Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutSupt. Search Subcommittee -- 1/14/2015 Minutes • Nauset Regional School Committee J kV, t, anuary 14, 2015 Brewster Town Hall Present for the Committee: Sue Skidmore, Ed Brookshire, Sarah Blackwell, Chris Easely, Kyle Wibby, Ed Lewis, Chris Galazzi arrived at 7:09 p.m. Present for the Administration: Dr. Hoffmann, Superintendent, Mr. Gauley, Assistant Superintendent, Ms. Venditti, Director of Finance and Operations, Dr. Caretti, Director of Student Services, Barbara Lavoine, Director of Technology, Principal Thomas Conrad and Principal Maxine Minkoff Others Present: Harry Terkanian, Tom Rhinehart, Russ French and Sheila Vanderhoef Call to Order -Vice Chair Easely called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Citizens Speak - None PRIORITY BUSINESS FY15 Budget Update Superintendent Hoffmann asked the committee members if they had any questions on the December 31, 2014 Dashboard Report. There were no questions. FY16 Budget Mr. Gauley and Ms. Lavoine gave a brief update on technology, lease cycling and funding. Ms. Lavoine distributed a list of what other districts are using for technology and if they have a 1:1 plan. Other documents distributed for school committee information: "Technology— Benefits and Evaluation of the Nauset Technology Plan 2014-2019, The Padagogy Wheel V2.0 with hyperlinks, and the revised iPad cycle plan. Lease cost vs. purchase was discussed. Ms. Lavoine indicated that they have a price quote from Apple computer for $400,000 to purchase. iPad cycling was discussed as well as the various options for disposing of equipment(25-30%of return on the product) and $100 toward purchase of additional iPads or tablets, for example. Mr. Rhinehart, member of the finance committee in Wellfleet, asked if they could see a total budget for technology including staffing and any other costs pertaining to technology, so they could see the yearly cost to fund technology. Mr. Wibby inquired as to where students are leaving the District to attend other schools and is Nauset competing with those schools. Mr. Easely asked if there was any feedback from other schools on leasing vs. purchasing or vice-versa. He suggested it would be good to find out what the issues were with the purchased machines. Mr. Wibby would like to see the documentation that brought the subcommittee to leasing iPads. Mr. Gauley indicated that the Technology subcommittee met for a year and looked at four different devices. Apple was selected for a variety of reasons. FY16 Region Only Budget Giovanna Venditti, Director of Finance and Operations review the FY16 Region Only Version 2 line item budget and justifications with the committee noting increases and decreases. She highlighted transportation with an increase of 16.78%. The bid documents for a new 1jPage January14 , 2015 • transportation contract have been posted. The pre-bid conference is January 21st and the bid opening on Friday, January 30, 2015. It was noted that Special Needs uses the Cape Cod Collaborative for transportation. Ms. Venditti reviewed the SN accounts noting an increase in OT/PT which is needs based. Mr. Lewis requested a summary of what we have spent to date on legal and other expenditures. Ms. Venditti noted that the 50%technician at the High School and Middle School has been reallocated to the Region Only budget because the Central Office will also be serviced. Ms. Venditti indicated that the professional growth reimbursement for teachers has increased 24.33% due to contract language and the professional development for educational assistants has increased as well due to the contract. Account 8716, County Retirement Assessment has increased 10.43%; health insurance costs of current employees will increase and awaits the final figures from the Cape Cod Municipal Health Group. (7% increase is budgeted) The total overall budget is at 2.34%. Circuit Breaker funds will be discussed at a later meeting. Dr. Hoffmann indicated that there is not a lot that can change in this budget as most of the things are contractual. He noted that it is unlikely these accounts will be reduced as this is not discretionary spending. Central Office Budget Dr. Hoffmann indicated the Central Office Budget Subcommittee has met and reduced the Central Office budget. Version 2 of the budget is in the packet as well as the justifications. The Subcommittee voted 4-0 to recommend forwarding this to the Joint School Committee for approval on January 29th. Union 54 members and the Region members will vote on this. The Superintendent highlighted the big increases for the committee including the one-time cost to pay the current superintendent, vacation buy back(50) days and a six-week contract that was agreed upon by the Joint School Committee. He also noted that the Business Office requested a new .6 accountant due to the amount of work the office is handling. The technology support position was .75 and this would be increased to a full time position as this individual supports all the schools. Operating and Capital Budget Summary Ms. Venditti reviewed the expenses, income and assessments with the Committee. Included in the summary are "New Requests" from the principals at this time. Mr. Lewis would like a figure of what the budget would be without the new requests. Mr. Lewis also reviewed the Charter School Tuition and Charter School aid noting we pay out $1,479,429 but get back only 5.1% of that cost or $76,637 from the state. This is a huge expense for the district. Members should continue to contact legislators to battle the school choice formula and should also petition them to restore the 9C cuts which have really impacted regional schools. Total Operating budget is 21,476,247, increase of 1,980,371 or an increase of 6.49%. Mr. Rhinehart, Wellfleet Finance Committee, asked if the committee was diminishing the revenue funds prudently and asked what percentage the auditors suggest keeping in E & D. Dr. Hoffmann indicated that these last few years the committee has been trying to maintain balance in those accounts. Administration will have projected balances on July 1St and apply some money for assessments to the towns. Dr. Hoffmann indicated that the auditor suggested 21Page January14 , 2015 having 5% of the operating budget in E & D account but we do not have that and have never had that as a target. Mr. Lewis indicated he would like to see the committee use this money to reduce the assessments as over the year they will be replenished to a certain degree. Mr. Galazzi indicated that in the past the committee has talked about E & D —like accounts and including those accounts, we are close to the 5% amount. Dr. Hoffmann reiterated that there have been no reductions made in the high school and middle school budgets to date and that technology is included in the Operating and Capital Budget Summary report. Mr. Harry Terkanian, Town Administrator in Wellfleet, addressed the committee noting the enrollment change in Wellfleet and the increase of 20%. He encouraged the Committee to look critically at the expenses that can be adjusted without sacrificing the mission of the school committee. He indicated it is hard to explain a $447,000 increase and a 9 student increase in enrollment. He asked that the committee take a critical look at the budget, spend on what is important and defer or eliminate what they can. Mr. Galazzi voiced concerns that the committee should be looking at long term capital funding for technology and the technology items should not be taken out of the operating budget. Mr. Russ French, Chair of the Finance Committee in Eastham, questioned the number of tuition paying students from Truro and asked if we lost some Truro students because they are attending other schools through school choice. Dr. Hoffmann indicated that more students from Truro are attending the two charter schools. Ms. Venditti indicated that the total assessment to towns is 9.82%. It was noted that the four towns are aware that the SBAB reimbursement is in the final year and were notified two years ago that this would be happening. Dr. Hoffmann indicated that Ms. Venditti meets with the four town accountants as to how they want the Region to deal with financing for the roof and follow their recommendations. Dr. Hoffmann indicated that Administration is trying to give a summary sheet so you can see the budget you have at the present time with everything included. He also noted that the draft operating and Capital Budget summary will be emailed to the towns. The towns need to have a placeholder. Capital Plan Mr. Easely reported that the Capital Asset Subcommittee met and has made changes to the plan. They have removed $75,000, security, for debt exclusion for FY 16 and added it to the article plan. This will be presented at the next meeting. Mr. Easely indicated that there have been lengthy discussions in the Capital Asset Subcommittee as to where Technology belongs, whether in Capital or in the operating budget. He also indicated there would be future discussions regarding how to pay for technology and the subcommittee will make a recommendation to the full committee. Ms. Skidmore, member of the Capital Asset Subcommittee, indicated that there had been a good discussion regarding this subject but in the end, some members would like to take computer technology out of the Capital plan and give it its own line item in the operating budget. Due to the lack of time and being well into the budget 3 I Page January14 , 2015 process, she indicated that technology will be included in FY16, but this will be a transitional year with aim to take technology out of the capital plan because of its