff Additions Cost of Athletic Coaches Savings from Proposed Staff Reductions D iscre tionary Payro ll Co st Increase Expe nsesTechnology Central Office Curriculum Profession al Development Athletics Buildings & Grounds Occupation Day Tuition SPED Regular Educatio n D iscretio nary Ex pense Co st In crease GRAND TO TAL DISCRETIONA RY CO ST CHANGES GRAN D TOTAL EY16BULX3I r INCREA SE $1,139,995 ($309,397) $80,000 $11,000 ($28,728) $892,870 $39,000 ($84,154) $0 ($4,283) $10,418 $155,180 $0 $341,137 $41,792 $499,090 2.39% all contracted services includes higher costs for buses offset by more re venue and copier reclass increased tuition reimbursement offset by Primary Source Cost of buses, ref erees, ice rental • all incr eases except extrordlnary rnaintenance more DOD students and less Circuit Breaker revenue to cover contractual pro dev for Principals and Asst Principals plus copiers 1.34% $1,391,960 incre ase 3.'7;%0 over: the FV1 .5 budgetr . of $37,332,422 $753,136 $19,755 ($314,020) $458,871 $74,649 $p ($40,124) $19,424 $0 ($62,750) $O $0 ($31,011) ($39,812) $419,059 increas e $1,811,019 lower athletic fees 1 .2_3% all Increases except c ontracted services all curriculum Increas es all except tuition reimbursements extraordinary maint decreas es all Items except f or copy leases Si pro dev listed above -0.12% 1.12% °vein the FY15 budget of $37,332,422 4.85% over thP budgl et, of $37,332,422 -. li:\FYIG\FYI.6 Budget\Budget Drivers\fy16 bu dget increases fixed vs discretionary 4.85% budge t 2/23/2015 FY16 B udget Personnel Additions School Center Center Center Elmwood Ho pkins High SPED SPED SPED SPED SPED SPED Center SPED High Elmwood Elmwood Hopkins High Description 'Para Kindergarten Para- Grade 1 Library Para (part-time) Grade 3 Teacher Para - Grade 4/5 Teacher for Learning Center Learning Specialist - Center (part-tim e) •Learning Specialist - Hopkins Learning Specialist - Middle School Literacy Coach ELL Teacher (part-time) Phys ical Therapist (part-time) Assistant Principal ABA Coordinator Teachers to Reduce SML Teaching Load Lunch M onitors (part-time) Student Clubs Lunch Monitors (part-time) Extra Clerical Time Techn ology Additional Summer Help Ce ntral Office Payroll Staff Additio n (part-time) Cost $20,176 $21,025 $4,205 $59,270 $20,176 $59,2.70 $18,035 $121,550 $71,598 $59,270 I $35,562 $8,116 $86,076 $51,673 $59,270 $ 7,832 $1,250 $7,832 $8,000 $4,000 $28,950 Strategic I nitiati ve Effective Instruction Eff ective Instruction Effective Instruction Effective Instruction Effective instruction Effective Instruction Effective Instruction Effective Instruction Effective Instruction Effective instruction Effective Instruction Effective instruction •Effective School L eadership Leadership, Governance, & Com munications Student Assessment Other Other Other Other Other Other $498.253 $86.076 $51,673 $59,2.70 $57 .864 $753,136 $753,136 FY16 Budget Pers onnel Reductions School Description Hopkins MS High High SPED SPED SPED Center SPED SPED High Curriculum Wellness Teacher (part-time) Music Teacher (part-tim e not filled in FYI5) Foreign Lang uage (part-time not filled in FY95) Gen Ed P ares ASL Instructor (part-time not filled in FY95) • Reduce Scale B's upgraded to Scale C Pares Elmwood Learning Specialist Reduction Management Aide SPED Team Chair Reorganization • BCBA Reduction Reduc e Guidance Extra Days Decreased Curriculum Stipends Sa vings Strategic Initiati ve ($17,435) Effective Instruction ($12,035) Effective Instruction ($18,635) Effective Instruction ($45,296) Effective Instruction (510,500) Effective Instruction ($15,948) Effective Instruction (523,500) Effectiv e instruction (566,433) Effective School Leadership (585,812) Leadership, Governance, & Communications ($10,335). Leadership, Governance, & Communications ($5,091) Other ($3,000) Other ($314,020) (5143,349) (566,433) ($96,147) (.8,091) ($314,020) Strategic Plan Priority Initiatives supported by the FFY16 budget Effective School Leadership : '•..: piace mat' ge f. -n . c t 1-2. Establish a clearly defined set of goals aligning the Schools' Improvement Plans to the District Strategic Plan B. Provide and implement targeted Professional Development and Technology Plans that are aligned with stated priority initiatives. i. Develop technology and professional development plans ii. Align the plans with SIP initiatives iii. Align district level funding to support identified priorities Aligned Curriculum 2-1 Develop a consistently implemented and vertically aligned PreK-12 curriculum Provide opportunities for teachers, SIMILs, and CTI,s to develop curriculum and ensure vertical alignment across buildings 2-2 Articulate common, well-defined learning outcomes with a focus on depth of understanding and critical thinking Match curriculum expectations with individual student learning needs 2-3 Articulate what proficiency looks like and sounds like in content areas with a focus on depth of understanding and critical thinking Effective Instruction 3-1.A Educators use student assessment results to establish high expectations i. Encourage a culture of shared accountability for student success a. Analyze data to plan enrichment/rernediation instruction b. Co -teaching model ii. Embed