NOTTINGHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 2008
PUBLIC HEARING SESSION
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE JANUARY 24, 2008
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. Michael Koester, Vice-Chair Mr. John Decker, Chair (Excused)
Ms. Mary Bonser, BOS Representative Mr. Philip Fernald (Excused)
Ms. Amy Plante, School Board Representative Ms. Gail Powell (Excused)
Mr. Kurt Duprey
Mr. Kyle Barry
Ms. Charlene Andersen
Mr. Chet Batchelder
Mr. Scott Curry
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Jack Caldon, School Board
Mr. Tom Sweeney
Mr. Bill Tappen
Mr. Hal Rafter
Ms. Judy McGann, Superintendent, SAU #44
Ms. Michele Carvalho, Principal, Nottingham School
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Budget Committee Secretary
The Vice-Chair called the public hearing to order at 7:02pm.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mr. Koester announced that the period where candidates could sign up with the town clerk if they were interested in running for election ran from January 23, 2008- February 1, 2008. He said that there were 3 three year terms and 1 one year term which would be up for election on the Budget Committee. He noted that if anyone were interested in running for those positions, they should contact the Town Clerk.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ms. Andersen made a motion to approve the minutes from the Budget Committee meeting of January 3, 2008 as amended. Mr. Batchelder seconded the motion. Mr. Koester, Ms. Plante, Mr. Barry, Ms. Andersen and Mr. Batchelder voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry, Mr. Duprey and Ms. Bonser abstained from the motion. The motion passed 5-0 with 3 abstentions.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPOSED BUDGET:
Mr. Koester explained the public hearing procedure and said that members of the public were welcome to ask questions as the Budget Committee discussed the budget.
Mr. Koester said that he had spoken with Mr. Paul Sanderson at the Local Government Center regarding the questions of the Budget Committee about certain items being increased in the default budget. He said that he had specifically asked about dues and fees for sports. He said that he was told that the Local Government Center could not give any answers to those questions. He said that Mr. Sanderson had read the statute regarding default budgets back to him and had said that the "governing body" in this case, the School Board had the authority to make those decisions.
Ms. McGann said that she would start by noting any changes in the proposed budget since it had previously been in front of the committee and she said that she would answer questions which had been raised previously.
Ms. McGann said that she had gotten a question about the retirement benefits as stated on the proposed budget worksheet. She said that those numbers were accurate.
Ms. McGann said that in response to another question she had previously received, the Technology Director position was a non certified position.
Ms. McGann said that she had received an inquiry about the increase in Special Education Health Insurance. She said that there had been seven members of the Special Education staff who had changed their health insurance policies and that had caused the increase.
Ms. McGann said that the unemployment and workers compensation numbers had been corrected and she said that they fixed the subtotals.
Ms. McGann said that the total amount for Guidance Services should be $74,217.
Ms. McGann noted the line for library computer software in case there were questions about it.
Ms. McGann said that contracted services had been clarified in the narrative. She said that the mail services agreement which had been discussed previously by the Budget Committee actually referred to the rental of the postage machine. Ms. Carvalho said that the cost of the postage meter had been moved from the postage line of the proposed budget to the contracted services line of the proposed budget.
Ms. McGann said that the overtime and summer custodial salary numbers were the same ones as in the current budget for those items.
Ms. McGann said that the cost of the high school late bus was shared with Barrington. She said that the cost was $7,935. She said that the Superintendent's involved did discuss the numbers of students who rode the high school late bus. She said that students were starting to use that bus a little more. She noted that as the bus had been consistently offered for a few years the option had become more well known among the students and they had been using it to stay after school for more purposes. Mr. Koester asked why the amount expended on the high school late bus was so much different than the amount proposed. Ms. McGann said that the amount that the bus ran varied by the season and the ridership. She said that they had been running it 4 days a week lately and she said that was the number she was
going to go by for now as far as costs. She said that the shared late bus arrangement seemed to be working with Barrington. She said that if Barrington were to change their minds about sharing the cost of that bus, Nottingham would have to reassess their commitment to it as well.
Mr. Koester began a brief explanation for the public of each budget item and the amount proposed for that item.
Mr. Caldon said that there had been an increase in the rates paid to substitute teachers. He said that their rate had increased from $50 to $70 per day.
