NOTTINGHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE DECEMBER 21, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Ms. Gail Powell, Chair Mr. Chet Batchelder (Excused)
Mr. Bill Netishen, Selectmen's Representative Ms. Judy Doughty, School Board Representative
Mr. Hal Rafter, Alternate School Board Representative
Mr. Chris Mills
Mr. Philip Fernald
Mr. Michael Koester
Ms. Denise Blaha
Ms. Charlene Andersen
Mr. Kurt Duprey
Mr. John Decker (Arrived 7:15)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Judy McGann, Superintendent SAU #44
Ms. Kathleen Sargent, Business Administrator SAU #44
Ms. Michelle Carvalho, Principal
Ms. Amy Plante, School Board Chair
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Ms. Powell said that the next meeting of the Budget Committee would be on December 21, 2006. She said that the Budget Committee would be hearing from the town department heads. She stated that the order of department heads as scheduled was Highway Department, Police Department, Recreation Department, Fire/Rescue Department. She noted that order was subject to change.
Ms. Powell said that she would have to leave the meeting early on December 21, 2006. She said that Mr. Koester would chair the meeting after she left.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ms. Powell said that the Town Administrator had requested that some clarifications be made to the minutes. She said that the Budget Committee would defer their approval of the minutes until their next meeting and they would receive a copy with the requested changes made.
DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL BUDGET:
Mr. Rafter said that he wanted to address a question that had been asked previously by the Budget Committee. He said that the cost per pupil in Nottingham was approximately $910 below the state average. He said that the cost per pupil in Nottingham for the year before last had been $8,596. He said that the 2004-2005 state average cost per pupil was $9,400. He said that was an analysis of cost per pupil in schools with grades K-8. He said that Nottingham ran a pretty lean operation in terms of the cost per pupil.
Mr. Rafter showed the Budget Committee a map which explained how many students used each classroom. He noted that the rooms near the cafeteria without student numbers on them were the kitchen and other rooms for storage of food and cooking items. Mr. Netishen asked if the art room was bigger than the other rooms. Mr. Rafter said that the map the Budget Committee was looking at was drawn to scale. He said that the art room was bigger than some of the other classrooms and smaller than others. He said that the 4 classrooms which had been added were room numbers 203, 201, 103, and 101. Ms. Carvalho said that those rooms had been added when the building had been constructed. Mr. Duprey asked about the maximum class size allowed. Ms. Carvalho said that in grades K-2 the maximum class size allowed was
25, striving for 20, in grades 3-8 it was 30, striving for 25. She said that room #139 was meant to be an all purpose room when it was built but it had been converted to a Kindergarten classroom. Mr. Mills asked how a mixed grade level classroom would fit into the classroom chart. Mr. Rafter said that children from grades 2 and 3 would be combined in a multi age classroom. He said that the School Board had pulled the modular classroom and the additional teacher from the proposed budget. Mr. Decker asked how the parents felt about the idea of a multi age classroom. Mr. Rafter said that he had not heard any feedback on that. Mr. Koester asked how long the multi age class would solve the growth problem. Mr. Rafter said that he did not know. He said that he did not know what the rate of growth would be.
Mr. Rafter said that there had been some changes made to the final revenue sheet. He said that there was $100,000 projected for the unreserved fund balance. He said that there was a 0% increase projected for the town assessed valuation. He said that number had been held constant on the projected revenue sheet. He said that he realized this was a conservative projection but he said that the real estate market had slowed. He said that the School Board was projecting for the worst case scenario just in case. He said that the previous year they had a high surplus of $376,000. He said that they were projecting a surplus of $100,000. He noted that was a 71% decline.
Mr. Duprey asked if the capital reserve funds would be ongoing. Mr. Rafter said that there would be warrant articles each year asking the people in town to continue to fund the capital reserve funds.
