NOTTINGHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 2007
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE JANUARY 18, 2007
PRESENT:
Ms. Gail Powell, Chair
Mr. Hal Rafter, Alternate School Board Representative
Mr. Bill Netishen, Selectmen's Representative
Mr. John Decker
Ms. Charlene Andersen
Ms. Denise Blaha
Mr. Michael Koester
Mr. Philip Fernald
Mr. Chris Mills
Mr. Kurt Duprey
ABSENT:
Ms. Judy Doughty, School Board Representative (Excused)
Mr. Chet Batchelder (Excused)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Judy McGann, Superintendent SAU #44
Ms. Kathleen Sargent, Business Administrator SAU #44
Ms. Amy Plante, School Board Chair
Ms. Michelle Carvalho, Principal- Nottingham School
Ms. Joan Breault, School Board
Mr. Peter Bock, Board of Selectmen
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Budget Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00pm.
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The Budget Committee members and their guests introduced themselves. Ms. Powell spoke briefly about the possibility the Budget Committee might want to recess their meeting after the School Budget public hearing until the following day. She said that the decision would not be made until the public hearing and she encouraged interested citizens to call Budget Committee members if they had a question about it. She also thanked some people for their help with information and answering questions for the Budget Committee and she mentioned that she would like suggestions for an article she wanted the Budget Committee to put in the town newsletter. She said that she would write the article and she noted that the deadline was very soon.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Decker made a motion that the Budget Committee accept the minutes from the meeting of December 21, 2006 as amended. Mr. Duprey seconded the motion. Mr. Decker, Mr. Duprey, Ms. Andersen, Ms. Blaha, Mr. Koester, Mr. Fernald, Mr. Netishen, Mr. Mills and Mr. Rafter voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Powell abstained from the motion. The motion passed 9-0 with 1 abstention.
SCHOOL PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET:
Mr. Rafter said that the School Board had voted to adopt the operating budget. He said that they had not made any changes to the proposed budget before their vote.
TEACHER CONTRACT:
Ms. Plante said that this was the fourth teacher contract which the district was presenting to the voters. She said that the School Board had ratified the contract the previous Monday night by a vote of 4-1. She said that the School Board had taken the Budget Committee's advice and had hired a professional negotiator. She said that this was a 5 year contract and it was dated from 2005 until 2010.
Ms. Plante explained the main points of the contract. She said that the contract did not have a salary schedule increase for the 2005/2006 school year or the 2006/2007 school year. She said that the only increases during those years were step increases. She said that the contract included increases of 2.5% for the 2007/2008 school year, 2.7% for the 2008/2009 school year and 3% for the 2009/2010 school year.
Ms. Plante said that the contract also included a compensation payment of $900 per year for those teachers at step 14 who did not receive step increases during the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 school years. Mr. Duprey asked about the total cost of that payment. Ms. Sargent said that it would cost $25,200. She said that there were 13 people eligible for the compensation payment from the 2005/2006 school year and 16 people eligible for it from the 2006/2007 school year.
Mr. Mills questioned why the contract was dated from 2005 when the public had voted against contracts for 2005 and 2006. He said that it seemed like the district was trying to get around the vote of the public. Ms. Plante said that the legal counsel had suggested dating the contract from 2005.
Ms. Plante said that in the new proposed contract the extracurricular stipends had an increased base of $850. She noted that there were 4 people who had extracurricular positions that ran all year. She used the Athletic Director as an example of a year long extracurricular position. She said that those 4 employees would get double the base stipend. Mr. Netishen asked about the total cost of the extracurricular stipends. Ms. Sargent said that the total amount for regular stipends would be $1,050 and the total amount for stipends of positions that ran all year would be $1,504.