Ms. McGann said that the rate employers needed to contribute to retirement for certified educators was 5.8%. Mr. Curry asked if that was a part of a statewide retirement system and whether it faced a possible shortfall. Mr. Caldon answered yes to both questions.
Mr. Rafter asked if the school district was in their first year of a contract. Mr. Koester said no. Mr. Rafter suggested to the School Board that they might want to increase their buyout offer. He suggested that the larger the buyout offer, the more people that might take it and he suggested that could be cheaper for the school district overall. He said that he thought it was something the School Board might want to consider for future teacher negotiations.
Mr. Koester noted that they were anticipating a 5% increase in the Dover High School tuition. He said that there were 62 students in the Nottingham 8th grade and 62 Nottingham students that were Seniors at Dover High School. He noted those numbers would balance each other out. He also noted that Nottingham had a total of 64 students attending Coe-Brown Academy. Ms. Carvalho said that students who had applied to Coe-Brown during the current academic year would not know if they had been accepted until February. Mr. Koester said that 22 Nottingham students would graduate from Coe-Brown Academy in 2008. Ms. Carvalho explained that there is an acceptance process for a student interested in attending Coe-Brown. She said that a student needed to have certain qualifications. Mr. Koester asked whether
they had anticipated a number of students going to Coe-Brown for budgeting purposes. Ms. McGann said that the number they had used for the proposed budget was 20. Mr. Duprey asked if the district had been having difficulty getting families to pay their share of the tuition for Coe-Brown. Ms. McGann said that there had been some problems. She said that some parents had come before the School Board and stated hardship. She said that there was a procedure for parents to follow if they were struggling. Mr. Duprey asked how much of the money had been forgiven by the School Board because of hardship for the families. Ms. McGann said that she did not have that number with her. Ms. Bonser asked about the price difference between Dover High School and Coe-Brown Academy. Ms. McGann said that for the current year the tuition for Dover High School was $10,082 and the tuition for Coe-Brown was $11,363.
Mr. Koester asked about an increase in the proposed budget for music supplies. Ms. Carvalho said that the music teacher wanted to spend approximately $1,100 on three xylophones, mallets and maracas. She noted that they wanted to give children the opportunity they might not otherwise have to experience musical instruments.
Ms. Carvalho said that the money in the proposed budget for language art supplies would be used for things like white boards which helped the children learn.
Ms. Andersen asked about what STC stood for. Ms. Carvalho said that those were basically science kits.
Ms. Carvalho said that the school had been using networked printers. She said that meant they no longer needed a printer with every computer and she said that had cut down on costs.
Mr. Koester asked about classroom periodicals. Ms. Carvalho said that those were weekly and monthly publications for kids that they used to learn science, social studies and current events.
Ms. McGann said that the Guaranteed Maximum Rate increase for health insurance was 13.1%. She said that they would get the actual numbers in May.
Mr. Rafter asked why the School Board had a warrant article asking for an additional Special Education teacher. He said that he wondered why the request for the new teacher had not been included in the proposed budget. Ms. McGann said that their current student to teacher ratio in the Special Education program was 22-1. She said that they were trying to lower that ratio and they wanted to let the taxpayers decide. Mr. Caldon said that the School Board had thought the voters needed to know more about this issue. He said that it deserved serious consideration and it had been a close vote on the School Board. Mr. Rafter said that during the Deliberative Session, the School Board should give a verbal presentation explaining why this additional teacher was needed. Mr. Caldon said that the School Board
wanted the community to help make them make this decision. He said that the School Board would present the information at the Deliberative Session and they would include information about this question in the newsletter.
Mr. Rafter asked if there were expenses in the proposed budget which were related to the school being on the schools in need of improvement list. Mr. Caldon said that the district was changing their reading program as a result of that and he said changing the program was expensive. He said that the staff were working hard to prepare a strategy to address other issues stemming from being on the schools in need of improvement list. Ms. Carvalho said that the proposal for a new Special Education teacher was tied into the fact that Nottingham was on the schools in need of improvement list and she said that there were professional development costs which were related to that as well. She said that they had received $25,000 from the federal government which would help them with the smaller costs of implementing a new
strategy to get off the list. She said that the state requirements for the target score were increasing. Mr. Batchelder wondered if more of the costs related to the schools in need of improvement list should be listed in the Special Education lines since that had been the cohort with the lowest test scores.
