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