importance. Mr. Lewis acknowledged the transitional year but stated technology needs to be funded and needs to have a funding source. It can't be part of the capital budget. Mr. Lewis explained his idea for a funding source by earmarking 10% of the tuition funds and 20% of school choice for technology or additional major capital projects. This would give the Region money on a yearly basis to pay for technology. Going forward he is recommending that the Committee find a way to fund technology. Presently there is $270,000 in this budget for technology and going forward this will be a yearly cost. He agrees this is a transition year. Going forward he would like to find other funds to help with assessments. Motion: On a motion by Ed Lewis, seconded by Ed Brookshire, it was voted 5 yeas, 1 nay (Chris Galazzi) to approve the Capital plan for FY16 in the amount of$482,237, and distribution to follow. Mr. Galazzi asked if this plan could be adjusted and could the committee revisit this capital plan and the items in it. He also asked if this is part of a different funding structure. Which projects will be in the plan and which will not be in the plan? We have a dollar amount and no content. Mr. Lewis indicated there are other parts to this regarding other parts of capital and that the number could change. He asked to revoke his previous motion and not vote at this meeting. Mr. Brookshire revoked his second. The motion was revoked. Ms. Venditti indicated that the towns would like a figure and that this is usually provided to them in October. Dr. Hoffmann indicated that the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committees usually have a description of the capital and ask questions of the board. He also indicated that some towns are closing their warrants by the end of the month. He suggested the committee commit to voting at the next meeting. Mr. Easely indicated the vote is for several projects at the High School and Middle School including drainage abatement, lab stations, courtyard concrete and outdoor lighting. He indicated that the Capital Asset Subcommittee voted unanimously that the committee move forward with the recommendation that these items should be done in this fiscal year. There could be other ways to fund these projects. Mr. Lewis indicated that $1,690,000 was agreed upon as the subcommittee priority list but based on a conversation that he had, he would not ask for a debt exclusion but will seek alternate funding. He suggested going to the towns for bonding and that principle and interest be set through some form of capital expenditure. He will present other ideas and will come back to the school committee showing them how this could be done. Members indicated they did not understand Mr. Lewis' plan. Mr. Easely indicated that the Capital Asset Subcommittee determined that these projects need to get done because they are safety and security issues. In meeting with town officials, they are trying to find out the best method to fund these projects. He would like to vote on the main issue, what projects should move forward. 41 Page January14 , 2015 Mr. Galazzi agreed with the list of critical projects but inquired that, if by voting to agree, these are critical items, is discussion ended regarding adding to the list. He stated technology should be on this list as it is a critical component and necessary to make our schools competitive and keeps students in our school system. He suggested taking a hard look at bringing all the technology into the operating budget and all the technology in articles ($30,000 MS and $50,000HS) into the debt exclusion. Mr. Lewis disagreed at that approach as it would be for one year only. Mr. Lewis stated that the funding plan he mentioned would be sustainable. He further stated that capital on the plan is a one-time expenditure and technology is spending every year. Mr. Galazzi indicated he was not talking about staff but hardware and infrastructure. Mr. Galazzi proposed that the District make items that have a useful life of longer than a year, part of a capital plan funding solution. Mr. Galazzi also indicated that last year it was proposed that the school committee not try to ramp up this plan to catch up where the District is with technology, but proceed slowly. He also indicated that reality is such that there is a desire for technology and that the Middle School and High School can absorb it and uses it immediately across multiple grades. He stated that the Committee needs to create a base line and once the District"swallows the other half of the elephant", the school committee may find that this operating budget can maintain itself in a reasonable way. This budget is over 6% across the board and some towns cannot handle that increase. He suggested the School Committee needs to be thinking of ways to take things out of