Ms. Bonser asked if there were offsetting revenues for Special Education. Ms. McGann said that there were revenues from Medicaid and Catastrophic Aid.
Mr. Koester asked why they still had spreadsheet issues on public hearing night. Ms. McGann said that they were doing this work in Excel. She said that the 08/09 budget would be in the new system. She also said that it was a trick to do three districts at once.
Mr. Duprey asked about a retirement line with $0. Ms. McGann said that the Speech Pathologist was a contracted service so the retirement was included in the total amount. Mr. Duprey asked if it had been that way the previous year as well. Ms. McGann said that part of it had and part of it had not.
Ms. Carvalho said that the Literacy Collaborative position had been a half time position and she said that their proposed budget had been lowered by that amount.
Mr. Koester asked if the town library program didn't pass what the school would do. Ms. Carvalho said that they would still need money to maintain their system. Mr. Koester asked if the system could be managed independently of the town. Ms. Carvalho said yes. Mr. Caldon said that if necessary, the town could join the system later.
Ms. Carvalho said that they were beginning the process of rewriting their technology plan because it was set to expire. Mr. Duprey asked how many computers they were planning to buy. Ms. Carvalho said that she expected they would buy about 15. Ms. Andersen asked if they were going to buy new computers. Ms. Carvalho said that they would be primarily new. She said that they had bought refurbished computers in the past but they were looking to get away from that.
Mr. Curry asked what was included in the cost of broadcasting the School Board meetings. Ms. Carvalho said that money paid the person who did the broadcasting, set up the equipment, etc.
Ms. McGann said that the rental costs in the SAU budget were based on properties in the area. She said that they were estimating having to pay a significant increase. She said that their previous building had included heat, electricity and plowing. She said that the largest increase in the SAU budget was for a new building. She said that there was also some money in the SAU budget for moving costs. She said that without the new building costs there would only be a 1.6% increase in the SAU budget.
Ms. Bonser asked about the school water tests. Ms. Carvalho said that they had been fine. She said that they had not had positive tests for too much arsenic beyond the initial test. She said that the cost came from a requirement that they test more often just because it had been a possible issue.
Ms. McGann said that Special Education transportation included district wide preschool.
Ms. McGann said that the enrollment figures and the study about the future figures would be presented to the School Board at their second meeting in February.
Mr. Curry asked about offsetting revenue for the school lunch program. Mr. Caldon said that he predicted they would make money on the school lunch program.
Mr. Koester said that the total proposed school operating budget was $8,720,472 and it had increased 5.12% from the previous year. Mr. Caldon said that if they did a cost analysis and looked at the default budget, there was not a big difference. He said that 5.12% might seem like a large increase in this economy but he said that this was not a lush budget. He said that he felt the proposed budget dealt with the staff and the instructional needs of the school.
Mr. Batchelder said that the School Board needed to be applauded for their work because many costs continued to go up and those could not be controlled.
Ms. McGann said that the amount of revenue for food service was $86,000. She said that the state was predicting that their contribution would be low. She said that they would get approximately $30,000 in child and nutrition money.
WARRANT ARTICLES:
Mr. Koester said that he would read the warrant article document out loud for the public. Mr. Caldon said that some warrant article information would also be in the newsletter. Mr. Koester said that if there were any substantive changes at the Deliberative Session the Budget Committee could revisit their recommendations at an open meeting after the Deliberative Session. Mr. Batchelder said that he was not sure of that. He said that practically speaking the Budget Committee would be done with the school budget that night. Mr. Koester said that he would pursue this further. He said that he was concerned that the Budget Committee would be cited on the ballot as recommending something that they no longer agreed with.
Mr. Koester noted warrant article #6.
"Shall the Nottingham School District vote to approve the cost items included in the collective bargaining agreement reached between the Nottingham School Board and the Nottingham Paraeducators' Association NEA/NH/NEA which calls for the following increases in salaries and benefits:
Year 2008-2009 Estimated Increase $25,675.69
Year 2009-2010 Estimated Increase $12,637.03
Year 2010-2011 Estimated Increase $12,637.03
And further to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty five thousand, six hundred, seventy five dollars and sixty nine cents ($25,675.69) for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, such sum representing the additional cost attributable to the increase in salaries and benefits over those appropriations at current staffing levels paid in the prior year."