Ms. Plante said that they had frozen the JW plan for health insurance and she said that the employee contribution had increased and the employer contribution had decreased. She said that the current contract had the district pay 100% of single, 95% of 2 person, and 85% of family. She said that by 2010 the proposed contract would have the district pay 95% of single, 85% of 2 person and 85% of family. She noted that the change in 2 person would be gradual with the district paying 87% for 2008/2009 and 85% for 2009/2010. She said that the employee would make up the differences between what the district was paying with the current contract and what they would pay with the proposed contract. Mr. Duprey said he was concerned that small districts were subsidizing big companies because they were offering better
insurance benefits. He noted that teachers spouses who worked for big companies would not use the big companies health insurance plans because their teacher spouse would be eligible for more generous coverage. He noted that there was nothing in the private sector which gave such generous health benefits. He said that he thought if a spouse was covered under another health plan, they should be ineligible for the benefits given by the district.
Ms. Plante said that longevity had been a part of the contract since the 1991-1992 school year. She said that under the terms of the new contract any new hires would not receive longevity. She said that would become effective for anyone hired after July 1, 2007. She said that the longevity stipend was $800 plus $150 per year. She said that the requirements for receiving longevity were that a teacher must be on Step 14 and they must have taught in Nottingham for at least 10 years. Ms. Sargent said that there was $31,700 for longevity in the current operating budget. Mr. Duprey asked that someone walk him through an example of how longevity worked and how much money a teacher would get when they reached a certain level. Ms. Plante gave an example. Mr. Rafter said that 2 teachers who were on Step 14 had
announced that they would retire. Ms. Sargent said that information was not figured into their calculations because there was always a chance that the two teachers could change their minds about leaving. Mr. Netishen asked when longevity was paid. Ms. McGann said that it was separated into two payments over the course of the year. Mr. Rafter said that the point here was that longevity had been eliminated with the new contract. He said that the current staff was grandfathered but new staff would not become eligible for longevity payments. He reminded the Budget Committee that these points had been negotiated and so they had not been able to get everything they wanted. Mr. Koester noted that the change in longevity in the contract would not result in any savings to the town for 10 years from July 1, 2007. Ms. Blaha noted that the teachers had not given up their own longevity during the negotiations, they had given up the longevity of
future teachers.
Mr. Koester said that he had done a chart of the percent increases for teachers from step to step and track to track. Ms. Powell noted that the teacher salary schedule had been in place since 2002. Mr. Koester said that a teacher on step 8 who did not change tracks would only get a 3% increase. Mr. Rafter said that the step percent increase would change to 2.5%. Ms. Powell asked if the percent increase was added to the base first or if it was added after the total salary was figured out. Mr. Rafter said that the result was the same, no matter which order was used. Mr. Koester asked for some clarification of the evergreen clause. Ms. Powell noted that Nottingham was one of the few schools with an MA+45 step. Ms. Plante said that Nottingham had 14 steps and she said that was about the average
number of steps for schools in the state of New Hampshire.
Ms. Andersen said that she had looked at the National Education Association website and she had looked at information from other towns as a comparison. She said that she had also taken the current salary schedule and had compared it with other salary schedules for other school districts. Mr. Decker noted that the current salaries in Nottingham were higher then the salaries in the new Northwood and Strafford contracts. Ms. Blaha gave the numbers for the bases and tops state average BA and MA teachers salaries. Mr. Koester asked Ms. Plante whether Ms. Andersen had done comparisons with towns that could reasonably be compared with Nottingham. Ms. Plante said that she was not sure if towns that had K-12 would be a reasonable comparison. She said that the other choices for towns were reasonable. Mr.
Koester asked if the benefit structures were comparable to those in Northwood and Strafford. Ms. Plante said yes. Ms. Powell asked what comparisons had been used during the negotiations. Ms. Plante said that there had not been specific comparisons done. She said that there had been discussions about other school districts such as Dover and Newmarket and she said that there had been information about other towns available to the negotiating teams.