Mr. Duprey asked where in the paperwork the Budget Committee could see expense offsets for high school tuition. Ms. Sargent said that tuition paid by parents was considered reimbursement not revenue. Mr. Duprey asked if all of the parents had paid to date. Ms. Sargent said yes. Mr. Koester asked why they needed to budget the entire tuition rate for Coe-Brown when they knew that they were going to be getting reimbursement from parents for part of that amount. Ms. Sargent said that they had a contract with Coe-Brown. She said that they would still be responsible for paying Coe-Brown the full tuition amount even if a parent didn't reimburse them. Mr. Decker said that often in the past, for that line, the Budget Committee had recommended the Dover High School tuition rate multiplied by the number of
students. Mr. Duprey asked if the school district had legal recourse if the parents didn't pay what they owed in tuition. Ms. McGann said yes.
Mr. Decker asked if the school district was expecting more money from the state in the coming year. Ms. Sargent said yes. Mr. Rafter said that anything could happen but he said that the amount the district got from the state was not expected to go down.
Mr. Rafter said that the School Board had adopted a new salary schedule for the classified staff. Ms. Carvalho said that the new salary schedule combined some scales and tracks. She said that the tracks were done in increments of $0.25 per hour. She said that some salaries had been adjusted upwards slightly in order to be comparable with other towns.
Mr. Rafter said that because of the "No Child Left Behind" legislation Special Education Aides now needed to be highly qualified. Ms. McGann said that they had done training of Special Education Aides with grant money. She said that in order to be highly qualified, staff needed to get so many hours of training in so many years. She noted that a paraprofessional needed to get 50 hours of training during the specified time period and a teacher needed to get 75 hours of training for each of their certifications during the specified time period. She noted that there were different levels of paraprofessionals and she said that a Paraprofessional at level 3 had a Bachelor's degree.
Mr. Rafter said that the actual Dover High School tuition rate for the current year was $9,110.52. He said that the actual Coe-Brown tuition rate for the current year was $10,843. He said that the difference between the Dover tuition rate and the Coe-Brown tuition rate was $1,733. He noted that parents of Coe-Brown students needed to reimburse the district for the amount of the difference.
Mr. Rafter said that for the proposed budget the Dover High School tuition line had been increased to $1,667,000. He said that included 5 additional students over the current population. Mr. Netishen asked about the rationale for that. Mr. Rafter said that there was the expectation of growth in the community. He said that they had projected a 6% increase in the Dover tuition. Mr. Decker asked why. Mr. Rafter said that the Dover Superintendent had mentioned that they were trying to increase tuition 5.5%. Mr. Decker asked why the School Board had budgeted for a 6% increase instead of a 5.5% increase. Mr. Rafter said that they wanted to be conservative in case Dover decided to ask for a little more. He said that Dover needed to get permission from the Dover City Council and from the state
Department of Education for their tuition rate. He said that the district would get the final tuition rate for Coe-Brown on January 15, 2007. He said that the Coe-Brown tuition rate increase would not exceed 5%. He said that the district would not get the final tuition rate for Dover High School until September or October of 2007.
Mr. Rafter said that the Budget Committee had been given a copy of the amended SAU budget. He said that they had the public hearing for the SAU budget and so that budget should be final.
Mr. Decker asked if Raymond High School tuition was more than Dover High School tuition. Ms. Sargent said yes. Mr. Decker asked how the district handled that. Mr. Rafter said that it was handled the same as Coe-Brown. He said that the parents paid the difference between Raymond High School and Dover High School.
Mr. Rafter said that the total SAU budget had decreased by $700. He said that the total SAU proposed budget was approximately $278,000. Ms. Sargent said that the district had to use the posted equalized valuation given by the state. Ms. Powell asked where the Nottingham School Board had concerns about the SAU budget. Mr. Rafter said that the School Board had not had any major concerns about the SAU budget. He said that the proposed SAU budget was fairly uncontroversial.
Mr. Rafter said that the district was going to need warrant articles each year to put money into their reserve funds. He said that the School Board would do a warrant article asking to put $15,000 from the projected surplus into the Special Education capital reserve fund and he said they would do a warrant article to put $10,000 from the projected surplus into the building repairs capital reserve fund.
Ms. McGann said that the School Board was looking at doing a population projection study and a feasibility study for the building. He said that they had already discussed having someone do an architectural plan. She said that they were talking about putting $10,000 into a reserve fund so that they could do the architectural plan after the studies were completed instead of having to wait for the next vote.