Mr. Caldon said that this was a 3 year contract and that their paraprofessionals were still at the bottom of the salary scale. He said that their steps had increased by 25 cents. He said that they had increased the pay scale over time by about 17%. Mr. Sweeney said that should be shown in the narrative. Mr. Caldon said that they had just gotten a tentative agreement with the Paraeducators Association on Monday night. He said that the figures were fresh and accurate.
Mr. Koester noted warrant article #7.
"Shall the Nottingham School District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of sixty two thousand, seven hundred seventy nine dollars and two cents ($62,779.02) for the purpose of one additional special education teacher to enable the provisions for a lower student- teacher ratio resulting from the state mandated testing."
Ms. Bonser asked what the new ratio would be. Ms. McGann said that it would be approximately 1 to 17. Ms. Andersen asked about what it meant when they used the term "students at risk." Ms. Carvalho said that they were talking about students who were below grade level either emotionally, socially or academically. Mr. Duprey asked if Nottingham had a higher than average number of Special Education students. He said that approximately 20% of the student population seemed high. Ms. Carvalho said no. She said that other towns had similar numbers.
Mr. Koester noted warrant article #8.
"Shall the Nottingham School District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) for the purpose of site improvement needed for irrigation of the school's athletic fields, to include the drilling of a well?"
Mr. Tappen said that he had spoken with several people regarding the costs of drilling a well.
Mr. Koester noted warrant article #9.
"Shall the Nottingham School District vote to raise and appropriate the sum of six thousand, five hundred dollars ($6,500.00) for the preparation work necessary for future generator installation to meet the requirements of the Emergency Management Plan?"
Mr. Batchelder said that the narrative did not support the article. He said that this was confusing. Mr. Duprey asked whose emergency plan they were referring to. Ms. Carvalho said that they were talking about the school emergency plan. She said that the school could be and was used as an emergency shelter. Ms. Andersen said that this article should be clarified because otherwise people would think that they were buying a generator. Mr. Caldon said that when a transfer switch was installed they would find out what types of generators would be compatible with it. Mr. Duprey asked why a generator was not included in this warrant article. He asked how much it would cost to add one to the request. Mr. Caldon said that generators were very expensive. Ms. McGann said that the district had
applied for federal funds but they had not received them. She said that they would keep trying.
Mr. Koester noted warrant articles 10 and 11.
#10) "Shall the Nottingham School District vote to raise and appropriate up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) to be placed in the Special Education Capital Reserve Fund established in March of 2006, with such amount to be funded from the June 30, 2008 unreserved fund balance (surplus) available for transfer on July 1 of this year?"
#11) "Shall the Nottingham School District vote to raise and appropriate up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) to be placed in the Building Repair Capital Reserve Fund established in March of 2006, with such amount to be funded from the June 30, 2008 unreserved fund balance (surplus) available for transfer on July 1 of this year?"
Mr. Koester said that warrant articles number 10 and 11 were the same as they had been the previous year.
Mr. Koester noted warrant article #12.
Submitted by petition, "Shall we rescind the provisions of RSA 40:13 (known as SB#2), as adopted by the Nottingham School District on March 9, 1999, so that the official ballot will no longer be used for voting on all questions, but only for the election of officers and certain other questions for which the official ballot is required by state law?"
Mr. Curry asked about the pros and cons of SB2. Mr. Sweeney said that too small of a number of people could make big changes to the budget at meetings. He said that there was also a problem with people voting for the default budget simply because it was less money and not looking at the work the School Board had done to create a responsible budget. Mr. Koester asked whether the petitioned warrant article had been verified and checked by a lawyer. Ms. McGann said yes. Mr. Batchelder said that the Budget Committee could do a straw poll regarding their opinion on SB2. He said that their results would be reflected in the minutes. Mr. Koester said that he thought the Budget Committee could put whether they recommended or did not recommend this article on the ballot. Ms. Bonser said that the people
should have a right to submit a warrant article by petition without having the government weigh in on it.
The Vice-Chair closed the public hearing portion of this meeting at 10:05pm.
BUDGET COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS:
WARRANT ARTICLES:
The Vice-Chair reconvened the meeting of the Budget Committee at 10:15pm.
Mr. Batchelder made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend warrant article #6 regarding the paraeducator contract. Mr. Duprey seconded the motion.