Ms. Breault asked if it would be possible to do what Mr. Duprey had suggested and make spouses who were covered under another health plan ineligible for district health benefits. Ms. Andersen said that suggesting it would be a very difficult negotiating point. Mr. Duprey said that it was getting to be common practice in the private sector and he noted that the benefits offered by the district were very generous.
Ms. Blaha said that her information agreed with what Ms. Plante had said about Nottingham being about average in the state as far as their number of steps.
Mr. Koester asked Ms. Plante how she thought that the negotiations had gone. Ms. Plante said that she thought there had been give and take from both sides.
Ms. McGann said that the percentage increase had been decreased from previous contract attempts (from 2.8%- 2.5%) and this contract did not attempt to pay teachers retroactively. Ms. Plante said that there had also been a reduction in the amount the district would have to pay for 2 person health insurance benefits. Ms. Breault said that the negotiating team had gone to the table with the wishes of the Nottingham voters in mind. She said that they had started with asking for everything they wanted and there had been give and take. She said that they had made good progress. She said that this was a process. She said that the contract also included non monetary items which they felt were important such as raising the passing grade for teachers to a B when they did training.
Ms. Powell asked if the negotiating team had found the professional negotiator to be helpful. Ms. Plante and Ms. Breault both said yes. Ms. Plante said that the mediator had been very helpful as well. Ms. McGann said that the negotiating team had done an amazing job of thinking outside the box. She said that they had come up with quite a few extraordinary variations to previous contracts. She said that they definitely had needed the professional negotiator. She said that the professional negotiator had been very helpful.
Mr. Decker asked about the tax impacts. Ms. Sargent said that the total tax impact for the first year of the contract would be $0.14 per $1,000 and she said that would include benefits and the evergreen clause.
Mr. Decker said that the school district should not be paying longevity to teachers when they did not have a contract in place. Ms. Sargent said that their legal counsel had advised them otherwise. Mr. Decker asked what the $900 compensation payment was for. Mr. Rafter said that the compensation payment in the proposed new contract would be paid only to qualifying people who had not received any increases in step over the past 2 years when there had not been a contract in place.
Mr. Duprey asked about the purpose of the severance clause in the proposed new contract. He noted that Nottingham was not trying to get people to retire early. Mr. Rafter said that communities around the state of New Hampshire were expecting a critical teacher shortage in a few years. He said that some districts were trying to get older teachers to retire early so that they could replace them with younger teachers and then they would not be as affected by the upcoming teacher shortage. He said that Nottingham had not taken that approach yet but he said that there were different strategies for handling the situation of a predicted upcoming teacher shortage.
DISCUSSION OF DEFAULT BUDGET:
Mr. Rafter said that the School Board had only looked at the default budget once. He said that the School Board had the power to change the default budget up until the day that the ballots were printed. Mr. Decker said that the Budget Committee still had the ability to challenge the default budget once the School Board approved it but he said that realistically spending time on the default budget was not very valuable for the Budget Committee. Mr. Rafter said that the School Board had full control of the numbers in the default budget. He said that the Budget Committee was charged with looking at the operating budget. Mr. Decker said that he would question things in the default budget such as new equipment and new furniture. He said that new things should not be included in the default budget. Mr.
Rafter said that it depended upon the interpretation of the law. He said that if the district spent $500 every year on new furniture than that $500 would be considered an established expense.
Mr. Rafter said that the School Board had been through the default budget once and he said that they would look at it again.
Ms. Andersen said that she had taken the information from the budget summary and done a pie chart.
Mr. Duprey asked about the number of students who attended Coe-Brown and Pinkerton Academies. Mr. Rafter said that there were about 50 students from Nottingham who attended those schools.
UPDATES ON TOWN BUDGET:
Mr. Netishen said that the town had a preliminary estimate for a new fire house and they had the contractor details for building the new fire house. Ms. Andersen asked if there were incentives for the contractor to finish the project on time and within budget. Mr. Netishen said that the written contract with the contractor would include provisions about finishing the project on time and within budget. He said that the written contract had not been done yet. He said that the Building Committee had gone over the final plans for the fire station and he said that the contractor would talk to the members of the Fire Department.