Mr. Rafter said that the School Board had put money in the budget for repairs to the field. Ms. McGann noted that those repairs were a part of the Capital Improvement Plan. Mr. Rafter said that the School Board had put $10,000 in the budget because the field needed work. He said that the soil was so bad that it could not support real turf.
Mr. Rafter said that the School Board had not discussed the default budget. He said that it should take them one meeting to finalize that.
Mr. Rafter noted that the School Board had taken the modular classroom and the new teacher out of the proposed budget.
Ms. Blaha asked if the Budget Committee could expect a teacher contract warrant article. Ms. McGann said yes. She said that she was optimistic. She said that she hoped the contract negotiations would be completed on December 21, 2006. She said that she hoped the contract would be ratified by both sides in time to give it to the Budget Committee in advance of their public hearing.
Mr. Rafter said that the proposed school budget increase was 1.92% without the teacher contract. He said that the increase should end up being less than 5% for sure. He said that the proposed increase was small relative to other districts.
Mr. Duprey asked when technology the district was swapping out with their technology plan. Ms. Carvalho said that they would be swapping out classroom computers. Mr. Rafter said that the technology plan called for them to swap 20% of their computers each year and it was based on a 5 year rotation plan. He said that the idea was that they didn't want to have any computers that were more than 5 years old. Mr. Decker asked what the school did with the old computers they were getting rid of. Ms. Carvalho said that sometimes they sold the computers cheaply and sometimes they gave them away to kids in need. Mr. Decker suggested that the School Board talk to the town library and ask if they wanted the old computers.
Mr. Koester asked why the modular classroom was still in the narrative. Ms. McGann said that she would take it out of the narrative when the School Board approved the budget.
Mr. Netishen noted that the paperwork said enrollment 06-07 was 514 with 8 home school students and he said that elsewhere in the paperwork there was a spot that said enrollment October 1, 2006 and it said 514 students with 15 home school students. He noted the inconsistency. Ms. McGann said that the district could not keep track of home school students. She said that she would look into the number. She said that 15 was probably the total number of home school students for the SAU. She said that parents of home school students needed to register with an accredited agency but they did not necessarily need to register with the local superintendent's office. She said that registering with the local Superintendent was an option and so was registering with a private school, some other accredited school or the
state Department of Education. She said that usually the Department of Education did notify the local Superintendent's office of registered home school students from their district but she said that other schools did not need to notify them if a student from Nottingham registered to home school with their curriculum.
Ms. Powell said that she thought there should be a discussion about any guidelines the Budget Committee should use when looking at the budget. Mr. Decker said that he was working on putting together some trends they could look at when discussing the town budget. Ms. Powell noted that the cost of living index seemed to be a significant measure to the teachers. She said that number came up in discussion often.
CARBON COALITION:
Ms. Powell introduced Ms. Blaha and said that she would be making a presentation.
Ms. Blaha said that she was speaking on behalf of the Carbon Coalition. She handed out some information to the Budget Committee regarding a petition and she asked that they read it.
Mr. Rafter asked if the petition had been circulated. Ms. Blaha said yes. She said that it had also been brought in front of the Nottingham Board of Selectmen.
Ms. Blaha explained that the Carbon Coalition had been formed in 2003 by a variety of organizations. She said that the purpose of the coalition was to try to promote a "saner" energy policy at the national and the local level. She said that this was a very grass roots effort and the people involved were volunteers. She said that the volunteers had many different backgrounds.
Ms. Blaha said that this mattered to the Budget Committee because there was money spent by the town and the school on electricity and heat. She said that saving carbon saved money. She said that energy efficiency saved money. She said that if Nottingham decided to have an Energy Committee than she would be willing to serve on that committee. She gave some examples of how cities in New Hampshire had saved money by becoming more energy efficient. She cited an example where Manchester had switched their traffic lights from regular light bulbs to LED light bulbs and have saved significant money. She said that she understood that example would not work in a town the size of Nottingham but she said that even small towns could save money by becoming more energy efficient. She said that an endorsement by the
Budget Committee of a resolution to establish a voluntary energy committee to recommend local steps to save energy and reduce emissions would give the resolution more weight. She said that this resolution was being endorsed by committees throughout the state of New Hampshire and she said that it had been endorsed by the Nottingham Board of Selectmen.