the operating budget. Mr. Easely stated that they are looking at a four year asset, borrowing on a four year note, which is different from capital. Chris Easely indicated the subcommittee is not looking to figure out how towns can pay. Chris Galazzi suggested getting feedback from towns and determine how to proceed. Mr. Lewis indicated he has a specific plan to present to the towns. Mr. Easely indicated that a plan has not been voted by the Capital Asset Subcommittee. He indicated that the Capital Asset subcommittee voted that these items listed are critical safety and security issues that need to be accomplished in the next fiscal year. The Capital Asset Subcommittee left open the method of how it would be paid for. Mr. Easely reiterated that these items are important enough to be included this year. A conversation about how to pay for this can come later. Motion: A motion was made by Sue Skidmore, seconded by Ed Lewis, and voted 5 yeas and 1 Nay (Ed Lewis)to approve the critical projects list. (Middle School —Drainage abatement $180,00, High School—Lab Stations/Renovate - $210,000, Courtyard Concrete Rails, Ramps - $700,000, and Outdoor lighting - $600,000) Mr. Galazzi questioned again if this list could be amended and is the committee limiting options with this vote? Mr. Easely indicated that the committee is not limiting options with this vote. Mr. Lewis indicated there is a difference if you vote the alternative capital funding plan. You can revisit this vote within the next week before warrants close. Dr. Hoffmann indicated that someone from the assenting side can bring this up at the next meeting. He also stated that the Capital Asset Subcommittee has spent a long time working on this recommendation. This is the list they felt they could move forward on, with feedback from the four towns. A lot of due diligence has gone into creating this list. Mr. Galazzi asked if the committee can add to the list and if we are voting on a list of items that will be funded through an alternate funding source that has not yet been disclosed. 5 j Page ianuary14 , 2015 Mr. Easely indicated that we are voting on the list of priority projects and it is to be determined how they will be paid for by our member towns. Mr. Lewis indicated that the towns don't know the proposed alternative for funding and that the Committee can add the technology list to the plan. Mr. Lewis indicated that the Capital Asset Subcommittee did not have time to make the funding proposal as the committee met just prior to this meeting. He indicated that they will have a specific funding proposal in the very near future, noting warrants close in three weeks. Mr. Galazzi stated that he is concerned that the Region is looking at a 6% increase and the towns are not interested in that. The choices are lower service level to make the operating budget come in at an acceptable level, or move expenses off operating budget and find another way to pay for them or a combination. We do not control revenue and our current target could be high. He reiterated that he is concerned that the committee is being asked to vote on an alternative capital funding plan and has not had discussion about other elements that might come into this plan. He would like to receive as a committee, the option to be flexible on other capital items in the operating budget that could be somewhere else. He also stated that did not hear that Wellfleet did not say debt exclusion was off the table. Chris Easely indicated that debt exclusion was not off the table. At this point, no decision has been made. He also noted that the thought of the subcommittee was to move technology out of the capital budget and into another category. Computers vs. capital. Infrastructure improvements are wires that have a long term value. He suggested going through the accounts line by line and figure out costs. He stressed the need to get to 2.5%. Mr. Galazzi indicated he is 100% behind the critical capital projects but vehemently against the motion as proposed asking to vote these items but that they be funded through some plan that the committee has not discussed or seen. Mr. Wibby clarified that the committee voted a priority list of capital projects and not how we fund the projects. Mr. Wibby checked on the figures as they have changed. ($700—concrete, $600 outside lighting) The motion voted was clarified indicating the motion was to vote the critical project list as submitted. Mr. Lewis reiterated his plan of taking a percentage of money from choice and tuition funds. Motion: On a motion by Sue Skidmore, seconded by Ed Lewis, it was voted unanimously to adjourn The meeting at 9:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann M. Tefft Included in the packet: Region Only Budget,Central Office Budget,Capital Plan FY16,and Five Year Capital Plan 6IPage January14 , 2015