Mr. Netishen said that the town should have their final numbers for the Budget Committee by January 18, 2006. He also provided the Budget Committee with a draft of the proposed warrant articles for the town. He said that the first warrant article would be for the proposed new fire station. He said that the second warrant article would be the operating budget. He said that the fifth warrant article would be for the police vehicle. He noted that Chief English had spoken to the Budget Committee about that request. He said that the sixth warrant article would involve a plan for mosquito control. He spoke a little about the history of that question and he said that the Board of Selectmen really wanted to get a discussion going among the residents of the town about this issue. He said that the Board
of Selectmen felt it was important to bring this up at town meeting for the voters to help decide what should be done. He said that the seventh warrant article was regarding highway construction. He said that warrant articles 8 and 9 were capital reserve funds, one for the Highway Department and the other for the Fire/Rescue Department. He said that the tenth warrant article was for funds that would be given to the social services agencies which had requested them. He said that the eleventh warrant article was because the Conservation Commission had requested that they be able to use 100% of the land use change tax. He said that part of that money had usually been given back to the residents to help offset their taxes. Mr. Koester asked if the Budget Committee needed to see an estimated amount for that warrant article. Mr. Netishen said yes. He said that more information would be forthcoming to the Budget Committee regarding warrant
article #11. He said that the twelfth warrant article was about polling hours. He said that the seventeenth warrant article was the article which had been brought forth by the Carbon Coalition. He said that Ms. Blaha had discussed that warrant article with the Budget Committee. Ms. Blaha said that the Carbon Coalition had confirmed that their article would be on the ballot in 120 towns in New Hampshire. She said that it was possible the article would also be voted on in another 50-60 towns.
Mr. Netishen said that there would be some changes to the information the next time that the Budget Committee saw town budget information.
Mr. Netishen said that the Building Committee had interviewed contractors and had selected one for the fire station project. He said that there had been a review process. He said that the Building Committee had spent a lot of time and done a lot of work towards this fire station project. He said that he thought there would be a strong presentation on this given to the voters. Mr. Fernald said that Mr. Netishen and Mr. Bock had both done a great job during the time they had spent on the Building Committee.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN COMMITTEE REPORT:
Mr. Decker gave the Budget Committee copies of the Capital Improvement Plan Committee report. He said that the report would be going into the town report. Mr. Netishen said that Mr. Decker should be commended by the whole town for his work on the capital improvement plan report.
TOWN NEWSLETTER:
Ms. Powell said that she would like to put some highlights of the public hearing on the school budget into the town newsletter. Mr. Koester asked if the town newsletter would be published by the date of the Deliberative Session. Ms. Powell said that she would find out that information.
OTHER:
Ms. Andersen said that she thought the charts the Budget Committee had looked at were eye opening. She said that she would like to see more of that type of analysis done by the School Board. She said that the Budget Committee should set benchmarks so that they had the information to form a history of certain areas of the budget.
Mr. Decker said that the Budget Committee were all volunteers and they could only do so much. He said that they needed to leave certain things to the professionals but he said that the Budget Committee did not always get all of the information that they needed.
Mr. Koester said that the Budget Committee report in the town newsletter should include information on the committee's upcoming meetings and it should include some information on the school budget public hearing.
Ms. Powell said that she thought the Budget Committee should have a few more meetings than in previous years. She said that she thought that would be beneficial to them.
Mr. Fernald said that he thought they had a real good budget committee this year. Mr. Duprey agreed.
Mr. Netishen said that he thought the idea of the Budget Committee meeting quarterly was a good one.
Mr. Mills said that he wanted to publicly thank Ms. Andersen for bringing information that he needed to his house.
Mr. Duprey made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50pm. Mr. Netishen seconded that motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of that motion. The motion passed 10-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Budget Committee Secretary
| 
