NOTTINGHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 12, 2006
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Michael Koester, Chair
Ms. Noreen White-Roy, Vice-Chair
Ms. Judy Doughty, School Board Representative
Mr. Peter Bock, Selectmen's Representative
Mr. Kurt Duprey
Ms. Denise Blaha
Mr. Chet Batchelder
Mr. Philip Fernald
Mr. Jack Caldon
Mr. John Decker
Ms. Gail Powell
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bill Mundo, School Board Member
Ms. Judy McGann, Superintendent SAU #44
Mr. Hal Rafter, School Board Chair
Ms. Kathleen Sargent, Business Administrator SAU #44
Ms. Michelle Carvalho, Principal, Nottingham School
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Budget Committee Secretary
Ms. Suzanne Tomaszewski
Ms. Krista Brown
Ms. Pam Schaaf
Ms. Karen Pence
Mr. Greg Armitage
SCHOOL BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING:
Mr. Koester made the necessary announcements and he explained how the school budget public hearing would work. He said that the School Board would present their budget at the Deliberative Session on February 4, 2006. He said that there would be 3 or 4 vacancies on the Budget Committee for the next election and he noted the dates of the filing period. He said that the Budget Committee would present the budget and take comments from the public. He said that he wanted this to be an open forum. He noted that Election Day would be March 14, 2006.
Mr. Koester said that the Budget Committee would talk about the proposed school budget and the warrant articles. He said that the increase from the previous year was approximately 6.5%. He said that almost 26% of that increase was in high school tuition. He said that the number had come from anticipating the Dover tuition rate and multiplying it by the anticipated number of 8th graders attending Dover High School and subtracting the number of Seniors who would be graduating from Dover High School. He said that the Special Education tuition had increased by $12,582 or 31.4% and health insurance costs had increased by $73,500 or 18.5% and he noted that did not include any contract changes. He said that contracted transportation prices had increased. He said that the price for regular education transportation
had increased approximately 11% and the price for Special Education transportation had increased approximately 2.7%. He said that those were generally areas that could not be adjusted. He said that about 50% of the budget was in areas that the School Board and Budget Committee did not have much jurisdiction over. He said that the Budget Committee had made minor tuition changes in the past but he said that all the numbers were estimated. He said that the salaries were dictated by the current teacher contract. He explained the contract and the evergreen clause. He said that the Budget Committee could not really adjust the benefits. He said that the health insurance numbers were based on a guaranteed maximum rate increase of 18.8% using their anticipated staff. He said that they anticipated 232 students in grades 9-12 and based their tuition figures on that number. He said that the number did not anticipate move ins or growth.
He said that a previous warrant article obligated parents to pay any tuition greater than the Dover rate. He said that they needed to budget for all their expenditures regardless of how much money they received back. Mr. Koester noted that the line in the budget for testing supplies paid for an MWEA and Algebra test for students in grade 8. He also noted that the prior year school budget was a default budget. He said that the line for new furniture had increased.
Ms. Powell said that her understanding was that surplus money had been given to the School District to help ease Special Education costs. She asked how that impacted this budget. Mr. Koester said that the School Board was bound to raise and appropriate what would be spent. Ms. Powell said that she supported the use of surplus money and she would like to know what the money had been spent on. Ms. Sargent said that any surplus money went to reducing taxes. Mr. Caldon said that the district would get money back from the previous year to apply to this budget.
Mr. Koester said that there were clauses in the teacher contract warrant article which would affect the stipends. Ms. Suzanne Tomaceski asked why the number in the budget had been reduced. Ms. McGann said that the School Board needed to budget for the base salary in a contract year. Ms. Tomaceski asked whether the Guidance Counselor was a part of the teacher contract. Ms. Roy said yes. Mr. Decker asked where longevity fit in. Ms. McGann said that the increase in longevity was a component of the new proposed contract. Mr. Decker asked why there was no increase for some teachers in the default budget. Mr. Koester said that the evergreen clause did not apply to someone at the top of the salary scale.
Mr. Koester said that there was a proposal to purchase a portable height and weight scale that would measure body mass index and he said that there was a request to purchase some new cabinets. He said that the school was getting a contracted speech therapist to fill in for the regular one who was on leave. He said that the Literacy Collaborative lines had been consolidated. He said that the line for total media had decreased significantly. Ms. Powell asked why. Ms. Doughty said that there had been a change in staffing. She said that the new person had come in at a lower rate. Mr. Koester said that the price for School Board contracted services had increased because of the need to hire an attorney and a negotiator. He said that the same thing had happened with the prices for advertising and
legal notices. He said that the new numbers better reflected the reality of spending based on the history. He said that there was in increase in the line for the bookkeeper because they hoped to purchase a software package. He said that the cost of repairs and maintenance to the building would go up because the building was getting older. He said that carpeting needed to be purchased for the computer lab.
