NOTTINGHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
OCTOBER 26, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 9, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Ms. Gail Powell, Chair Mr. Chris Mills (Excused)
Mr. Michael Koester, Vice-Chair
Mr. Bill Netishen, Selectmen's Representative
Ms. Judy Doughty, School Board Representative
Mr. Kurt Duprey
Ms. Denise Blaha
Mr. Philip Fernald
Ms. Charlene Andersen
Mr. Chet Batchelder
Mr. John Decker
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Hal Rafter, School Board
Ms. Michelle Carvalho, Principal
Ms. Amy Plante, School Board
Ms. Judy McGann, Superintendent SAU #44
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Budget Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
INFORMATION:
Ms. McGann said that she would have a hard copy of the proposed school district budget on Friday November 3, 2006 after 3:00pm. She said that she would make that available to the Budget Committee at that time. There was discussion about leaving copies at the Town Offices or at the Town Library. Ms. McGann said that she would call the Town Offices and she would try to leave hard copies in the most accessible place.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Batchelder made a motion that the Budget Committee approve the minutes from the meeting on September 14, 2006 as amended. Ms. Doughty seconded the motion. Mr. Batchelder, Ms. Doughty, Ms. Powell, Mr. Netishen, Ms. Blaha, Mr. Fernald, Ms. Andersen and Mr. Decker voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Koester and Mr. Duprey abstained from the motion. The motion passed 8-0 with 2 abstentions.
Mr. Koester made a motion that the Budget Committee approve the minutes from the meeting on September 28, 2006. Mr. Decker seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 10-0.
PRESENTATION BY AMY PLANTE:
Ms. Plante explained that her presentation was the same one she had given before the Deliberative Session the previous year except that it had been slightly updated.
Ms. Plante started her presentation with some of the history of the Nottingham School District. She explained that Nottingham had a traditional school district until the year 2000. She said that after that Nottingham had become an SB2 town. She explained that the Nottingham school district had 4 responsibilities, disabled preschool children, K-8 students, high school students, and their contribution to SAU #44. She said that the district was also responsible for the education of special education students in grades K-12.
Ms. Plante said that the enrollment in Nottingham School as of October 1, 2006 was 514 students in grades K-8. She said that Nottingham School employed 41.5 certified professional staff. She showed a graph of the enrollment at Nottingham School over recent years. She said that all of the teachers in Nottingham met the Highly Qualified Teacher requirements. She also said that Nottingham School had a good combination of entry level, mid level and veteran teachers. She showed a scattergram which illustrated the number of years teaching and the education levels of the Nottingham School teaching staff. She said that 40% of their teachers were at step 14 or above, 20% had been teaching between 1-5 years and 33% had been teaching between 6-10 years. She explained that classified staff included
paraprofessionals, administrative support, the food service staff, the maintenance staff, and the bookkeeper. She said that the contracted staff included people like the English as a Second Language teachers and the deaf teacher. She said that Nottingham School had 2 administrators. She said that the Nottingham School District had 175 students at Dover High School and 46.5 students at Coe-Brown Academy. She said that the district had 17 students at other high schools. She said that the district only paid up to the Dover High School rate for high school students. She showed a graph which illustrated the high school enrollment. She also explained the pre-school program. She said that the program currently had 6 students but it had ranged between 5 and 8 students. She explained that students needed to qualify to be eligible for the program.
Ms. Plante also noted that there were a number of staff who worked at SAU #44 and she said that each school district needed to pay their share for those services.
Ms. Plante briefly explained the budget process. She said that the process began in early September. She noted that as the school year was starting the staff was already working on the budget for the following year. She said that the district needed to consider state and federal requirements when they were putting together their budget. She said that the goal of the budget process was to get realistic projections for what they would spend and what they would need. She showed a chart which illustrated the budget process. She also showed a pie chart of the 2006-2007 proposed operating budget. She said that it was mostly made up of contractual obligations. She pointed out that there was not much wiggle room. She also explained where the increases had been in the previous years budget.