rigorous learning objectives into assignrnents that reflect high expectations and ensure students meet expectations Educators consistently adapt materials and instruction to meet the needs of all students a. b. c. d. e. Co -teaching 7 f. g. iv. Organize and analyze results from a variety of assessments to determine progress toward intended outcomes v. Adjust practice in response to data analysis. a. Implement appropriate differentiated interventions and enhancements for students, 3 -LB Educators encourage all students to appropriately engage with challenging material through effective effort 3-2.A Educators deliver effective, evidence -based instruction to all students i. Develop a common understanding of what evidence -based, high quality practices looks like ii. Develops well -structured lessons with challenging measurable objectives and appropriate student engagement strategies, pacing, sequence, activities, materials, resources, technologies, and grouping iii. Consistently implement research -based instructional strategies across all content areas a. Professional development supports identified teacher needs b. Practices to include differentiating instruction (co -teaching), structured student -led discussion, flexible grouping iv. Develop schedules that allow for remediation and enrichment 3-2.B Educators plan learning experiences that ensure opportunities for students to apply critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication skills Beginning in 2015-2016, PD will focus on increasing opportunities for critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication skills within the instructional day Student Assessment 4-1.A implement a balanced system of assessments that include district -determined measures, progress monitoring, benchmark, summative, and formative assessments 4-2.A Use learning data to plan and adjust instruction and evaluate student ]earning 4-3.A Educators support students in setting developmentally appropriate growth goals that encourage students to challenge their limits in a safe and supportive environment Leadership, Governance and Com nunication 5-1.B School facilities support effective instruction 5-3.A Ensure that students' social -emotional needs are met 5-3,B Cultivate effective partnerships 1/7 ik-A b0.` rl dee cu 4 Aff&'h At S G� AA A B C D E F G+ 120 100 80 60 40 20 2012-13 2014-15 Spring Winter 1 12 48 53 29 20 3 29 195 Benchmarks March June 9 B C 19 98 40 10 15 4 18 213 Total Students Assessed Students >Benchmark Spring 2012-13 Winter 2014-15 69% 87% AA A B C D E F G+ X2012-13 Spring 2014-15 Winter Co -Teaching preliminary feedback Hopkins What doesn't show is the acceleration of growth that we're seeing - gaps are dosing and teachers are setting more aggressive goals for the next year. We're also hearing from kids and families that the students feel more supported, and are therefore feeling better about school and gaining confidence. Center The second set of data demonstrates the success of a co -taught first grade classroom. This classroom was heavily weighted with students that were identified through the kindergarten screening process as needing additional reading services. Instead of pulling them out of the classroom for these services, they were supported within this co -taught classroom by a reading specialist and first grade teacher. The data reflects 9 students at a very early reading level (A/B) at the beginning of the year. At this point in the year, there are already 5 students reading well beyond end of first grade expectations (end of year benchmark is a J) and only 2 students at risk of not ending the year at grade level. Also of note, is that capable students also made significant progress, providing evidence for those who were concerned about co -taught classrooms not meeting the needs of more able learners. 14-15 1st Literacy Spreadsheet - Kane -Farquharson - Google Sheets co = Ia.k �5\ C V 4/6/15, 3:30 PM 1 Teacher A 1 her. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2C 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 B c son F G H K O Wader* Wtorene - - Fall - - Winter - Last Name First Name October BAS Local Writing Prompts February BAS GRL HFW (25) HFW (50) HFW (100) Prednf. Pre-Opin. Post-Opin. GRL Rate (>J) HFW (25) HFW (50) HFW (100) GRL _ r _ _ _ .F I ,a 1 ne i 1 _ i 1 1 ( 1 1 11 T - _ _ —_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ I 25 C 22 B 23 A 14 I C 23 B 24 B 22 C 22 A 21 C 24 8 17 A 17 B 19 C 23 G 25 I 25 F 25 I 25 C 24 A 18 50 13 31 99 10 L G G F G H F 1 H E F Girl H L L I L F E L 81 25 60 99 25 47 81 25 50 76 25 44 58 10 11 10 15 26 23 32 19 34 12 11 25 50 91 25 41 56 25 50 86 25 48 86 25 50 92 25 41 55 25 49 70 26 49 88 25 49 77 25 50 100 25 50 99 25 50 91 25 50 99 25 50 88 26 50 54 25 50 100 12 12 11 8 10 19 28 48 49 50 50 14 14 11 13 90 93 66 98 10 47 11 60 11 11 45 11 11 Teacher Last Name - PM - H • Digging Deeper - j Rdg Rate • GRL Writing https://dots.google.com/a/hopkinton.k12.ma.us/spreadsheets/d/ 1msH7KDpUnlEzg9w6jwOSK86p6FsPuuVOlvusylmFn5M/edit?pli=1#gid=318253471 Page 1 of 1 316 Co -teaching Data Room 107, Grade 4 Math Pre -Post Data These are the pre and post averages for our special education students and general