Mr. Koester said that the total proposed school budget was $7,926,911.93 and that was an increase from the previous year of 6.528%. He said that the total budget for the school lunch program was $140,083.17 and that was an increase from the previous year of 4.13%.
Mr. Batchelder asked about the increase in elementary school transportation. He wondered if they had added a bus. Ms. Sargent said that the increase was due to the increase in their contract with the bus company. Mr. Batchelder asked the School Board to please add that to the narrative. Ms. Roy asked if there was a separate fuel charge. Ms. Sargent said that she did not think so. Mr. Batchelder asked how many years the contract with the bus company was for. Ms. Sargent said that she thought it was 5. Mr. Koester asked if that would increase each year. Ms. Sargent said yes. Ms. Tomaceski asked about the tax impact. Mr. Rafter said that the current estimate was $11.86 per $1,000 which would be an increase to the current rate of $1.10. He said that would be a $330 tax
increase for a resident that owned a $300,000 house. He said that increase was just for the school district's portion of the tax money but he said that the estimate did include both the proposed budget and the proposed warrant articles. He explained his calculations and how he figured out the estimated rate. He also said that he had made some assumptions in his calculations. He said that the assessed valuation would increase. He said that he had used 1.5% as an estimate of how much the assessed valuation would increase. He said that was a conservative estimate. He said that he was predicting a $100,000 increase and he said that was fairly low based on the history of the past few years. He also talked about revenues and a state education grant. Mr. Koester noted that the numbers Mr. Rafter had just discussed assumed that all the warrant articles would pass.
Mr. Koester spoke about revenue estimates and he said that the cost of Medicaid had gone to $90,000 but he said that the district expected an increase in Medicaid reimbursement. Ms. McGann said that there was a 50% Medicaid payback rate and she said that the rehabilitative services had increased in the entire district for people ages 3-21. Mr. Koester asked if that meant the district spent more money and got reimbursed for more money. Ms. McGann said yes. Mr. Batchelder asked why the line for tuition said $0 in revenue. Mr. Rafter said that line would only be used if someone from another town paid tuition to the district so they could attend Nottingham School. He said that the tuition reimbursement the Nottingham district got from parents would be considered offset money. Mr. Batchelder asked that
the School Board please find out how much money the district would be getting as tuition reimbursement from parents. Mr. Bock said that there was a procedure for reimbursement. Ms. McGann said that the district paid the tuition for students to go to schools other than Dover High School and then they sent bills to the parents for the difference between the cost of their child's school and Dover High School.
Mr. Koester said that Warrant Article #5 was the proposed school operating budget. He said that the Budget Committee could serve as an advisory committee when discussing the default budget but the School Board had the full authority over the default budget.