Ms. Plante also talked about revenue sources. She said that the main sources of revenue were local, state and federal grants, the state property tax and the state education grant. She said that state funding had been declining. She talked about the unreserved fund balance and she noted that there were a lot of unknown variables when they were doing the budgets a year in advance. She noted that some examples of unknown variables were future staff changes which would result in changes in changes to wages and benefits, and she said that other changes would be high school students moving in or out of the district and special education students moving in or out of the district. Ms. Powell asked how the unreserved fund balance compared with previous ones. Mr. Rafter said that it might be slightly higher than the
year before but it was comparable. Mr. Batchelder asked if he could have a copy of the pie charts used in the presentation. Ms. Plante said yes.
DISCUSSION WITH SUPERINTENDENT REGARDING CHANGES TO PROCESS:
Ms. McGann said that Ms. Powell had told her the Budget Committee was thinking about splitting up the budget so they would all be experts on one part. She suggested that the committee could split the budget by object code. She gave the committee more information about the object codes.
Ms. McGann explained that at the start of the budget process the different parties would get together and set goals. She said that first the SAU would set goals and then the individual school districts would set goals.
Ms. McGann explained about IDEA and NCLB and she talked about assessments. She said that the NECAP's included reading, math and writing. She said that in November they were going to add high school science. She said that currently the high school students were taking the NHEIAP's in the spring but she said that they were going to be transitioning to taking the NECAP's in the fall. She explained the concept of adequate yearly progress and she explained how the process worked for schools and districts in need of improvement. She also explained that the bars for achievement would rise each year. She said that eventually the district would need to contract outside tutoring. She explained the Strafford Learning Center and she said that they would be starting there and using those resources. She said
that in the future they were also considering making SAU #44 their own agent and she explained why she felt that might be useful. She said that they had pooled their federal money for a curriculum coordinator for 2 years. She said that they had also created a curriculum advisory committee. She said that the focus was on reading and written language. She said that they needed to develop procedures to deal with whatever came up in the future. She said that they were looking to create more consistency between the districts in the SAU. She said that part of the reason for that was saving money. She noted that it was cheaper to buy in bulk. She said that there was an appeal process if a school did not meet the adequate yearly progress requirements and she said that they were looking to have procedures in place in case they needed to use that appeal process. She also talked about the scores for the special education evaluation. She
said that the district was moving forward with an improvement plan and they were getting a $5,000 grant.
Ms. McGann said that there had been 10 children from grades 7-9 in a summer at risk program. She said that it had been extremely successful. She explained some of the at risk programs and she explained some of the grants.
Ms. McGann said that they were working on more staff development opportunities. She said that it was difficult because many staff development seminars were from 9:00am until 5:00pm. She said that they were looking for programs they could do from 3:00pm until 5:00pm or in the evenings. She said that they were working on sharing expertise between school districts.
Ms. McGann explained that the district was doing health and safety programs that dealt with drugs and alcohol. She also talked about $60,000 in federal funds and about Nottingham being one of 16 districts to gain the status as a Follow The Child district.
Ms. McGann said that the district had used $820,000 in grant money the previous year. She explained which grants were competitive and which grants were entitlement grants. She said that all of the grants were managed through the SAU. Mr. Decker asked how the grants were distributed between Northwood, Nottingham and Strafford. Ms. McGann explained how the grants were used.
Ms. McGann talked about contracted services and she said that the services such as Speech Pathologist needed to be distributed through the SAU so the schools in the district could share the services. She also talked about occupational therapy. She said that in the past they had contracted for that with Strafford Learning Center but she said that the circumstances had changed and the district had saved $32,000 by hiring their own OT services.
Ms. McGann said that the Budget Committee would get a financial statement on November 9, 2006. She said that they would also get a green book with the line items. She said that the Budget Committee would get to see the process because they would see the amounts that were requested at the different levels of the process. She noted that the levels included the teachers, the administration, the SAU and the School Board.