Mr. Koester said that he had stated on several occasions that he would not vote to recommend contracts without having the information in front of him in advance of the vote. He said that he would be staying with that policy. Ms. Andersen said that she was also uncomfortable and hesitant about voting on this article. Ms. Bonser said that the contract had been negotiated thoroughly and the people involved had worked very hard on it. Mr. Curry noted that they were talking about a 14% increase. Mr. Batchelder said that he was not sure that the Budget Committee had been given sufficient access to the information to make a decision on this article. Ms. McGann said that the negotiating team had been given until Tuesday to finish this contract. She said that in a similar situation Northwood had to have a
special Budget Committee Public Hearing because the contract had come in later than expected. Mr. Curry asked what information other members of the Budget Committee would have liked to have had. Mr. Koester said that he would like to have details including who the contract included. Mr. Batchelder said that he would like percentage increases. Mr. Caldon said that the school representatives could give the Budget Committee all of that information on the spot. Ms. Plante said that the only cost item in the paraeducator contract agreement was salary. She said that as far as sick days and anything else, this was a status quo arrangement. She said that the only change they had made was that the district would now put $1,000 towards 2 person or family health insurance if an employee requested it. She said that previously the district had only paid single to paraeducators. Mr. Caldon noted that the Nottingham paraeducators were at the
bottom of the salary scale in the SAU. Ms. Bonser asked how many people were covered by the paraeducator agreement. Ms. McGann said that there were 20 people covered in that agreement. Mr. Batchelder said that if the School Board was comfortable with this agreement and the purpose of it was for the district to retain good people he was ok with supporting it.
Mr. Curry, Mr. Duprey, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Barry, Ms. Plante and Mr. Batchelder voted in favor of the motion to recommend warrant article #6. Mr. Koester abstained from the motion. Ms. Andersen voted against the motion. The motion passed 6-1 with 1 abstention.
Mr. Batchelder made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend warrant article #7 regarding the hiring of an additional Special Education teacher. Mr. Duprey seconded the motion. Mr. Duprey, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Barry, Ms. Plante, Mr. Batchelder, Mr. Koester and Ms. Andersen voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry voted against the motion. The motion passed 7-1.
Ms. Andersen made a motion that the Budget Committee NOT recommend warrant article #8 regarding irrigation of the athletic fields and building a well. Ms. Bonser seconded that motion.
Ms. Bonser said that she would rather see the money go towards a generator. Mr. Koester asked if they were discussing athletic fields that they already had. Ms. Plante said yes. Ms. Carvalho said that they were discussing rototilling, hydroseeding and other similar work. Mr. Batchelder asked if the field would die if they didn't water it. Ms. Plante said that there was a chance that their investment would not last if it were not properly taken care of. Ms. Andersen said that money could be better spent on educating kids.
Mr. Curry, Mr. Duprey, Ms. Bonser, Mr. Barry, Mr. Batchelder and Ms. Andersen voted in favor of the motion NOT to recommend article #8. Mr. Koester and Ms. Plante voted against that motion. The motion passed 6-2.
Mr. Curry made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend warrant article #9 regarding the preparation work for a future generator. Mr. Duprey seconded the motion.
Ms. Bonser said that it all seemed to depend on what type of generator they could get. She asked whether it was possible to encumber funds in a warrant article. Mr. Batchelder said that they would have to make the warrant article non lapsing if they wanted to encumber funds from it. Ms. Bonser said that the Fire Station had a generator and there was a warrant article which would ask the people for a generator to power the Town Office in an emergency. Mr. Batchelder said that there was anticipation of major disasters in the future. He said that towns, states, individuals and families needed to prepare for that. Ms. Bonser suggested that they recommend adding more money to this warrant article during the Deliberative Session.
The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of recommending warrant article #9 regarding the preparation work for a future generator. The motion passed 8-0.
Mr. Curry made a motion the the Budget Committee recommend warrant article #10 regarding money to be placed in the Special Education Capital Reserve Fund. Mr. Duprey seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 8-0.
Ms. Plante made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend warrant article #11 regarding money to be placed in a building repair capital reserve fund. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 8-0.
Ms. Andersen made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend warrant article #12 regarding rescinding SB2 if they were legally allowed to do so. Ms. Plante seconded that motion.