Mr. Koester said that Warrant Article #6 was the teacher contract. He explained the history of the teacher contract and he said that the contract which had been voted on the previous October had failed by 36 votes. He said that this proposed contract would be retroactive to July 1, 2005 and it would be a 3 year contract. He said that there would be a 2.6% increase in the steps the first year. He said that the contract included a retroactive payment and a 2.8% step increase in the second year. He said that the step increase in the third year would be 3.0%. He explained a summary of the provisions of the contract. Ms. Christa Brown asked whether the predicted teacher shortage was being considered. She said that the district needed a strong contract. Ms. Blaha said that the contract compared
with the New Hampshire State average. She said that in all cases the proposed contract would just keep Nottingham at the state average for teacher pay. She said that Nottingham was above the state average at the very top of the teacher pay scale. She said that Nottingham had a MA+45 track and many schools only had an MA+30 track. She said that Nottingham did have some projected teacher retirements. She asked how many projected teacher retirements they had. Ms. Sargent said that Nottingham could have 18 retirements in the next 5 years based on the social security retirement age. Ms. Powell asked how many of those teachers were at the top of the salary schedule. Ms. Blaha said there were 2. She said that Nottingham was right with the state average as far as teacher pay and she said that they were competitive. Mr. Decker asked whether the longevity cost should show up in the warrant article. Mr. Caldon said that the
number should be the difference between the appropriation and the increase. Ms. Sargent said that they took out the health insurance adjustment and the step increases. Mr. Caldon said that he had a hard time with that. Ms. McGann said that the total new money requested included the longevity increase. Mr. Decker asked whether the contract continued to add longevity even if there was no contract. Ms. McGann said that yes, the increase was contractual. She said that if the contract did not pass the evergreen clause would kick in. Ms. Roy asked where the line for longevity money was placed in a normal year. Ms. McGann said that it was with the salaries. Ms. Tomaceski said that she had hoped more people would be at the School Budget Hearing and she was hoping more people would vote than in the past. She said that she hoped the Budget Committee would vote to recommend this contract. She said that history dictated that the
town and the school would be at odds. She said that the big picture was the education of the children. She said that parents needed to be advocates for their children. She said that this came down to the question of what they wanted their children and their community to look like. She asked whether they could make the budget process easier to understand and she said that she would like to encourage people to get out and vote. Ms. Pam Schaft said that there were a lot of uneducated voters and the budget process was very confusing. She said that the voters would look at the bottom line and they would look at whether the Budget Committee supported the contract or not. Ms. Brown said that she would like to see this contract pass. She said that they had a great school, a great community and great teachers and she said that their school needed this. Ms. Karen Pence said that the school had lost many teachers the last time their
contract hadn't passed and she said that she did not want her or her children to have to go through that again. She said that voters were stretched for time and they often looked at the Budget Committee's recommendation when they made their decision. Ms. Powell said that there needed to be a clear statement of the goal. She said that the teachers needed a good contract and they needed to be paid at the state average. Ms. Tomaceski said that she had not liked Nottingham School 5 years ago. She said that she was glad her family had stayed in Nottingham. She said that lots of people had put in lots of work to make the school better. She said that they could not get complacent. She said that they needed to get the word out. Mr. Rafter said that the School District Meeting was at 9:00am on February 4, 2006. He said that the budget process was confusing and he said that the School Board intended to do flyers. He said that
the School Board was also painfully familiar with communication problems. He said that the School Board would do a mass mailing to the town. He said that there was going to be an extremely competitive market for teachers. He said that the School Board could consider holding a special meeting. Ms. Roy asked Mr. Rafter to explain for the public how the proposed contract had been arrived at. Mr. Rafter said that the vote for the previous contract had failed so the School Board had hired a professional negotiator. He said that the professional negotiator was a mediator who had helped to guide and shape the result. He said that it had been a long road and they wanted to get the word out. Mr. Greg Armitage said that they were talking about a 5.8% increase over the previous budget if the warrant articles did not pass. He said that the 3% discretionary was only if everything was approved. He said that there would be a $.70
increase anyway no matter what and he said that the increase in discretionary spending would only be $.30. Mr. Batchelder explained some history. He said that the first proposed contract the previous March would have cost $209,000 for 3 years. He said that the Budget Committee had supported it and the town had not. He said that in October the proposed contract that was defeated would have cost $246,000 for 3 years. He said that the Budget Committee had also supported that contract and the town had not. He said that this proposed contract would cost $280,000 over 3 years. He said that it took more than Budget Committee support to get a contract passed. Ms. Brown said that people were working hard to get the contract passed and a lack of support from the Budget Committee would be a red flag.
Mr. Koester said that Warrant Article #8 was about the school selling land to the town for the proposed new Fire Department. He said that the spot the town had previously wanted to buy was too damp and so they had asked the school to give them land for the purpose. Ms. Tomaceski asked whether there was a nature trail located on that land. Mr. Rafter said that the Building Committee had said they would preserve the trail on behalf of the town. He said that a fence would be put up between the Fire Department and the school. A member of the audience asked whether this transaction would prevent the possibility of a full baseball field in the future. Mr. Rafter said that this would be far away from the spot where they would like to put a baseball field. Mr. Bock said that it would actually be safer for
the trucks to start so close to the school because they would be going slower near the school. He said that there were worries about traffic from volunteer firefighters but he said that medical calls did not involve extensive equipment. Mr. Koester noted that the town would also have a warrant article about the proposed fire station.
Mr. Koester said that Warrant Article #9 was about a capital reserve fund for building repair. He said that would cover unanticipated building related costs and repairs to the building.