Ms. Powell said that she was concerned the 'No Child Left Behind' law was creating costs. She asked what the plan was for getting the money to deal with those costs. Ms. McGann said that for many of the requirements she wanted to try to do things at the SAU level and split the costs 3 ways. She said that she was looking at getting students from the 3 districts together so they would have programs with larger groups and the districts could share the expenses. She also said that the costs were not going to appear all at once so they should be able to gradually assimilate them. She said that the districts might need to hire a person who was a curriculum coordinator/mentor or they might need to hire part time people and they could piggy back on each others services and share the expenses.
Mr. Duprey asked about the cost of an education per child. He asked how well they were educating their students. He asked how they compared with other districts. He asked how they knew whether their money was being well spent. Ms. Carvalho said that the School Board had put information about the student test scores in the community newsletter. She noted that in their testing the special education students had not met their adequate yearly progress criteria.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN COMMITTEE REPORT:
Mr. Decker showed the Budget Committee a list of the requests that had come in for the Capital Improvement Plan program from 2006-2013. He said that the CIP committee had made recommendations. He said that the list was arranged by the year that the department requesting the funds expected to spend the money. He said that the criteria for an expenditure to be considered a capital improvement included that the expenditure needed to be a tangible item, cost over $10,000 and it needed to last 5 or more years. Mr. Koester asked about bonding. Mr. Decker said that bonding was the next step. He said that the question of bonding came down to the taxpayers. He said that the Capital Improvement Plan Committee list was just what had been requested by the departments.
There was a question about the specific roads mentioned on the plan. Mr. Netishen said that the requests of the Highway Department could change every year. He said that the requests were based on need and he said that needs could change with the circumstances.
Ms. Andersen noted that the plan suggested the replacement of an ambulance and a fire engine in 2009. She asked if one of those vehicles could be replaced in 2010. Mr. Decker said that the list was just the requests as they had been submitted by the department heads. He said that the list was just one building block the CIP committee was using to build the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Batchelder asked if the town had gotten any money to help them rebuild from the storm. Mr. Netishen said that they had gotten less then $50,000. Mr. Decker noted that there was some money for vehicles in capital reserve funds. Mr. Netishen noted that the requests for vehicles also depended on how well the current vehicles lasted. Mr. Batchelder said that he wanted to bring up a thought. He wondered whether
if the town had a strategic plan they still needed capital reserve funds. Mr. Decker said that the question of capital reserve funds would probably be looked at annually. Mr. Netishen said that the eventual goal was to have a plan that was so specific that they would not need to have reserve funds but he said that they were not nearly at that point yet. He said that they did eventually want to have a fixed plan though. Mr. Decker said that the next meeting of the Capital Improvement Plan Committee was going to be November 20, 2006.
DISCUSSION OF MEMO TO SCHOOL BOARD:
Ms. Powell presented the latest version of the memo from the Budget Committee to the School Board. Ms. Blaha said that she had some concern about the Budget Committee overstepping their bounds. Ms. Powell said that everything in the memo was subject to change and the Budget Committee was not dictating anything to the School Board. Mr. Duprey said that it was important for the Budget Committee to have adequate lead time when they needed to review information.
DISCUSSION OF MEMO TO BOARD OF SELECTMEN:
Ms. Powell noted that the Budget Committee had received copies of this memo at their last meeting and she said that she had sat down with Mr. Brown and Mr. Netishen and discussed this memo. Mr. Netishen asked whether Ms. Powell had done the same thing with the memo to the School Board. Ms. Powell said yes. Mr. Netishen noted that item numbers 3 and 4 on the memo were already in action.
Mr. Koester made a motion to accept as amended the memos from the Budget Committee to the School Board and the Board of Selectmen and to allow the memos to be forwarded to the School Board and the Board of Selectmen. Ms. Doughty seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 10-0.
INFORMATION REQUEST FORM:
Ms. Powell said that she would like the Budget Committee to be able to get any information they wanted. She requested that any members of the Budget Committee please email Ms. Blaha with the basic information that they would like to receive. She said that Ms. Blaha would keep a log of that information. She said that the goal was for the Budget Committee to be able to keep track of what information they needed so it could be provided to them.
