Southern
Berkshire Regional School Committee
Mt. Everett Regional School
Sheffield, MA
May 19, 2011
Meeting #1430
School Committee Members: Mr. Abelow, Mr. Willig, Mr. Valentini, Mr. Flynn, Ms. Silvestri, Mr. Sears, Mr. McSpiritt
Absent: Ms. Miller, Ms. Mielke, Mr. Fetterhoff
Administration: Mr. Turner, Mr. Hastings
Press: CTSB
Student Representatives: Carlos Perez
Others: Ms. Sarah Siket, Ms. Tara White, Mr. Nathaniel Yohalem, Mr. Edgar Zukauskis, Mr. David Herrick, Ms. Candace Parsons, Mr. William Dowling, Ms. Jane Wright, Taylor Dorsey, Ms. Linda Higgins
1. Call to Order: Chairman Abelow called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes: Hearing no objections or corrections, Chairman Abelow declared the minutes of School Committee Meeting #1,429, the Informational Meeting of April 27, 2011, and the Special School Committee Meeting of May 12, 2011 accepted as presented.
3. Communications from the Audience Pertaining to This Evening’s Agenda:
- Mr. Abelow informed the Committee the the students who attended MASC’s Day on the Hill were unable to attend that evening due to scheduling conflicts. He will invite them to attend at another time.
- There were no student representatives in attendance. In lieu of a student representative report, Mr. Valentini shared a listing of some of the many activities happening before the end of the school year.
- Chairman Abelow explained that Dr. Singleton was unable to attend the meeting. On behalf of the Superintendent, Mr. Turner handed out information on the upcoming MA Association of School Committee’s District VI legislative forum.
4. Business:
A. Superintendent’s Report: There was no Superintendent’s Report.
B. Request for Approval of Senior Class Trip
Following a brief discussion, Mr. Flynn moved, seconded by Mr. McSpiritt, to approve the 2011 Senior Class Trip to the Lake George area on June 1 and 2. It was so voted. Ms. Siket and Senior Class President Carlos Perez expressed their appreciation to the Committee for their support.
C. Subcommittee/Representative Reports
Buildings, Grounds & Technology and Finance Subcommittees: Mr. Flynn distributed minutes from the May 16 joint meeting of the Buildings, Grounds & Technology and Finance Subcommittees. He explained that the subcommittee members had reviewed items in the proposed bonding to see whether they could make adjustments. He stated that neither subcommittee felt that adjustments were possible. He explained that if the proposed bonding were approved, the repayment schedule would be set to be able to assess the towns approximately $400,000 each year in capital costs. The major portion of that amount would be used to repay the bonds, and the remainder would be put into the Stabilization Fund. Alternatively, he explained that if the necessary
projects were to be put into the regular Capital Budget, the assessment would need to be set at approximately $900,000 per year in order complete the projects within a three-year time frame or at $450,000 per year to complete them in six years. If the projects were completed in a nine-year time frame, the assessments would come in just under $400,000, but there would be no funds to complete any other projects, and no money would be available for the stabilization fund.
Mr. Valentini added that much of the necessary capital expenditure for FY’12 had been included in the bond, thus the School Committee had deliberately “low-balled” the FY’12 Capital Budget at a total of $125,000. He said that if the bond failed to quickly become a reality, he would need to convene the Finance Subcommittee and recommend increasing the Capital budget to $400,000, as the projects that need to be accomplished this upcoming year cannot be done for $125,000.
The Committee discussed how support may be gained for the bond in the towns that disapproved it. Mr. Flynn suggested that a firm number be given even though final prices could not be known until the approval was received and engineering reports were conducted on the necessary projects. He said that he felt it was confusing to not give a firm number to the voters. Mr. Flynn added that he believed the voters would reconsider if the proposal were to be clarified. He said that he felt that the proposal was well thought-out, and that the Committee should ask them to reconsider.
Mr. Abelow clarified that in order to complete the approval process for the bonding, the three member towns which approved the borrowing would not need to hold a special meeting; the town that approved the borrowing, but did not approve the debt exclusion would need to re-vote the exclusion piece; and one town would need to hold a special meeting and also hold a special vote to approve the debt exclusion.
Ms. Silvestri offered an historical perspective. She recalled that the School Committee had contracted with EDM for a complete report on the buildings in 2006. After receiving the report, the most crucial of the projects had been completed, and then the document had been shelved until this past year, when the School Committee and the Long Range Capital Planning Committee had begun to once again look at the needs of the District’s buildings. Once the new building had been paid off, the Committee had hoped that the towns would understand the needs that had emerged over the past twenty years while the towns were paying off the bond. She said that she felt the towns should not be considering whether to pay, but rather how to pay.
Mr. Sears stated that he felt that there had been a clear misunderstanding at the Sheffield town meeting. He noted that short-life items would be paid early in the process, not over the life of the bond.
Following additional discussion, the Committee agreed to meet again on May 26, at 6:00 p.m. and to extend an invitation to all member town select boards and finance committees to attend.
In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Flynn explained that in putting the proposal together, the Committee had looked at the historical capital costs, which had ranged in recent years from a high of $1,000,000 + in FY’06 to a low of $400,000 in FY’11. They felt that keeping the Capital Budget to $400,000 per year would be a reasonable goal. Thus, the Committee would try to structure the bond in order to get the payments under the $400,000. Once the bond payments go down, some of the capital funds would be used to keep the technology equipment current and the remainder would be put into the Stabilization Fund so the Committee would not need to go back to the towns for another bonding 10 years from now.
Committee members also explained that it would take a 2/3 vote of the School Committee to expend funds from the Stabilization Fund, and that, per law, those funds could only be used for capital expenses.
Ms. White requested a listing of the projects to be included in the proposed bonding. It was agreed that the list would be e-mailed to all towns.
D. Financial Updates/Transfer Requests: There were no updates or requests for transfers.
On a motion by Mr. Sears, seconded by Mr. Flynn, the meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m.
Documents presented for this meeting:
- Agenda – School Committee Meeting #1,430
- Minutes –School Committee Meeting #1,429; Informational Meeting of April27; Special Meeting of May 12, 2011
- Notice of MASC Division VI Legislative Forum on June 13, 2011
- Projected Cash Flows for Bond Project
- Debt Service Schedule (dated 9/1/2011 from UniBank Fiscal Advisory Services, Inc.)
- Amended Overnight Field Trip Request / Senior Class Trip Paperwork Check Sheet
| 