Ms. Andersen said that she supported the resolution. She said that it might cost more at first but she said that in the longer term, more energy efficiency would be better for the future of the town.
Ms. Andersen made a motion that the Budget Committee endorse the Carbon Coalition resolution. Mr. Duprey seconded the motion.
Ms. Blaha said that some changes were simple. She said that lots of people wanted to help small towns become more energy efficient. She said that she knew some people who she could ask for more information on that. Mr. Decker said that he supported this resolution. He said that it would help the town save money in the future. Mr. Mills noted that the resolution was also about protecting the environment and the earth. Mr. Rafter said that reducing the number of meetings would make it so fewer people had to drive so there would be fewer cars and that would also help the environment. Ms. Andersen said that one of the good things about this resolution was that it generated conversation about what other things ordinary people could do for the environment. She said that resolutions like this created
greater awareness of the situation. Ms. Blaha agreed. She said that an education effort might help more people become more energy efficient. She said that more parents drove their kids to school than had in the past. She said that driving 1 mile put 1 pound of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. She noted that if 30 parents drove their kids to school that was a significant amount of Carbon Dioxide being released into the atmosphere. Mr. Mills said that he hardly ever saw more than one person in a car when he was out.
Mr. Netishen noted that the town office building had new windows and new doors. He said that they had new siding and up to date lighting. He said that the town office was a very energy efficient building. He also noted that they building had recently had an energy audit.
Mr. Netishen said that the building codes were very specific. He said that in order to get a building permit people needed to have certain lighting and they needed to build as efficiently as possible.
The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion to endorse the Carbon Coalition resolution. The motion passed 10-0.
OTHER COMMENTS:
Mr. Netishen said that the Board of Selectmen would be meeting with the town department heads again. He said that not all the changes were reflected in the proposed budget yet.
Mr. Netishen said that he thought the information request form had worked very well.
Mr. Mills said that a member of the Budget Committee had mentioned impact fees at a previous meeting. He said that he had asked his wife about impact fees and she had given him a huge binder of information. He said that each amount of money collected from impact fees needed to be for a specific purpose. He said that impact fees were very complicated. Mr. Netishen noted that when there were impact fees the accounting needed to be very precise. He said that the town would need to give the money back if it was not used for its specific purpose. Mr. Mills said that the money from impact fees needed to be designated for a specific impact. He said that impact fees would create a lot of extra work for someone. Mr. Netishen said that impact fees would create a need to clearly identify and track areas
of growth. Mr. Decker said that the town needed to have a good Capital Improvement Plan in order for the Planning Board to even consider impact fees. Mr. Koester asked if the money from impact fees needed to be used for structures rather than employees. Mr. Netishen said that was generally the rule but it was not always the rule. He said that implementing impact fees took a total commitment from a town.
Mr. Rafter said that the Nottingham School Board had gotten a letter from Coe-Brown with a proposal that they become the high school of record for Nottingham. He said that the discussion about this was very preliminary. He said that there had been lots of internet traffic regarding this issue. He said that currently Nottingham did not have a high school of record. He said that approach continued to work well because Dover High School admitted all the Nottingham students who did not choose to go elsewhere and the Nottingham kids were not required to go to Dover High School. He said that the proposal from Coe-Brown would be discussed at the next School Board meeting. He said that the School Board had gotten email from parents asking them to consider this proposal by Coe-Brown. He said that the School
Board had not talked with Coe-Brown about this proposal yet.
Ms. Blaha asked about the source of some information that had been given to the Budget Committee. Mr. Netishen said that it had come from the Local Government Center. He said that he did not have the background for the information but he said that the Local Government Center had been getting the same information for years and there were copies of it in the Board of Selectmen's office.
Mr. Duprey thanked the School Board and the SAU for the extensive materials they had provided to the Budget Committee. He also thanked Ms. Blaha for bringing the Carbon Coalition resolution in front of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Duprey made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00pm. Mr. Mills 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
| 