LIBRARY REQUEST:
Ms. Powell said that the Trustees of the Library had requested that they be able to give their presentation first at the November 30, 2006 meeting. She said that she would like to put them on the agenda for 7:15pm. Mr. Decker asked if the Library Trustees could come to a meeting before November 30, 2006. Ms. Powell said that she would ask the Library Trustees if they would be willing and able to attend an earlier meeting.
OTHER:
Ms. Powell said that she needed help with her computer. She said that she needed someone to sit down with her for an hour or so and help her figure out how to use the equipment she had. Several members of the Budget Committee said that they would contact her.
Ms. Andersen said that she had found the presentations given by Ms. Plante and Ms. McGann both informative and enlightening.
Mr. Decker said that he agreed with Ms. Andersen about the presentations. He also said that he was doing some work on trending with the high level MS7 accounts.
Mr. Batchelder said that he also agreed with Ms. Andersen about the presentations. He also said that he would like the Budget Committee to have access to the presentations. He said that he would like the Budget Committee to use some of the information for their public hearing. He noted that the School Board only had any control over about 14% of the school budget.
Ms. Powell said that the Budget Committee never saw the SAU budget. She said that she was concerned that a lot of things would be mandated by legislation. Ms. Doughty said that the SAU and the School Board were trying to be proactive and not reactive. Mr. Batchelder said that he thought Ms. McGann was doing a good job. He said that this was the first time he had seen the SAU really try to consolidate costs and services.
Mr. Duprey said that he thought the presentations by Ms. Plante and Ms. McGann had been good. He said that he was concerned about how the people could determine whether their money was well spent.
Mr. Koester said that he had found the October 1, 2006 enrollment figure interesting. He said that he thought they were starting to see an impact from the town growth.
Mr. Fernald said that he thought the spending figures were too high. He said that governments were spending too much money. He also said that he thought the Budget Committee should be fair and pick on all the town department budgets equally. He said that he felt some budgets were picked apart and they just let others by without questioning them.
Mr. Netishen said that the Budget Committee needed a complete copy of the object codes for the school budget. He said that when they received that they could break the budget into pieces so that each member of the Budget Committee could look at certain aspects of the budget.
Mr. Netishen said that school performance should not dictate purchases. He noted that the Budget Committee needed to be very careful in this area. He said that the Budget Committee did not have the authority to suggest that the School Board buy paper instead of cardboard based on any aspect of the school performance.
Mr. Netishen said that he felt it was important there were hard copies at the town hall of any documents that were emailed to Budget Committee members. He noted that if people did not have computers or if their computers were not working properly than they would still need the information.
Mr. Rafter said that there was an ongoing issue with high school tuition. He said that the projected tuition at Dover High School was lower then the School Board had budgeted for. He said that the tuition number they had been given for Dover High School was not a real number. He said that the School Board was in the process of getting an explanation from Dover about this. He said that the difference in tuition between Dover High School and Coe-Brown Academy was $2,400. He said that was a significant amount. He said that there had not been a resolution to this problem yet. He said that the bill they had sent out to parents of Coe-Brown Academy students was in question and the parents had been told they should disregard it for now.
Mr. Rafter said that Mr. Mark Joyce from the School Administrators Association was going to be providing the service of looking at the growth projections for the school and analyzing them. Ms. Doughty said that information would benefit both the school and the town. Mr. Rafter asked whether the Budget Committee thought the cost for that service should be a part of the operating budget or if they thought it should be separated into a warrant article. Mr. Batchelder said that he thought the cost of that service should be considered a one time expenditure in the budget and not a warrant article.
Mr. Rafter said that because of problems with the new accounting system the next financial statements might not have all of the encumbrances done correctly.
Ms. Doughty said that the School Board was looking at doing more student assessments on the computer. She said that the School Board, administrators and teachers were working on ways to show their performance to the public so they would know their money was being well spent.
Mr. Decker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:15pm. Mr. Batchelder seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 10-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Budget Committee Secretary
| 