Mr. Koester said that Warrant Article #11 was about a capital reserve fund for Special Education. He said that the School Board hoped to build up the fund annually until they reached what they felt was a reasonable amount so they would have money in case a severely handicapped child moved in to Nottingham.
At 10:00pm the Budget Committee ended the public hearing on the School Budget.
At 10:10pm the Budget Committee reconvened their meeting.
Mr. Decker asked if the tuition that was reimbursed to Nottingham by the parents came back into the numbers in the budget. Mr. Batchelder said that he felt like the numbers were distorted to lower the perception of how much spending there was. Mr. Caldon said that they needed to look at the revenues and expenses. He said that the district needed to be authorized for what they spent.
Mr. Decker made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend reducing line 1100 563 00 because the district should be paying for 45 students at the Dover High School rate and the rest should be offset by revenues.
Mr. Caldon asked what would happen if the district did not collect all that money. Mr. Decker said that there was money left over at the end of every year.
Mr. Caldon seconded Mr. Decker's motion.
Mr. Batchelder said that he was not sure the Budget Committee should go so deep. He said that he thought the lines were pretty tight. Mr. Caldon said that they might need to add extra students in case someone moved in.
Mr. Duprey amended the motion and suggested that the Budget Committee recommend reducing line 1100 563 00 for tuition at other high schools by $20,375.37 to $462,865.20. Mr. Decker seconded the motion. Mr. Duprey, Mr. Batchelder, Mr. Bock, Mr. Fernald, Mr. Caldon, Ms. Doughty, Mr. Decker and Ms. Powell voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Koester, Ms. Blaha and Ms. Roy voted against the motion. The motion passed 8-3.
Mr. Duprey asked about math supplies and classroom texts. Ms. Roy said that the school was replacing broken manipulatives and she said that the texts were all moved to text lines. Mr. Duprey asked if there was a new Special Education aide. Mr. Caldon noted that there was an additional aide that came in. Mr. Duprey asked how many computers were being replaced with new computers. Ms. Carvalho said that they were replacing 10 computers and a mail server. Mr. Bock asked if the Assistant Principal had gotten a pay raise. Ms. Doughty said yes. Mr. Caldon said that there was a problem with the computer software line. He said that it seemed like a replication of services. Ms. Roy said that all the districts in the SAU were running different software applications. She said that this
expenditure should make it so all the districts were running the same programs. Mr. Caldon said that should be taken care of through the SAU. Ms. Powell said that this step needed to be taken. Mr. Caldon said that the SAU had a bookkeeper and most of those services were paid for by an assessment to the SAU. Mr. Koester asked about a software license for the bookkeeper. Ms. Doughty said that was too expensive. Mr. Batchelder said that he was surprised the Budget Committee has not questioned the bus contract before. Mr. Duprey asked about the replacement of furniture. Ms. Carvalho said that they were replacing cafeteria tables. She said that the tables cost $495 each and they would cost a total of $1,980. She said that they would also be buying various sizes of chairs which would cost $1,600. She said that the rest of the money in the replacement of furniture line was for small things like staff name plates, entrance
mats and bathroom partitions.
Ms. Powell made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend amending Article 5, the proposed school operating budget to $8,047,219.73. Ms. Roy seconded the motion. The Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 11-0.
Mr. Decker made a motion that the Budget Committee NOT recommend the teacher contract warrant article. Mr. Bock seconded the motion.
Mr. Decker said that he could not vote for the contract in good faith. He said that it did not meet what they had been told that the town expected. He said that the new contract did not address the lower part of the teacher pay scale and the cost was higher than the previous two contracts. He said that the numbers did not add up. He said that this had not gone in the direction the town wanted. Ms. Blaha said that the Budget Committee did not have actual statistics on what the town wanted. She said that there had been changes to the lower part of the pay scale. Ms. Powell said that this was still a lousy contract. She said that the issue of longevity would need to be addressed again. She said that the Budget Committee was under tremendous pressure to make a decision on a volume of
information. Mr. Koester said that salaries at the lower end of the pay scale were up 7% and the salaries at the high end of the pay scale were up 5% in this contract. He said that seemed like a lot based on what people in other professions got. He said that he did think it was important though for society to understand the worth of teachers. Mr. Caldon said that the scale in this contract seemed more disparate on both ends. He said that he would like to say yes to this contract but he said that he wanted to hear the justification for it. He said that the scale was flawed. He said that he did not feel comfortable voting on this that night. Mr. Koester said that the Budget Committee had the option of not making recommendations. Mr. Batchelder said that the Budget Committee needed to do this that night. Mr. Decker said that he did not feel comfortable with the numbers. He said that the money for longevity was reflected
in the budget, not in the contract warrant article. Mr. Koester said that he was not convinced of that. Ms. Blaha said that the Budget Committee should have had this information sooner. She said that the voters had rejected 2 contracts already. She said that with 3 strikes they might be out. She said that the teachers would not have trouble getting other jobs. She said that 40% of teachers were at the retirement age. She said that the contract negotiations had been give and take and the teachers had agreed to this. She said that they should take public opinion into account. She said that everyone who had been at the public hearing that night had spoken in favor of the contract. Ms. Roy said that the Budget Committee needed to look at the difference between the default budget and the proposed operating budget. Mr. Bock asked what the ramifications would be of a vote by the Budget Committee one way or the other.