Ms. Curry suggested that they say something like, "it is the sense of the Committee" that we recommend or do not recommend this article. Ms. Andersen said that the Budget Committee had voted to recommend or not recommend a petitioned warrant article the previous year because it had budgetary impact. Ms. Bonser said that she was pretty sure the Budget Committee could not recommend or not recommend this because that would give an unfair advantage to the government. Mr. Duprey said that he would be in favor of the Budget Committee doing a straw poll on the issue but he would not be in favor of voting on the issue as a Committee. Mr. Batchelder said that the Budget Committee had given a recommendation on a petitioned warrant article when it was an article about the land use change tax. He said that had
considerably more direct budgetary impact than the SB2 question.
Ms. Bonser left the meeting at this point.
Ms. Andersen withdrew her motion.
Mr. Curry made a motion that it was the "sense of the Committee" to recommend warrant article #12 regarding rescinding SB2. Ms. Andersen seconded that motion. Mr. Duprey, Mr. Koester, Mr. Barry, Ms. Plante, Ms. Andersen, and Mr. Batchelder voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Curry voted against the motion. The motion passed 6-1.
PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET:
Mr. Batchelder made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend line 1100 561 00 (Tuition-Other Public Schools) in the proposed budget be reduced by $50,000 from $1,619,910.60 to $1,569,910.60. Mr. Duprey seconded that motion.
Mr. Batchelder said that the district always seemed to end up with a surplus in that line and he did not think that cutting it would impact education.
Mr. Duprey, Mr. Koester, Mr. Barry, Ms. Andersen, Mr. Batchelder and Mr. Curry voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Plante voted against the motion. The motion passed 6-1.
Mr. Curry asked why the Budget Committee did not recommend the same thing for the Coe-Brown tuition. Mr. Batchelder said that in his experience there had not been as much movement among the kids at Coe-Brown. He said that they usually did not end up with as much surplus in the Coe-Brown line because kids went to Coe-Brown and stayed there.
Mr. Duprey reminded Ms. McGann that any errors in the budget worksheet needed to be corrected.
Mr. Batchelder asked whether the School Board had a sense of how much money would be spent in the course tuition reimbursement line. Ms. McGann said that more money than usual might be spent there because of the requirements for adequate yearly progress.
Mr. Batchelder asked if the district had any contracts to negotiate this year. Ms. McGann said no. Mr. Caldon reminded the Budget Committee that if the paraprofessional contract didn't pass with the voters then they would need to start the process of negotiating it all over again.
Mr. Batchelder made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend line 2310 330 00 (ContrServ-Attorney and Negotiator) in the proposed budget be reduced by $5,000 from $7,500.00 to $2,500.00. Mr. Duprey seconded that motion. Mr. Curry, Mr. Duprey, Mr. Batchelder, and Mr. Koester voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Andersen, Mr. Barry and Ms. Plante voted against the motion. The motion passed 4-3.
Mr. Koester asked whether the propane oil line had been negotiated for multiple years. Ms. McGann said no. She said that they negotiated for that line every spring.
Mr. Koester made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend line 2620 623 32 (Propane/Oil) in the proposed budget be increased from $77.950.00 to $82,500.00. Mr. Curry seconded the motion.
Mr. Koester said that he did not think the amount in the budget for that line was high enough. Mr. Duprey said that he had previously questioned that line and he had been assured the School Board thought it was enough. He said that he thought the Budget Committee should leave it alone.
Mr. Koester voted in favor of the motion to recommend that the propane/oil line be increased. Mr. Curry, Mr. Duprey, Mr. Batchelder, Ms. Andersen, Mr. Barry and Ms. Plante voted against the motion. The motion failed 6-1.
Mr. Curry asked if the Budget Committee was able to recommend changes to the default budget as well. Mr. Batchelder said that the School Board had the final say on the default budget. Ms. Andersen noted that it looked like the changes the Budget Committee had discussed had been made to the default budget.
Mr. Koester said that the Budget Committee had reduced the total of the proposed budget by $55,000. Ms. McGann said that would reduce the bottom line to $8,665,471.99.
Mr. Duprey made a motion that the Budget Committee recommend warrant article #5, the proposed operating budget. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion.
Ms. McGann noted that the new total was lower than the default budget total.
The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of recommending article #5. The motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Batchelder said that he thought the School Board had done a great job and had created a very tight budget. He congratulated them. Mr. Duprey agreed.
Mr. Curry made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:30pm. Mr. Duprey seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 7-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Budget Committee Secretary
| 