education students for each of the first five units. Topic Special Education General Education 1 — Multiplication and Division: Meanings & Facts Pre: 40% Post: 63% Pre: 69% Post: 89% 2 — Generate and Analyze Patterns Pre: 44% Post: 71% Pre: 68% Post: 86% 3 — Place Value Pre: 43% Post: 73% Pre: 57% Post: 86% 4 — Addition and Subtraction of Whole Numbers Pre: 40% Post: 74% Pre: 61% Post: 87% 5 — Number Sense: Multiplying by 1 -digit Numbers Pre: 41% Post: 75% Pre: 64% Post: 82% ELA Data Comprehension/Fluency — Each week, there is a focus on a different reading strategy. All students are participating in a fluency group, at least twice a week and guided reading group at least three times. (Those on an IEP are meeting in small group instruction five times a week.) *We will have BAS levels and Galileo data in January.) We have a myriad of student samples to highlight their growth in all areas of their reading. 44 Writing — Students spend time daily in small groups to focus on generating and organizing ideas for writing. We are using the Landmark paragraph structure which has been beneficial to help all students structure their writing in order to communicate effectively. Small group focus lessons in writing, as well as one-on-one conferencing has also enhanced the quality and accuracy of their written work. We have a myriad of student samples to highlight their growth in all areas of their writing. Anecdotal Data We have both been teaching for over 15 years, and this has been one of the most effective and exciting years we've had thus far in our careers. In fact, the word that describes our year, that we use with our students on a daily basis is, EPIC. Not only are we able to maximize our time more efficiently and meet the needs of all our students, but we are also able to support one another professionally and personally as growing educators. Our students understand and value the fact that room 107 has two teachers who share all of the planning, teaching, assessing, and daily interactions with them. They feel comfortable with both of us and appreciate the perspective we each bring to teaching and learning in all subjects. We both have our strengths and when you can blend them together, the kids benefit greatly. In terms of planning and assessing, we are better able to meet the diverse needs in our classroom because we can focus more on how to best modify, accommodate, enrich, and create experiences that are both meaningful and challenging for each student. Since we are together all the time, there is more consistency with students and the transitions are seamless. We can flex group at any point, not only within our own homeroom but also across our team. In reading and math, we have actually done some flex grouping amongst the three teachers. This allows us to work with students in small groups and one-on-one to meet specific, targeted needs for only intervention but also extension. By having two teachers, we have been able to do more with all of our students. For example, we have created fluency groups for all kids, at different levels based on BAS data. The progress we have witnessed thus far has been significant. Students' accuracy has increased. Using a 4 -point scale rubric, students have moved over a lane since the beginning of the program. We have also seen improvement with reading with expression and pacing. When asked, students enjoy the small group time to practice and take risks with their reading. In addition, students get immediate feedback with homework, specifically in math. During BSW time, one of us (we alternate day to day) corrects the homework and pulls kids one by one to re -teach, reinforce, or extend concepts we are currently learning. Another extremely beneficial component has been the time spent to focus on organizational and time -management skills. Students with an executive functioning disability, who often lose focus on the learning, are now better able to be on task since there is more consistent support during transitions. Kids are getting what they need all the time. We are able to weave concepts, vocabulary, strategies, etc. all day long, in all subject areas. We can provide the reinforcement and review that we know the special education population needs. We are able to reach the whole child every minute of every day. In no way, do we feel kids are getting more than what they need or are becoming dependent on adults. This model allows for all students to learn how to become independent learners and take ownership of their learning while also getting what S f� they need to be successful. We are mindful of this and are constantly pushing kids to meet their individual goals. Both our general education and special education students have thrived in this environment and the families we work with are happy as well. During our parent teacher conferences, we asked for feedback and it was all positive. One of our professional goals this year is to evaluate the effectiveness of this co -teaching model for ourselves as teachers, our students, and their families. We are collecting evidence from student data and student/parent/teacher testimonials. So far, the positives completely outweigh any challenges we have faced! q6,