Mr. Koester said that he thought a "not recommended" vote by the Budget Committee would be detrimental. Ms. Roy said that she wanted people to come to the Deliberative Session with an open mind. Mr. Caldon asked how the flaws would be corrected or moved away from the center of the debate if the Budget Committee just recommended this. He said that they had not addressed the problems with the low end of the pay scale. He said that Nottingham was trying to recruit teachers. Mr. Duprey said that he was concerned about the children in the district. He said that they were already in year 2 of the contract. He said that they needed to renegotiate health insurance and the low end of the teacher pay scale. He said that there were serious flaws in this contract. He said that he was caught between a rock and a hard place. Mr. Bock asked how they could resolve these issues. Ms. Powell asked if the Budget
Committee could support the contract with limitations. She suggested that the contract could be more creative with incentives. She said thatt supporting the contract with limitations was the only way the voters in town would know that the Budget Committee was addressing their concerns. Mr. Koester said that the Budget Committee could only say whether they recommended something or not. Mr. Batchelder said that the Budget Committee could mention their reservations at the Deliberative Session. He said that he did not like the retroactive thing.
Mr. Decker and Mr. Caldon voted in favor of the motion that the Budget Committee NOT recommend the teacher contract warrant article. Mr. Duprey, Ms. Blaha, Mr. Batchelder, Ms. Roy, Mr. Koester, Mr. Bock, Mr. Fernald, Ms. Doughty, and Ms. Powell voted against the motion. The motion was defeated 9-2.
Ms. Roy made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend the teacher contract warrant article. Ms. Blaha seconded the motion.
Mr. Batchelder said that he would like the Chair to make some comments at the Deliberative Session about how the Budget Committee had concerns about the contract.
Mr. Duprey, Ms. Blaha, Mr. Batchelder, Ms. Roy, Mr. Koester, Mr. Bock, Mr. Fernald, Ms. Doughty and Ms. Powell voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Decker and Mr. Caldon voted against the motion. The motion passed 9-2.
Mr. Decker made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend the approval of Article #8 which would allow the school to sell a piece of land to the town to be used for the construction of a new fire station. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. The Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 11-0.
Mr. Batchelder made a motion that the Budget Committee NOT recommend Article #9 which would give the district a capital reserve fund for building repairs. Mr. Duprey seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 11-0.
Mr. Batchelder said that the statute allowed for a process if the school needed building repairs. Mr. Fernald said that he would not vote to recommend anything that had the term capital reserve in it. Ms. Powell said that the School Board could come to the Budget Committee and the voters if they needed emergency funds. She asked why the district needed this.
Mr. Batchelder made a motion to recommend Article #11 which would give the district a capital reserve fund to spend on Special Education if necessary. Mr. Bock seconded the motion.
Mr. Batchelder said that he agreed with this capital reserve fund because the money would be going to a specific need and specific causes. He said that this use of the money was compatible with the legislative intent. Mr. Decker asked if there was revenue from catastrophic aid for this purpose. Mr. Batchelder said that there was some money available from catastrophic aid for some situations. Mr. Caldon said that it was not enough money. Mr. Batchelder asked if the intention was to put this warrant on the ballot every year. Ms. McGann said yes.
Mr. Duprey, Ms. Blaha, Mr. Batchelder, Ms. Roy, Mr. Koester, Mr. Bock, Ms. Doughty, Ms. Powell, Mr. Decker and Mr. Caldon voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Fernald voted against the motion. The motion passed 10-1.
Ms. Blaha made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:30pm. Mr. Bock seconded the motion. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 11-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Budget Committee Secretary
| 
